Blog Member Richard Fellows earlier provided us with a controversial post connected with his publication: “Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the Confusion in Galatia” Biblica 99.4 (2018) 544-566.” The earlier post is here: (Was Paul Really at Odds with Peter and James? Guest Post by Richard Fellows | The Bart Ehrman Blog) Now he follows it up with a second; one more is yet to come.
************************
In my previous guest post I proposed that the Galatians had come to believe that Paul now believed in circumcision, and that they thought that it was only to please the Jerusalem apostles that he was not recommending circumcision to them. In this post we will confirm this proposal using the letter alone. By finding the theme that is highlighted by repetition and by the letter’s structure, we will identify the conclusion that Paul wants his audience to draw.
Those preparing presentations are advised, “Tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you have told them”. Paul does this in Galatians. He has an introduction in 1:1-10 and a concluding summary in 6:11-17. There is also a summary at 5:2-12 and almost every thought in this section has an equivalent in either 1:1-10 or 6:11-17 or both. Furthermore, these repeated thoughts appear in virtually the same order. Thus, Witherington writes about 5:2-12, “the rhetorical signals, both before and after our passage, point to this passage giving us the heart of the argument, the pith of the matter”. Finally, 2:15-21 is also seen as something of a summary. Paul’s main take-away, which his detailed arguments are intended to support, should be found at the climax of each of the four passages. These four climaxes, shown in bold, should be interpreted together:
6:16 As for those who follow this rule – peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. 17 From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body.
5:10-12 But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty. 11 But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!
1:7-12 but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! 10 For am I now seeking the approval of people, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not according to people. 12 For I did not receive it from people …
2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?
6:17 can be paraphrased, “let no one deny my commitment to Gentile liberty, for I have wounds to prove it!”. This is the same thought as 5:11. Paul rebuts the idea that he would preach circumcision at 1:8 too. At 2:18-21 too Paul plausibly denies that he now favours Law observance, which for him would be to nullify the grace of God. All four climaxes can be interpreted as Paul’s denials that he believes in circumcision.
All four climaxes also come with actual or implied insults or curses, and this further demonstrates that they should be interpreted together. 6:16 wishes peace on those who follow Paul’s rule that circumcision is nothing, with an implied curse on those who do not. At 5:12 Paul says he wants those who spread the misinformation to castrate themselves. At 1:8-9 he curses himself and others if they ever preach circumcision. At 3:1, he calls the Galatians “foolish”. By cursing or insulting those who advocate circumcision, Paul shows that he is not secretly in support of their position. He uses offensive language to demonstrate the strength of his feeling, to correct the view that he does not oppose circumcision at all.
All four climaxes refute those who have spread the misinformation in Galatia. 5:10 and 1:7 warn of those “confusing” you. This word, ταράσσω, appears nowhere else in Paul. 3:11 refers to those who have bewitched them. 6:17 plausibly alludes to those same people.
In summary, the climaxes of Paul’s four summary passages have much in common and should be interpreted together as his denial that he now approves of circumcision. The old view of Galatians, however, lacks parsimony, for it fails to find any such unifying theme. 5:11, in particular, has long been an embarrassment to the commentators. For example, Fee writes: “Given all that has been said to this point, this next sentence [5:11] is one of the most puzzling moments in this letter — or in any other of Paul’s letters”. Dunn thinks that at 5:11 Paul “turns abruptly to a different point”. Campbell has a whole article on 5:11 without discussing its context at all! Interpreters have tried to explain away 5:11 and quarantine it from the rest of the letter, but this is inadequate, given its position at the conclusion of Paul’s summary, and given its links to the other concluding statements.
1:10-12 contains several references to “people” (ἄνθρωπος), which refer to the Jerusalem church leaders, who feature prominently in the following narrative. At 2:6 Paul says that the Jerusalem leaders meant nothing to him, and this confirms that they are the “people” at 1:10 that Paul is not trying to please. At 1:9 Paul curses those who might undermine his gospel of Gentile liberty, then at 1:10 he writes that he is not saying this to please the Jerusalem apostles. The text makes perfect sense if the Galatians were thinking that Paul now believed in circumcision and taught against it only to please Jerusalem. These who assume the old view of Galatians, however, are forced to conclude that the “people” in 1:10 means the Galatians themselves and are different from the “people” mentioned thereafter. This is an arbitrary move.
A school principal might say “the safety of the children is the most important thing”, or she might say “I consider the safety of the children to be the most important thing”. The additional words in the second statement are technically redundant, but can tell us that the principal is refuting the charge that he is not committed to the children’s safety. Similarly, Paul refers to himself in ways that seem unnecessary unless his commitment has been questioned (1:6, 9, 11, 20; 2:6; 3:2; 5:2, 3, 12; 6:11). For example, not only does he write in large legible letters, but he also tells the Galatians that he is doing so (6:11).
It is also significant that Paul refers explicitly to the gospel that he preached (1:8, 9, 11; 2:2), presumably to distinguish it from the gospel that the Galatians were thinking he now believed in.
If, as is commonly supposed, the circumcision activists had appealed to the authority of the Jerusalem apostles against that of Paul (rather than the other way around), we would expect Paul to give a consistent portrayal of the Jerusalem apostles’ position and consistently undermine their authority. However, we find no consistency on these issues (1:15-2:14). Rather, the common theme is that he is not an ambitious sycophant of the church leadership who preaches what they tell him to preach. We can paraphrase him as follows, “I was ambitious for advancement before my conversion (1:13-14), but afterwards I made no effort to get myself noticed by the leadership (1:15-24). Their status means nothing to me (2:6) and they did not instruct me what to preach, but gave me autonomy (2:7-10). There was an occasion when I opposed Peter publicly for compromising on the very issue of Gentile inclusion (2:11-14).
In conclusion, the background to the letter that was laid out in the earlier blog post is confirmed from Galatians alone. The third and final blog post in this series will discuss the circumcision of Titus and his identity as Timothy. What else should be included?
Excellent stuff! You’ve convinced me and given new meaning to my reading of Galatians. Thank you.
Thanks for that feedback.
Your arguments are very convincing . I am looking forward to your next post.
Thanks.
How do you fit in Gal 2:12 in this view? “For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. ”
Is this not suggesting the men came on the instruction from James with opinions contrary to Paul’s?
Sorry about the delay. Concerning Gal 2:12, see my earlier guest post, and my comment on it in response to Charrua. The men “from James” are to be equated with the men from Judea of Acts 15, who had apparently claimed to have the blessing of the apostles for their teaching, but did not. They may have misrepresented James and the others, much like they (or other people of their persuasion), later misrepresented Paul. Perhaps they suffered from wishful thinking and assumed that the apostles, and later Paul, were on their side. The “he came” variant at 2:12 is important here.
There are plenty of “old views” that do not suppose an ongoing dispute between Paul and the Jerusalem Apostles, so I prefer to take that out of the equation and examine the “new view” in terms of its truly novel aspects.
In 4:15, Paul speaks of a loss of good will on the part of the Galatians, and in 4:16, he expresses a concern that the Galatians now view him as an enemy. If the activists are appealing to Paul’s authority, it puts a different flavour on the “now”, as it would then presumably mean, “now that I have clarified where I stand in this letter”. But what about the good will? In English translations, verse 15 clearly gives the impression that the loss of good will is already in evidence, not that Paul fears it may become evident when the Galatians receive this letter. Does the Greek permit a different reading?
In several passages, Paul berates the Galatians for their gullibility and for wanting the circumcisionists to be right. I suspect these passages could be explored further.
4:15-16 is indeed relevant. Well spotted. The Greek requires that 4:16 is an inference from 4:14-15, but commentators struggle to explain how it can be. And it seems odd that the agitators are introduced so abruptly at 4:17. In my article I write, ‘Paul is saying “You used to welcome me as a messenger of God (but the agitators have convinced you that I am an overly loyal messenger of the church authorities and that I lie to you when I say I still believe in Gentile liberty), so I have become your enemy by telling you the truth”! Paul does not need to write the words in parentheses if they are the background to the whole letter, and there is no sudden switch to a discussion of the agitators in 4:17, because they are already in view.’ The gap in Paul’s thought in 4:15-16 tells us the background to the letter. So, during Paul’s last visit to Galatia he had told them the truth (that circumcision was not necessary), but they later considered this a lie designed to please Jerusalem. In the ancient world people were expected to lie to enemies, not friends, so they considered Paul an enemy.
I want to believe this Richard. So I am totally biased. But
Why would Paul then go to the Council of Jerusalem if he cared so little for their opinion and was really saying “I don’t care what they say?”
Paul is not saying that he does not care what the Jerusalem church leaders say. He knows that they have influence (see 2:2 on any hypothesis). He is saying, rather, that he does not have a loyalty towards them that would make him preach something that he did not believe in.
Acts says that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to discuss the circumcision question. Paul, however, says the he went to Jerusalem “by revelation” (2:1), which is a different, but compatible explanation. Paul wants to avoid giving the impression that he went there to get instructions from the Jerusalem apostles. He is careful not to feed the rumour that he preaches Gentile liberty only to please Jerusalem.
To circumcise or not to circumcise, that is the question. This seems to be paralleled with to be Christian or not to be Christian. Why did Timothy need to be circumcised before witnessing to the Jewish community. For starts I do not want to even think about what the ‘handshake’ looks like at the entrance to the worship.
More than one tribe in that region circumcised and I doubt if they all did it for their god. Maybe some of them did it for purely sanitary reasons. No one washed as we do now, so infant mortality was far worse. —A side, in a conversation a had with a Norwegian while crossing the pond some time back he mentioned the influence of the Christian monks had on the population explosion in Norway. Apparently the sanitation practices the monks brought to Norway and the resulting population growth, resulting exodus is all history.
Anyway circumcising is nothing like it is today. It was a simple procedure in antiquity, but today’s doctor do great harm to many times for me to count. Jews follow the law because God said so. So many Christians follow their faith because they want to go to heaven.
Rest assured that togas were not lifted to check the credentials of visiting preachers! To discover whether a man was circumcised, people would make enquiries about his father. See Shaye Cohen’s ‘”Those who say they are Jews and are not”, how do you know a Jew in antiquity when you see one?’. They found out that Timothy’s father was a Greek and that is how they knew that he was uncircumcised.
Timothy had to be circumcised before he could preach in synagogues. Many churches today do not allow the un-baptized to even receive communion, let alone preach the sermon. It might be similar.
“If, as is commonly supposed, the circumcision activists had appealed to the authority of the Jerusalem apostles against that of Paul (rather than the other way around), we would expect Paul to give a consistent portrayal of the Jerusalem apostles’ position and consistently undermine their authority. However, we find no consistency on these issues (1:15-2:14).”
But how could he “consistently undermine their authority?” They are recognized by everyone as Jesus’ closest disciples. If Paul came out and openly broke with James and Peter he would undermine his own apostolic authority which derives from theirs as Paul himself illustrates in 1 Cor 15. So of course Paul is inconsistent. He is walking a fine line. He must defer to the authority of the Jerusalem apostles while teaching his own converts doctrines that are clearly innovations.
If WE can deduce that Paul is inconsistent, then the Galatians would be able to make the same deduction. It does not seem likely that Paul would make an argument that left himself vulnerable to that inference.
If Paul is trying to argue that the Jerusalem apostles are to be trusted on most issues, but not on the inclusion of Gentiles, his argument seems inept. It is not clear to me how 1:17, for example, supports such an argument.
If Paul’s message of including Gentiles was his own innovation, it would be hard to explain why the Church of Rome, which Paul did not found, consisted mostly of Gentiles.
Paul has no choice but to be inconsistent given the tension between the authority of the Jerusalem apostles and Paul’s own views. Paul can’t blow James off but he can’t deny his own revelation either.
I don’t think the innovation was including Gentiles. There is clear evidence of a pre-Pauline Gentile ministry of some sort. The innovation was denying that Gentile converts had to participate in Jewish ritual observances, like being circumcised. I think James clearly thought, yes!
If James essentially supported the need for circumcision, why does Paul not say “James and the other leaders are right on most things, but, unlike them, I received a special revelation about Gentiles not needing to observe circumcision, so I should be trusted on this issue”? It seems to me that this would have been a much safer route for Paul to choose than the “fine line”, which NT Wright concedes is a perilous zig-zagging mountain ridge that forces Paul to turn one way and then the other.
Thanks for clarifying what you see Paul as innovating. Paul wrote to the Church of Rome “by way of reminder” (Rom 15:15). This means that there was not a huge gulf between Paul’s views and what the Church of Rome had been taught. This limits the degree to which we can cast Paul as an innovator.
Of course, if we start with the assumption that the old view of Galatians is correct, we can multiply assumptions to make it fit. We should explore the new view to see whether it creates any tensions or internal inconsistencies. This means assessing it on its own terms.
“If Paul came out and openly broke with James and Peter he would undermine his own apostolic authority which derives from theirs as Paul himself illustrates in 1 Cor 15.”
Not only this, Paul was rising a collection in Galatia “ for the Lord’s people.. in Jerusalem ”as he stated in 1 Corinth 16:1-4:
“Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do…”
So he needed a link with the Jerusalem church to justify the collection, that’s why he explain in Gal 2:10:
“All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.”
Re: Exegesis of Gal 2:12 (“When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face…”).
In your reconstruction of events prior to the awkward immediate troubles that prompted Paul to write the Epistle to the Galatians: What was Paul’s original purpose for opposing Peter to his face (during the event itself)?
You are right to carefully distinguish between the event itself and the later rhetorical purpose that shaped Paul’s description of it.
I think Paul felt that Cephas was alienating the Gentiles by choosing to eat with the Jews who refused to eat with the Gentiles. Cephas acted against his own principles, but I guess he could argue that he was being “a Jew to the Jews to win Jews”. It would have been difficult for the same person to appeal to both Jews and Gentiles, and this might explain the division of labour that we see in 2:9.
There is no need to think that the incident caused much animosity between Paul and Cephas. In Galatians Paul over-plays the event to convince his audience that he is not Peter’s messenger boy, but actually believes what he preaches. Of course, Paul knows that the Galatians know that he will play up his independence from Cephas, so he has to exaggerate it even more.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Following the New Perspective on Paul, does Paul think that through faith in Christ the boundaries of the covenant are extended to gentiles?
Thank you!
Yes, faith in Christ brings people into the people of God for the new persepctive.
PS. The citation above should have been “Gal 2:11” (not “Gal 2:12”).
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Can you recommend any books pertaining to the history of Protestant fundamentalism?
Thank you!
Probably the books by George Marsden.
Have you considered that a substantial number of the Galatians were already circumcised? He is not writing to them to dissuade them from a course of action that they are merely considering. Rather, he is rebuking them for submitting to an action already well underway. The case for this is cumulative of course and too lengthy to get into here but let’s look at an important verse:
6:12 “Those who want to make a good showing in flesh, *these are the ones compelling you to be circumcised*, only in order that they might not be persecuted for the cross of Christ”
Because commentators assume that Paul is trying to dissuade the Galatians, they resist the force of what he appears to be claiming, they are being forced to be circumcised. There is in fact nothing in the epistle that suggests that we are dealing with attempted rather than actual coercion, and there is a good deal to suggest that Paul is describing compulsion.
Compulsion has an important parallel earlier. When Paul is relating the incident at Antioch, presumably included because it evokes a very similar situation, he uses the same language of compulsion (2.14, Paul challenges Cephas)
The link is clear:
The unknown visitors in Galatia
Gal 6:12
οὖτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι
Cephas in Antioch
Gal 2:14
πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν;
Whatever the agreement in Gal 2:1-10 when Paul “went up again to Jerusalem” was not observed when “Cephas came to Antioch” in Gal 2: 11-21.
As SJB pointed Paul “ is walking a fine line” in Galatians but the situation is rather clear, those visitors in Galatia were following the Jerusalem church position about “compelling Gentiles to follow Jewish customs”.
Now virtually every contemporary Bible translation takes ἀναγκάζουσιν as a conative present, “they are trying to compel you to be circumcised”, but this is one of those cases where the translation is conditioned by the prior reconstruction of the situation of the epistle.
In Gal. 2.14, Paul challenges Cephas before them all with, “If you, a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?” (Εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν;). Now if there is a parallel here between the two occasions, in both the Gentile Church (Antioch / Galatia) is being compelled to Judaize (withdrawing from eating with Gentiles / circumcision) by a third party (Peter and those from James / the influencers in Galatia). In the Antioch incident, the “Judaizing”, specifically involving the compulsion to avoid mixed table fellowship, has already taken place. Likewise in Galatia, the compulsion to Judaize, this time represented specifically in the demand for circumcision, was already taking place.
Mark, it has been a while since I read debate on whether the Galatians were already being circumcised. You write, “presumably included because it evokes a very similar situation”, but we should not presume anything until we have explored all the options.
Something I find compelling in Galatians is its lack of thanksgiving at the opening of the epistle (a direct and marked contrast to every Pauline epistle). There is clearly something pretty serious happening if Paul is not able to bring himself to offer thanks. The question then – what has happened that has caused such a negative reaction? The common explanation – the Galatians are contemplating circumcision – is not adequate. What Paul in fact appears to depict is a scenario in which the Galatians are being circumcised. He is responding to reported group actions rather than individual contemplations. Notice what replaces the thanksgiving, what sits, in Galatians, where the thanksgiving would be expected to sit:
1.6: Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον
Paul is astonished at what the Galatians are doing. Paul’s astonishment is easier to understand if he is reacting to news of a process already underway than if he is reacting to news about the Galatians merely considering this step. Paul is expressing shock they are turning away, abandoning his Gospel. Something troubling and decisive has been reported to Paul – turning away to a different gospel.
Mark_Koehler, every sentence in your three comments has been lifted from Mark Goodacre’s blog.
https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/were-galatians-already-circumcised-i.html
https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/were-galatians-already-circumcised-ii.html
You should let your readers know when you are copying other people’s work.
What is your interpretation of the phrase in Gal. 5:11 “the obstacle of the cross”. To me that would be Paul’s gospel that Jesus’ death and resurrection meant nullification of the need to follow the law including circumcision. Your argument also rests on the interpretation of Gal. 1:12-1:24 as implying that Paul is saying his biggest problem with the Galatians is that he might be seen as wanting to please the Jerusalem leadership too much when It seems more apparent that he wants them to see his authority as coming directly from the resurrected Jesus and not from the Jerusalem leadership. This latter interpretation fits better with the old view. I see your interpretation of that passage as completely contrary to its most obvious meaning. What is angering Paul, is that the Galatians don’t recognize his authority through his revelations from Jesus. Saying the men of repute are nothing to him is completely consistent with that view and is easier to understand. They are nothing to him because he has had a revelation from Jesus.
I’m confused by your comments here. My views seem closer to yours than to the views that you seem to be rebutting.
I’m not sure what is confusing to you. First though could you give me your interpretation of what Paul means by the “removal of the obstacle of the cross”? I should have included removal. To me this is Paul saying that it removes his view of the obstacle of the cross which would be antithetical to any Jew including the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who would not have interpreted the cross to mean that Jewish law is now superseded. Secondly I thought your “new” view was that Paul and the Jerusalem Church agreed with each other but Paul’s anger display was to show that he did not take his direction from them. What I am arguing is that his anger is not a display genuinely only about the fact that the Galatians fail to recognize the impact of the fact that his authority comes directly from God, and that he believes the Jerusalem church has betrayed him and God by sending people to Antioch to convince them of the need for circumcision which is a symbol of complying with Jewish law.
I’m still not understanding your first point. Your third sentence seems to assume your own conclusion, that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem would not have interpreted the cross in the same way as Paul (whatever that interpretation was exactly). Paul was also a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem.
Concerning the men “from James”, my paper argues that they arrived in Antioch before Paul’s Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1-10, and they did not have the approval of James or the other apostles, even at that time. See my earlier post and my reply to brenmcg today.
“The apostle Paul, who personally knew James (Gal 1:19), indicates that he was committed to keeping the Jewish law and appears to have insisted that the followers of Jesus do so as well (2:12)”
Bart Ehrman in Forged , page 193
Well I finally purchased one of those books by Dr Ehrman, I always prefer to go to the sources and make my own opinion but I made an exception with Forged, a really great work, not only about the NT or the early christianity but about the TRUTH itself.
RE: “…having seen (ἰδόντες) that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel…
And having known (γνόντες) the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those recognized to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” (Gal 2:7a and Gal 2:9)
What is your interpretation of the event described with these two verbs: ἰδόντες (having seen) and γνόντες (having known)? Was this “right hand of fellowship” suffused with a quality of understanding that it endured beyond Paul’s subsequent confrontation of Cephas “to his face”?
At 2:7-9 Paul says that the pillars acknowledged that he had an independent calling from God. His point is that they recognized his autonomy to preach what he wanted. He says this because the Galatians are believing that he is writing to please the pillars and that he does not actually believe in Gentile liberty. At 2:6b-9 Paul is saying that the pillars would not want to tell him what to preach, and at 2:6a, 11-14 he is saying that he would not have let them anyway.
Yes, I think the pillars continued to recognize Paul’s mission. It is often assumed that Paul mentions the Antioch incident because to was a major event that was still a sore point at the time of writing. However, if Paul brings it up merely to demonstrate that he is not a sycophant of Peter, there is no need to suppose that it had any long lasting effect.
At 2:9 I don’t think Paul was saying to Peter “I will stay out of your mission field if you stay out of mine”. I think he was saying “Please preach to the Jews so that I can focus on the Gentiles”.
Does that help?
Thanks. I’m getting a clearer sense of your point of view.
What about the relationship between the Antioch incident according to Galatians (where it is said that Peter used to eat with Gentiles, but then stopped) and the requirements listed in Acts 15: 29 (“You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things”)?
What do you suppose Paul would have thought of such requirements as the ones listed in Acts? Did he agree to that?
In Galatians Paul presents himself as an uncompromising champion of Gentile liberty, but (with the new view) he does so only to counteract the view that he believed in the need for circumcision. The Galatians are thinking that he is writing in support of Gentile liberty only to please the Jerusalem church leaders, so he must exaggerate his uncompromising stance all the more. The real Paul, then, while a supporter of Gentile liberty, was likely not an extremist. So, yes, I think it is likely that Paul agreed with the restrictions of Acts 15:29. The letter was well received (15:31), so, assuming these verses are historical, we can assume that the believers in Antioch were practicing these dietary requirements at the time of the Antioch incident. Does that answer your questions somewhat?
The argument presupposes the Pillars in Jerusalem where intellectually already accepting and possibly preaching gentile liberty before Paul. So:
1. The story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts is generally (too strong? maybe: “often?”?) dismissed as the Luke Acts writer’s invention to try to harmonize Peter and Paul’s positions. With that motive removed then, do you see that incident as a semi-historical memory story? i.e. as the first Gentile Convert?
2. Any theory on where on earth the circumcizers could have come from Richard? I mean if not truly from the Pillars, who decides by 54ish : “I am all in on Jesus but I am going to take the Jesus story in a different direction than James, John, Peter but I know the Pillars are important, I don’t dismiss them, so I will claim their authority for my teachings, even though they are sure to call me out.” It is like being on this Blog and posting : “Richard sent me to tell you guys that the traditional view of Galatians is correct” That thought shakes me a little. I want to be all in on this.
Strictly speaking, the core of the argument presupposes only that Paul thought that the Galatians thought that the pillars opposed circumcision at the time of writing. It does not require that the Pillars opposed circumcision before Paul. The argument fits nicely with the information in Acts 16:4 that Paul delivered to Galatia the decisions of the Jerusalem apostles that circumcision was not needed. I think the new view of Galatians can be agnostic about the history of Gentile inclusion before that.
1. Anyway, you are right that, with the new view, there is no reason to doubt the Cornelius story.
2. Thanks for that point. We need not suppose that the activists were being dishonest when they misrepresented the views of the Jerusalem apostles (Acts 15:24) and later mis-represented Paul’s views (Gal 5:11 etc.). There were likely misunderstandings. I suspect that the Jerusalem church leadership, under James, was conflict-averse on this issue (see Acts 21:17-26). They may have nodded politely and the activists, with a little wishful thinking, may have taken this to mean approval. Paul circumcised Titus-Timothy, so the activists can be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that Paul had come around to the view that circumcision was necessary.
Yes, thanks! That is a clear answer to my question on the restrictions of Acts 15:29. Your understanding is in stark contrast to that of Achtemeier in his 1987 book, “The quest for unity in the New Testament church”, and I find your view more persuasive .
I have a further question having to do with the relationship between Paul and Cephas, also known as Peter. A very persuasive argument has been made that Galatians 2:7b-8 was a non-Pauline interpolation (Walker, William O Jr., The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Oct 2003). Have you considered that argument? What is your judgement on this interpolation hypothesis?
I am not against interpolations in Paul, in principle, but I do not see one here. It is true that Paul uses the name “Peter” in Gal 2:7-8 (in the best manuscripts), but “Cephas” elsewhere. However, it was common in the ancient world for people to do this kind of name switching. I counted 312 cases of this in Cicero. It seems odd to modern ears, though. I have argued that Paul does similar name switching elsewhere (Crispus-Sosthenes in 1 Cor, Titus-Timothy in 2 Cor, and even Gaius-Stephanas in 1 Cor). You might like to re-read Bart’s posts on the identity of Cephas and Peter and the comments section.
Remind me, what other evidence for interpolation does Walker provide? He has some interesting thoughts on Gal 2:3-5 and Acts 16:1-3 too.
Re: Other evidence for interpolation Walker provides.
For starters, just look at how well this discourse flows without 7b and 8:
“…having seen (ἰδόντες) that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel…
And having known (γνόντες) the grace that I had been given, James, and Cephas, and John—those recognized to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” (Gal 2:7a and Gal 2:9)
Walker focuses on six problems in Gal 2:7b-8, including the following: “…the references to Πέτρος, the distinction between two apparently equally valid ‘gospels,’ the parallelism between Peter and Paul as the two great missionaries of the Christian movement, and the treatment of ‘apostleship’.”
Walker also notes in an addendum that “… the earliest extant citation of or allusion to Gal 2:7b-8 appears in Irenaeus, late in the second century, in a passage that is clearly antiMarcionite in tenor (Adv. haer. 3.13.1).”
Re: Walker “has some interesting thoughts on Gal 2:3-5 and Acts 16:1-3 too.”
Yes, indeed. I had not seen this article by Walker before: ACTS AND THE PAULINE CORPUS RECONSIDERED, JSNT 1985. As one part of his, IMHO persuasive case for Luke’s familiarity with the Epistle to the Galatians, Walker writes: “…a rather strong case can be made that the account of the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16.1-3 represents an altered version of Paul’s reference to the question of the circumcision of Titus in Gal. 2.3-5. This case is based upon, among others, the following considerations: (1) Titus, who figures rather prominently in two of Paul’s letters, is never mentioned in Acts. (2) Luke almost certainly would have known at least something about Titus. (3) There appear to be good reasons why Luke might have avoided mentioning Titus in his account of the early church. (4) The major differences between Gal. 2.3-5 and Acts 16.1-3 can all be accounted for on the basis of the general ‘tendencies’ of Luke…”
Do you think Luke was familiar with the Epistle to the Galatians?
I will discuss Gal 2:3-5 and Acts 16:1-3 in more detail in my final guest post. I see “Titus” as Timothy’s praenomen. What do you see as the pros and cons of Walker’s view compared to mine?
With the majority, I do not think that Luke used Paul’s letters.
Re: Walker’s view (author of Luke-Acts was familiar with Paul’s letters) compared to the majority view (he did not use Paul’s letters).
A case study (not mentioned among the many parallels cited by Walker): The word “withdraw”.
Gal 2:12b
“…he [Cephas/Peter] withdrew (ὑπέστελλεν) and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party.”
Acts 20:20 (Cf Acts 20:27)
“I [Paul] did not draw away (ὑπεστειλάμην) from declaring anything that was helpful to you as I taught you publicly and from house to house”
“The word Paul uses for the first action (“withdraw,” “draw away”) is used twice in his speech in Acts 20, in verses 20 and 27. Both here and in Acts, the focus is very much on withdrawing out of fear and timidity, and not ceremonial purity. Paul’s use in Acts 20 describes how he does not shrink back or withdraw from preaching the gospel.” (High Definition Commentary series: Galatians by Dr. Steve Runge).
By applying Walkers thesis to this passage–that the author of Luke-Acts knew the Epistle to the Galatians–it seems clear that the “Paul” of Acts 2:20 was alluding to the written criticism of Cephas/Peter in Galatians.
ὑποστέλλω is used at Acts 20:20, 27; Gal 2:12, and Heb 10:38. In Acts it is used in speeches of Paul. I don’t see much evidence here hat Acts has used Galatians. It could be that the word was part of Paul’s vocabulary and Luke has correctly recalled Paul’s use of it. Others have noticed a lot in that speech that sounds authentic.
Thanks for your recap of Walker. Gal 2:7-8 says that the pillars recognized that Paul had been commissioned by God. Paul is saying here that the pillars recognized his ministry as independent and that they therefore would not have wanted to tell him what to preach. These verses therefore fit the immediate context and the wider context of the letter (when understood with the new view). There is no need for an interpolation theory. No manuscripts omit or transpose these verses, and nor do they contain any variation units in NA28, so there is no textual evidence for interpolation.
RE: Walker on literary echos of Gal 2:3-5 in Acts 16:1-3.
Acts: a Greek (Ἕλληνος) father
Gal: being a Greek (Ἕλλην)
Acts: go forth with him (σὺν αὐτῷ ἐξελθεῖν)
Gal: who was with me (ὁ σὺν ἐμοί)
Acts: so he took him (λαβὼν)
Gal: I took Titus along (συμπαραλαβὼν)
Acts: because of (διὰ τοὺς) the Jews
Gal: because of (διὰ δὲ τοὺς) the false brothers
Acts: being in those parts (τοὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐκείνοις)
Gal: who came in beside (οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον)
The case for a literary echo is even stronger if you know the strong evidence that Titus was Timothy. This seems to me to support the idea that the author of Acts read the positive western text of Gal 2:5, “We yielded in subordination for an hour”.
I find these appeals to the idea that Paul used rhetorical tricks to obscure his “real” agenda troubling. While one can not say that ancient writers never used rhetoric to persuade or make a point, once you posit layers of rhetoric, you can support any interpretation of Paul’s motives that you wish. In his “The Apostle Paul” video course, Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson tries to use this technique to wave away any suggestion that Paul had a style that could be used to question authorship of some Pauline epistles. It is virtually unfalsifiable and hence of little use in shedding light on historical topics.
No one here is arguing that Paul used rhetorical tricks to obscure his real agenda. On the contrary, he was trying to communicate his real agenda. Indeed, he was tearing his hear out in exasperation because whatever he wrote in support of Gentile liberty could be dismissed as an attempt to please the Jerusalem apostles. Does that help?
I hear you. I found Johnson’s attempts to defend Paul’s authorship of Pastorals to be cringeworthy.
There seems to be something going on here between this post and the next one on OT and NT. The sermon referenced in the next post from the National Cathedral, mentions Paul’s interpretation of Zechariah 8:
“In those days ten men from nations of every language shall take hold of a Jew, grasping his garment and saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.””
Zechariah 8:20-23 NRSV
Paul believed that he was living now in the messianic period and the messiah had come and was going to return to set up his kingdom and give all who believe eternal life. Paul’s instance here of “messing” up the grace of God was Paul’s root, if you required the Gentles to be circumcised, you were going to mess up the fact in his mind that Jesus was returning immediately. This is the rift, the big one in early Christianity, was it the messianic age or not? John of Papmos believed it wasn’t and was angry at Paul and followers of Paul for trying to say it was. And, he laid out his own version of the kingdom coming together.
All of this finally makes so much sense!