Loading...I mentioned in my previous posts that there are discrepancies between Paul’s letters and the book of Acts in both major and minor ways, and in my last post I dealt with some differences that appear when one looks closely at the details (the issue I addressed: what does Paul do immediately upon his conversion). There are many instances like that throughout Acts: if you compare what Paul has to say with what Acts has to say, on the same topic or about the same event, you will find differences, and often these differences matter a lot to the overall narrative.
There are also of differences that emerge from the overall portrayal of Paul and his Christian mission. In this post I’ll deal with one example, and in a future post with one other.
For this Post: Paul and the Other Apostles. One big area of interest is Paul’s relationship with those were apostles before him. This consists principally of the former disciples of Jesus (Peter, John, etc.) and Jesus’ own brother James, who was to become the leader of the church in Jerusalem. When you read the book of Acts there is no ambiguity whatsoever about how Paul relates to these people. He is introduced to them by Barnabas and they immediately welcome him, after some initial hesitancy (ch. 9).
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!
I’m curious:do you think we’re to understand that Paul actually performed the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16? What does that say about Paul’s commitment to the idea that you didn’t need to be circumcised?
No, I think there’s no way that happened. It’s another case where Paul and Acts are at odds (Paul himself is emphatic that he refused to circumcise Titus; I think it’s implausible that he turned around then and circumcised Timothy).
Jesus forewarned us in many ways that deceivers were going to come: the Apostles also testified in the epistles from the very beginning of Christianity that deceivers were working hard to adulterate the message of truth. But we disregard these warnings put there exclusively for our protection, and naively choose to believe that the evil workers of that era were somehow not able to contaminate the sacred word of God. The evidence of contamination is all around us to see, for the scriptures in their present form have given rise to countless “Christian faiths”, all of which stand as proof of the presence of introduced ambiquities.
Then who is the deceiver in this case-Paul or “Luke?”
I just think if Paul knows what happens and swears that what he’s saying is true, he’s probalby telling the truth. No way to know, of course. But it’s important to remember that Luke was writing some 30 years later and may not have had reliable sources available.
Some have suggested that Paul is speaking about the Council of Jerusalem in Galatians. Do you think this is likely or a strech?
He’s definitely referring to the Council in Galatians 2 (although what he says about it seems to differ in important ways from the way it is reported in Acts 15).
Bart, Paul did not go balistic and went off in a huff, because the disput betwin him and Peter never took place. I know what it is written, but it was put there by the enemy of Christ, so that we may easily get the impression that hypocrisy was widespread among the apostles. if that is true (and I do not believe that it is,) what hope is there for us? So you see, Satan’s concealed or subtle schemes are design to discourage us, by hindering our repentance toward God and trapping the unwary. I know that some believers, and I was almost one of them, take comfort over the sins of David and the alleged weakness of the apostle to justify their own shortcomings. Believe me, if this is the believers thinking they are deluding themselves, for they have fallen into the comfort of Satan’s trap. If you knew the character of your father it will be easy for you to spot a slander, the apostles had the mind of Christ, so how could they do such things.
Mythicists often make a point of how Paul never mentioned the teachings of Jesus, ergo: there were no teachings, ergo: Jesus didn’t exist. While this is obviously not a very good argument, it’s not entirely untrue that Paul didn’t have a lot to say on the matter. Do you think this indicates that the real teachings of Jesus may have been a tad too “jewish” for Paul’s taste?
You may want to read my book on that. But no, I don’t think Jesus was too Jewish for Paul; Paul thought he himself was completely Jewish!
I meant “jewish” in the sense that it (the ministry of Jesus) supported Paul’s opponents (i.e. the Jerusalem apostles) with respect to things like circumcision, the necessity of observing the Torah etc. I would expect those who knew Jesus personally, including his own brother, to know.
Some scholars say that the issue in Antioch is the first time Paul reacts the way he does against this certain display of Jewish covenantal nomism (of course this is debated between others who view this as Paul reacting against an issue of compliance, which, concerning your opinion on the issue I do not think you were clear. What would you say the Law’s “abiding force” was/is, and Why do you think a Jewish Christian would still have a conviction that “it was important for Jews to continue behaving like Jews”?). Could it be that the occurrence in acts 16 between Paul and Tim happened before his emphatic refusal to circumcise Titus, and consequently mean that this also happened before his mitigation of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch?
Sorry — I’m not sure what you don’t think is clear.
I don’t think at any point in Paul’s Christian ministry would he have wanted to circumcise a non-Jew (or have one circumcised). From the outset he appears to have thought that hte whole *point* was that Christ made keeping the law an unnecessary measure for Gentiles.
I agree that Paul most likely did not personally circumcise Timothy. If I’m reading it correctly, the Greek wording at Acts 16:3 indicates that Paul, not wanting Timothy’s lack of circumcision to be an issue with the Jews in the area (who knew Timothy’s father was a Greek and likely un-circumcised), TOOK (λαβων) Timothy to the local mohel (circumciser) to be circumcised (ο παυλος συν αυτω εξελθειν και λαβων περιετεμεν αυτον)? Also, the verb περιετεμεν indicates Paul CAUSED Timothy to be circumcised, which tells me that he (Paul) didn’t perform the surgery himself.
I don’t think anyone is imagining that Paul actually wielded the knife in either circumstance; in both cases it would have been that he arranged for the person to be circumcised. Paul says he wouldn’t do that for Titus (emphatically!) and Acts indicats that he did (just that!) for Timothy. Hence the problem.
Yes, I see the problem. But if Titus, unlike Timothy in Acts 16:3, wasn’t minging with/preaching to the Jews who were in the places he (Titus) was sent or visited, what need would there be for him to be circumcised?
When Paul says he refused to have him circumcised, that is usually taken to mean there was some pressure being put on him to have him circumcised. So there must have been that “need” — at least in the eyes of osme.
I recently asked whether Paul’s meeting with Peter as documented in Galatians, would have included a discussion about the resurrection which Paul clearly believed occurred. Although it is not mentioned can we assume there was nothing contentious about it and therefore would that not be good evidence that the resurrection actually took place. In other words it is almost an eyewitness confirmation it seems.
You then mentioned that you had covered that issue in Jesus Interrupted which I have looked up, however I could see nothing covering this in the section covering Paul and Acts. Did you address this elsewhere in the book?
It would seem likely that Paul would have had a stack of questions to Peter and James around what Jesus was like and how he died, would it not.
Well, if I had a chance to meet with Peter and James, I certainly would have a lot of questions. But I’m not sure I can tame Paul to my expectations. In fact, I’m pretty sure I can’t. It’s not clear to me *what* he wanted to confer with them about. But he does not seem to have been asking about all sorts of things that I myself would have been asking about. They may have been talking about what would happen next (gentile mission, etc.) rather than what had already happened — especially since Paul already thought he knew the “truth”….
Thanks for responding Bart.
My point was though, about evidence for the resurrection. You state, correctly in my view, that the Gospels should not be considered to be reliable for various reason but, at the same time, you place more credence on the writings of Paul. So on that bases, if Paul did not come away from his meeting with his faith shaken due to being told that the disciples had not seen the resurrected Jesus, can we assume it must have be confirmed?
As I said, it seems unlikely that the issue would not raised over a 15 day period, so what other explanations are possible apart from the letters of Paul being fiction? Also interestingly, I rarely hear Christians citing this as proof positive that the resurrection occurred, am I missing something here?
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the earliest Christians in Jerusalem believed Jesus was raised from the dead, if that’s what you’re asking.
No I’m not and sorry for being unclear.
What I am saying is, if Paul’s writings are considered to be generally reliable when describing events (rather than theology) then, can we assume that his meeting with Peter would have confirmed that the resurrection must have taken place. This assumes he would have discussed Jesus’ death with a direct eyewitness and since Paul did not change his theology after the meeting then he must have believed Peter’s account.
Therefore does this constitute evidence for the resurrection actually taking place?
No, we cannot confirm that the resurrectoin actually happened, just because the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem told Paul that it did. But we can confirm that the followers of Jesus almost certainly *believed* it did. That’s a big difference! (I know all sorts of people — including people on this blog — that believe all sorts of things have happened that in fact never have happened!!)
We should all know that the measure of the gift of His grace has freed us from the inflexibility of the law, for if we live and grow in Jesus’ grace we will always do the thing that pleases the Father. Also Galatians 5:1-6 makes it perfectly clear, for we read: “It was for freedom from the law that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteous-ness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” Consequently, we should gratefully accept to live in that freedom, and comprehend fully that freedom from the law does not mean to live lawlessly, but it means to live within the holy character of Jesus Christ.
In a nutshell, we can confidently and simply say that the core message of the Gospel is “Love thy neighbour” which is the fulfilment of the law (Romans 13:10).
Hey Bart! 🙂
In an effort to be fair and even handed, you write, “Paul does on a number of occasions claim that his views are precisely those of the apostles before him (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:22-24; 15:3-5).”
Actually, what Paul claims in 1 Cor. 11:22-24 is that he “received from the Lord what [he] also handed on to [the Corinthians]”. Paul here says nothing about the views of the apostles before him. Paul claims that his view is one which he received straight from the Lord, and that claim is irrespective of the views of the apostles before him.
In 1 Cor. 15:3-5, Paul does not specify from whom he received his message. But, again, he says nothing there that would indicate that he is claiming that his view is “precisely those of the apostles before him”.
I *do* love your evenhandedness, Bart. I don’t think that the texts you cited here will quite stretch to support an argument that “Paul does on a number of occasions claim that his views are precisely those of the apostles before him.” But, maybe you could suggest other texts that might be more directly apposite?
Please forgive my quibbling. Many thanks for your wonderful work! 🙂
If you were Paul near the end of his “career,” and someone convinced you to sit down and write a full statement of your beliefs and teachings, what would you write?
Another way to put it: If a group of dedicated folks decided to establish the Church of Paul and base its beliefs and teachings strictly on the real Pauline beliefs and teachings, what would be in their statement of beliefs?
Probably the letter to the Romans.
Dear Bart,
In Acts 20, 7-13 we find a story about a young boy named Eutychus who was raised from death by Paul. In verse 10 Paul states: “He is alive” (NIV translation). Our Croatian translation reads “The soul is still within him”. The Greek text is: ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστιν.
It seems to me that the Croatian translation is too “Platonized” with the translation of the ψυχὴ as the soul. Do you think that “Luke” (who was, as far as we know, a Gentile) had this distinction between the soul and the body – a distinction that Paul (as a Jew) wouldn’t agree upon? And the other question: Is “the soul is still within him” a good translation considering Paul and “Luke” and their backgrounds?
ψυχη is a tricky word; it can mean “soul” but it can also mean “life” Luke does, though, seem to have a more platonic view of the soul in relation to the body; that in part is what is behind the Luke 23:43 — “today you will be with me in paradise.”