Paul's dilemma when writing Galatians

In my last two posts, here and here, I presented a new reconstruction of the background to Galatians.

Paul's understanding of scripture showed him that Gentiles should be free from the Law. He shared his views with the Galatians when he visited them, but the agitators later dismissed Paul's teachings as insincere. They argued that Paul was an envoy of the Jerusalem apostles, whose doctrine he had loyally promoted, without believing it. The agitators encouraged the Galatians to therefore dismiss what Paul had taught them on this matter, and accept circumcision. Paul then wrote Galatians, but was in a predicament. He wanted to persuade the Galatians not to be circumcised, but how was he to convince them that he was giving his own opinions? There was a danger that, whatever Paul wrote, the Galatians would think it was motivated by subservience to Jerusalem, and therefore lacking any independent authority. Even Paul's claims to being independent of Jerusalem could be seen by the Galatians as a ploy to promote Jerusalem's doctrine and consistent with his subservience to them. This was a real dilemma. In my previous posts I discussed Paul's claims to independence from Jerusalem. In this post I will argue that several other features of Galatians also come into sharper focus when they are understood as Paul's attempt to overcome this dilemma.

Paul claims he is not lying

Gal 1:20 reads, "In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie." This suggests that Paul was aware that his words might not be taken to be honest. This is explicable if the Galatians were suspecting Paul was the mouthpiece of the Jerusalem church leaders rather than one who honestly gave his own opinions on this matter.

Three parallel passages

The three main passages that deal with the agitators are laid out on a web page here. You may wish to open this web page in a second window so that you can keep it in view while reading this blog post. The first passage, Gal 1:1-10, begins the letter, so we should not be surprised to find Paul laying out his argument there. The last passage, Gal 6:11-17 is the letter’s subscription (written in Paul’s own hand) and we should not be surprised to find Paul recapping his argument here. The second passage, Gal 5:1-12, is the last section that deals with the principle theme of the letter in its main body, so this passage, too, would be a good place for Paul to repeat his case. It will be shown below that all three passages do indeed make essentially the same points in the same order, and that the major differences are also explained by the present theory. In each passage Paul’s argument runs: I am writing on my own behalf: you are justified by faith, not by the Law. A curse on those who have told you that I believe otherwise. The passages should be interpreted together, rather than in isolation.

I am writing on my own behalf

Shown in blue below, Paul begins each passage by claiming that he is representing himself. Gal 5:2 starts with the emphatic "I, Paul" (ἐγὼ Παῦλος). With the conventional understanding of Galatians this "I, Paul" is hard to explain. Paul could not be here appealing to the authority carried by his own name, because (on the conventional view), the Galatians did not recognize his authority. The phrase appears three other times in Paul's undisputed letters (2 Cor 10:1; 1 Thess 2:18; Philemon 19). In each case Paul uses the phrase to differentiate himself from others. In Philemon 19 Paul uses "I, Paul" to start his subscription, where it was customary for the author to take the pen and sole responsibility. Thus, "I, Paul" dismisses Timothy, Paul's co-sender. I would argue that 2 Cor 10:1 does the same. The phrase in 1 Thess 2:18 is probably used to distinguish Paul from Silvanus. Given this usage, it is likely that Paul writes "I, Paul" in Gal 5:2 to make it clear that he is doing the talking. The verse is an unambiguous declaration of Paul's position, "Listen!, I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you". James Dunn is close to the mark when he writes that the words, "I, Paul, say to you"

has the form of a solemn affidavit (cf. 2 Cor x.1; eph. iii.1). What is about to follow is something he wants his Galatian audiences to pay special attention to, something of particular importance to them; perhaps also a clarification of his own teaching on the subject, made necessary by insinuations that his teaching was different (see on v.11).

Paul here states his position clearly and asserts that he is writing his own words, lest the Galatians continue to believe that he is merely a mouthpiece for others. Note also that the repetition in Gal 5:2-3 further reinforces Paul's point that he means what he is writing.

Gal 6:11 is similar. Paul points to the large letters as evidence that he has taken the pen and perhaps also to show them that he is writing as clearly as possible. Paul is here telling the Galatians that he really does want them to know that what follows is his declaration.

Gal 1:1 can, and should, be interpreted in the light of Gal 5:2 and Gal 6:11. Paul is implying here that he gives the truth, as he understands it from his revelation, and does not speak merely as an envoy of others.

You are justified by faith, not by the Law

Each passage then continues with a discussion, shown in light green, of Christ's saving role. At this point two of the passages have similar statements, shown in red, about the obligation of the circumcised to obey the whole Law (Gal 5:3; 6:13).

Then, both Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 (shown in dark green) say, in very similar words, that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything. This statement, superficially at least, is ambiguous about whether it is OK to be circumcised. On the present hypothesis the Galatians suspected that Paul actually believed in circumcision. This explains why Gal 1:1-10 has no statement equivalent to 5:6 and 6:15. At the start of the letter Paul must present himself as an uncompromising opponent of circumcision and allow no ambiguity. Only towards the end of the letter, when he is becoming confident that he is getting the message across (Gal 5:10), can he nuance his position in the way that he does in 5:6 and 6:15.

A curse on those who have told you that I believe otherwise

Then Paul turns to the Galatians in Gal 1:6 and Gal 5:7-8. In both places he refers to how the Galatians have turned from “the one who calls you”/”the one having called you”. In Gal 1:6 Paul expresses shock at what has happened in Galatia. By the time we get to Gal 5:7-8 this shock has turned to puzzlement. Then in Gal 6:11-17 we find no parallel verse. This progression makes sense. Paul’s expression of intense emotion Paul in Gal 1:6 demonstrates to the Galatians that his views are sincerely held (it would he difficult for someone to fake the emotion that comes across here and elsewhere in the letter). By the end of the letter, however, Paul has made his case well and no longer needs to demonstrate such emotion.

Then comes Gal 1:7, which parallels Gal 5:9-10 (both shown in pink). Paul says that the agitators are “confusing” the Galatians. The same word (ταράσσω) is used in both places. Furthermore, in both places Paul says that the agitators have corrupted the true gospel: in Gal 1:7 the agitators “want to pervert the gospel of Christ”; and in Gal 5:9 “A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough”. There is no parallel verse in Gal 6:11-17, presumably because Paul feels, by then, that he has largely cleared up the confusion.

Then we come to Gal 1:8-10, Gal 5:11-12, and Gal 6:16-17. All three passages contain some kind of curse (shown in brown). Paul calls down a curse on himself in Gal 1:8, and on the agitators in Gal 1:9. In Gal 5:10 he says that the agitators will pay the penalty, and in Gal 5:11 he wishes that they will castrate themselves. Gal 6:16 wishes peace on those who recognize that circumcision is nothing, and there is an implied curse on those who do not (so Betz “The Galatians debate” Ed. M. Nanos p7). These curses help Paul overcome his dilemma. They demonstrate to the Galatians that Paul does not believe in circumcision. A supporter of circumcision would struggle to bring himself to call down a curse on himself, or indeed to use the strong language of Gal 5:12, even out of the strongest loyalty to the Jerusalem church leaders. By the time Paul got to 6:16 he may have felt that he no longer needed to exaggerate his opposition to circumcision (to dispel the rumor that he supported circumcision), and this may explain why the curse in Gal 6:16 is implied rather than explicit.

Both Gal 5:11 and Gal 6:17 refer to persecutions. 6:17 comes into sharper focus when interpreted in the light of 5:11. Paul is saying, “let no-one cause trouble for me by saying that I am not committed to Gentile liberty, for my wounds prove my commitment.” Here, as in 5:11 Paul’s persecutions demonstrate his commitment, in contrast to the agitators, who are avoiding persecution by advocating circumcision (Gal 6:12). This understanding of 6:17 is essentially that of John Chrysostom (see here).

Gal 1:8-9 should be interpreted together with Gal 5:11-12 because a) both refer to Paul (hypothetically) preaching circumcision, b) they have very similar contexts (see on Gal 1:6-7 and Gal 5:7-9 above), c) both include a curse. This strongly suggests that in 1:8, as in 5:11 and 6:17, Paul is refuting the rumor that he supported circumcision. This rumor is the confusion alluded to in 1:7 and 5:10. The repetition explicitly mentioned in Gal 1:8-9 helps Paul convince the Galatians that he means what he writes.

Gal 1:10 reads, “For am I now seeking the approval of men....”. The Greek word, “γὰρ” (For) shows that 1:10 in some sense must explain 1:8-9. This confirms that 1:8-9 is primarily about Paul’s sincerity. The word “men” appears three times in 1:10 and is often taken to refer to the Gentiles to whom Paul preached, but this does not fit the context. The word refers to the Judean church leaders in Gal 1:11 as in Gal 1:12 and also in Gal 1:1. Therefore Gal 1:10 shows that Paul is concerned that his readers will assume that his letter is written not out of conviction but out of a desire to please the Judean church leaders.

More on Paul and Peter

My last two posts concerned Paul’s relationship with Peter and the other Jerusalem church leaders. I should have mentioned that Paul never names his adversaries. This makes it even harder to see Paul and Peter as opponents when Paul wrote Galatians.

Now, Loren Rosson points out here that it would have been considered shameful for Paul to criticize Peter in the way that he does in Gal 2:11-14 if they had been friends. Loren concludes that Peter and Paul were not friends. However, the dilemma hypothesis argued here provides an explanation. Paul’s ‘shameful’ account of the Antioch incident serves Paul’s purpose because it proves that Paul was not a puppet of Peter. No loyal underling of Peter would be able to bring himself to criticize Peter in writing, as Paul does here, even in the interest of promoting Peter’s views on the inclusion of Gentiles. Now, Paul would have expected the Galatians to realize that he was writing primarily to make this point, so his words about Peter would not have been as shameful as they appear. Gal 2:11-14 is not commentary on Peter. Paul wrote it to convince a skeptical audience that his opposition to circumcision was sincere and not borne of loyalty to Peter and the others.

Conclusion

Paul makes the same sequence of points in Gal 1:10, Gal 5:2-11, and Gal 6:11-17:

1) I am writing on my own behalf: 2) you are justified by faith, not by the Law. 3) A curse on those who have told you otherwise.

This confirms that Paul had to correct the view that he spoke and wrote against circumcision only out of obedience to the Jerusalem church leaders.

Gal 2:1-14: whose side were the pillars on?

Here I will continue to defend the hypothesis of my last post. To recap, the Galatians were thinking that Paul was an envoy of the Jerusalem church leaders. Envoys in the ancient world were expected to represent those who sent them. The almost universal assumption is that the rumor in Galatia was that Paul was a bad envoy in that he had not followed the Law-affirming stance of the Jerusalem church leaders. I suggest the opposite: the rumor in Galatia was that Paul had been a good envoy in that he had loyally repeated the Law-free gospel that the Jerusalem church leaders had given him (but had done so without believing it).

It is hard to get one's head around the hypothesis, so be sure to read Steve's review here. He has explained it very clearly.

Also see Thomas's blog post. He is right that I did not do enough to show that Gal 1:11-14 is consistent with the assumption that the Galatians knew (or at least believed) Peter and James to be supporters of Gentile liberty. So here are some additional arguments.

Galatians as corrective

I believe that Paul cites the Antioch incident of Gal 2:11-14 to correct the rumor in Galatia: namely that his support of Gentile liberty was motivated by loyalty to the Jerusalem church leaders and was not based on conviction or revelation. If I am right we no longer have any reason to suppose that the incident was at all representative of the interactions between Paul and Peter. Indeed, we can assume that there was no other occasion when Paul so forcefully urged Peter to be more supportive of Gentile liberty. Thus the passage tells us nothing about the relationship between Paul and Peter, since even the best of friends can have a heated argument at least once. We can be sure that Paul in Galatians chose to mention whatever events proved his case, and not necessarily those that would give future students of the NT a balanced view of his interactions with Jerusalem.

Paul argued against the Galatian rumor so effectively that it is now hard for us to believe that anyone believed the rumor in the first place, unless we read the letter in the context of the rumors. It is important to be ever mindful of the fact that we are reading just one half of a conversation.

James

But it is legitimate to ask whether Gal 2:11 allows the view that James did actually write the decree (and was therefore known by the Galatians to be a supporter of Gentile liberty). Well, Stephen Carlson has shown that the harder and better textual variant in Gal 2:12 is in fact the original, and that this makes it probable that the men from James had arrived in Antioch before Paul's visit to Jerusalem (for Peter had visited Antioch twice). It is therefore likely that the men from James are the men from Judea mentioned in Acts 15:1-2. You can read Stephen's incredibly important original blog post here. Now, Acts 15:24 tells us that these men had gone out from the Jerusalem church, but that their teaching had not been approved by the Jerusalem church. This means that we cannot blame James for the role that the men 'from James' played in Antioch.

Peter

Is Gal 2:1-14 consistent with the view of Acts that Peter was a supporter of Gentile liberty? I believe it is.

1. Paul wrote that Peter stood self-condemned (Gal 2:11) and that his action was hypocrisy (ὑποκρίσει) (Gal 2:13). The implication is that Peter's action was contrary to his own position. His doctrine was identical to Paul's.

2. Peter's lapse was out of fear of the circumcision faction, and there is no hint that his decision to withdraw from table fellowship had been ideologically motivated. Indeed, this lapse out of fear is consistent with Peter's earlier pattern of behavior (Mark 8:29-38; Mark 14:27-31, 66-72) - it was in character.

3. Peter's decided to no longer eat with Gentiles, and we can assume that he ate with Jews instead. This action may be closer to Paul's policy than is normally supposed, for Paul himself became a Jew to the Jews to win Jews (1 Cor 8:20).

4. Paul calls Cephas "Peter" only at Gal 2:7-8. He calls him "Cephas" everywhere else, including Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14. Now, "Peter" is the Greek form of the name that had been given to Simon to reflect the important foundational role that he was to play in the church (Matt 16:18-19). Therefore Paul's switch to the name "Peter" was, for Paul's Greek-speaking readers, a reference to Simon's important leadership role, for which Jesus had given him the name. This is confirmed by the fact that only here, in Gal 2:7-8, does Paul discuss Peter's role in the church. Now, I see two consequences of this explanation for Paul's use of the name "Peter here". Firstly, the relationship between Paul and Peter cannot have been as strained as is often supposed, because Paul here honors Peter with that name. Secondly, it suggests that Paul is alluding here to the appointment of Peter by Jesus. Paul is therefore referring back to the role that Peter had played as apostle to the circumcised before his encounter with Cornelius (it is not surprising, given the rumor in Galatia, that Paul does not mention Peters later role in extending the faith to the Gentiles). The agreement of Gal 2:9 should therefore not be seen as a deal in which one or other of the parties made a compromise. It was rather a logical division of responsibilities. I imagine that the pillars were pleased to find that Paul had a calling to go to the Gentiles. This allowed them to off-load some of their responsibilities to Paul, and focus on the Jews. The increased responsibilities given to Paul and Barnabas allowed Peter to wind up his missions among the Gentiles and return to his original role as apostle to the Jews. Now, this change in Peter's role may explain his decision to withdraw from eating with Gentiles. He ate with Gentiles during his first visit to Antioch, when he still had responsibilities for the Gentile mission, but when Peter returned to Antioch after Paul's visit to Jerusalem, he ate with Jews instead because he was, by then, focusing on the Jews (Gal 2:9).

Gal 2:3

Some people stress the word "compelled" in Gal 2:3 to suggest that the pillars wanted Titus to be circumcised (but did not insist on it). However, even if this were the case, it would not mean that the pillars were less supportive of Gentile liberty than Paul. Paul did circumcise Timothy, who, I believe, was Titus renamed.

In summary, my conclusion that Peter and James were supporters of Gentile liberty is not called into question by anything in Gal 2:1-14 (or elsewhere, as far as I can see).

A new theory on the background of Galatians

I will argue here that the agitators had been saying to the Galatians,

"You should be circumcised because scripture requires it. Paul knows this, but he taught you the opposite because he was a loyal envoy of the Jerusalem church leaders (who oppose circumcision)."

This is potentially the most important blog post that I have written, but it is the one that is most likely to be misunderstood. Please read it carefully and start by forgetting everything that you think you know about the background to Paul's letter and the 'tendencies' of Acts. If you are accustomed to the conventional interpretation, you will find that it takes some 'unlearning' to entertain my new proposal, but I hope to show that it is worth it, because it leads to an elegantly simple explanation of the data in Galatians and reconciles Galatians with Acts.

First I will argue that the Galatians did not know that Paul disapproved of circumcision (for Gentiles).

1) Throughout Gal 1-2 Paul claims that he was not an apostle/envoy of the Jerusalem church leaders. It is therefore likely that the Galatians were believing that he was Jerusalem's envoy. Paul's delivery of Jerusalem's letter (Acts 16:4) would have added to the impression that he was its envoy. Now, envoys in the ancient world were expected to represent the views and interests of those who sent them (see Mitchell's "New Testament Envoys" JBL 1992). The Galatians no doubt remembered that Paul had told them that circumcision was not required, but they would have no way of knowing what Paul actually thought on the issue. A good envoy would suppress his own thoughts and loyally represent the views of those who had sent him.

2) Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), presumably so that Timothy could become "as one under the law" so that he might "win those under the law" (1 Cor 8:20). The circumcision of Timothy would enable Paul and Timothy to gain an audience with Law-observant Jews. Paul would not be able to explain the reason for circumcising Timothy, lest he undermine his purpose. The circumcision of Timothy might therefore have left the Galatians confused. We can excuse them for wondering whether the incident betrayed Paul's true beliefs about circumcision.

3) Gal 5:11 reads, "Brothers, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision". This confirms that the Galatians thought that Paul actually believed in circumcision.

4)In Galatians Paul presents himself as an uncompromising supporter of a Law-free gospel (Gal 1:8-9; 2:4-5; 2:11-14; 5:2-3; 5:12). The Paul of Galatians takes a more extreme position than does the Paul of Acts or indeed the Paul of the other letters. This is explicable if Paul wrote Galatians to correct the view that he believed in circumcision.

It is normally assumed that the views of the Jerusalem church leaders would have carried weight in Galatia - that their opinions on the circumcision question would have held sway there. This assumption is natural because the Jerusalem apostles were the keepers of the Jesus traditions. However, there is no evidence in Acts or in Galatians or elsewhere that anyone looked to the traditions about Jesus to settle the circumcision question. The agitators in Galatia were making their argument for circumcision by appealing to the Hebrew scriptures. The Jerusalem pillars were 'uneducated men' (Acts 4:13), so the Galatians would not have looked to them to interpret the scriptural passages on circumcision. Paul, on the other hand, was well acquainted with the scriptures, as his letters show. He had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and had advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries, as the Galatians probably knew (Gal 1:13-14). Therefore, it was Paul , not the pillars, who had expertise on the circumcision question. For this reason, and because he was the founder of the Galatian churches, it was Paul's opinion that the Galatian believers would have sought.

So, my proposal is that:

a) Both Paul and the Jerusalem church leaders believed that Gentiles should not be circumcised.

b) The agitators (understandably) believed that Paul believed that Gentiles should be circumcised, and that he had spoken against circumcision only out of loyalty to the Jerusalem church leaders. The agitators therefore thought that Paul was on their side.

c) Paul's authority was not seriously under attack in Galatia. Paul had been misunderstood, not maligned.

How would Paul respond to news of this confusion in Galatia? He would want to give his understanding of the scriptures, but that would not be sufficient because the Galatians would still suspect that he writing out of loyalty to Jerusalem and not out of conviction. The agitators may have said to the Galatians, "By all means ask Paul for his opinion, but he is subordinate to the Jerusalem apostles, so he will not tell you what he really thinks". How was he to show that he was writing out of conviction? He would first need to convince his readers that he preached circumcision out of principle and was not an emissary of Jerusalem. This is exactly what he does in Gal 1:1-2:14:

He says that he had not been sent by any human authorities (Gal 1:1). Thus he counters the assumption that he was an envoy of the Jerusalem church. He then expresses emotion at the developments in Galatia (Gal 1:6 and throughout the letter), lest they think he is just mechanically repeating the party line. Then, addressing the confusion (Gal 1:7) caused by the circumcision of Timothy, he calls down a curse on himself if he ever proclaimed circumcision to them (Gal 1:8). He repeats himself in Gal 1:9, desperate to show that he is being sincere. Then he tells them that he is not writing out of loyalty to the Jerusalem church leaders - he is not seeking to please men (Gal 1:10). He then writes, "the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin..", indicating to the Galatians that he was not Jerusalem's envoy (Gal 1:11). Notice here he goes to the trouble of writing "the gospel that was proclaimed by me", rather than just "my gospel", which would have been ambiguous because "my gospel" could have meant the gospel of circumcision that the Galatians thought that Paul believed in. Paul disambiguates Gal 2:2 in the same way. Then, in Gal 1:13-24 Paul emphasizes that his preaching had been independent of the Judean churches. This is not an attempt to claim that his gospel was better than theirs, as is commonly supposed (he makes not such claim anywhere). Paul's point is merely that his gospel of Gentile liberty had not been preached merely out of loyalty to Jerusalem and Judea. He was well known for his preaching even before the Judean churches knew him by face (Gal 22-24).

Then, to further emphasize that he had not inherited his gospel of Gentile liberty from the pillars, he writes that he told the pillars what he had already been preaching, without really knowing whether the pillars would approve it (Gal 2:1-2). Here Paul makes it clear that he had preached Gentile liberty before he knew that the pillars supported it too. With the words, "what they actually were makes no difference to me" (Gal 2:6), Paul further reinforces his point that his preaching had been sincere and not just an act of obedience to the pillars. He then says that they added nothing to him (Gal 2:6). This is normally taken to mean that the pillars did not add anything in support of Law observance to Paul's message, but I take it to mean that they added nothing in support of Gentile liberty to Paul's message. In Gal 2:7-10 Paul stresses once again that his message was independent of the pillars: he was not their envoy, for they had recognized him as their equal. Paul assures the readers that the pillars had endorsed his mission because they saw that his calling was genuine, not because they thought he would obediently toe the party line.

Paul's final proof that his preaching of Gentile liberty was not an act of obedience to the pillars comes in Gal 2:11-14. Here Paul manages to bring up an occasion when he had actually opposed Peter for not being resolute enough on an issue of Gentile inclusion. Paul does not clarify what exactly was at stake at the time in Antioch and nor does he say who prevailed in the conflict. These questions were not Paul's concern when writing to the Galatians. His concern is only to show that he preached Gentile liberty out of conviction and not out of obedience to the pillars. Thus he stresses that he took a principled stand, opposing Peter to his face (Gal 2:11), and doing so publicly even after everyone else had been lead astray (Gal 2:13-14). The emphasis in this passage is on Paul's principled stand, not on Peter as such.

Let's turn now to the conventional view of the background to Galatians. On this, as on most things, James Dunn follows the consensus view:

Paul writes with the clear objective of refuting views which had evidently been put about, to the effect that Paul's gospel was dependent on and derived from the Jerusalem leadership, with the implication that the policy line advocated by the Jerusalem leadership on any point of dispute was to be followed rather than Paul's. (Beginning from Jerusalem p367)

The first part of Dunn's statement is correct. However, the part that I have placed in italics is problematic because:

a) It is an unnecessary complication, as I have argued above.

b) It implies that there was a considerable gulf between Paul and the Jerusalem leadership on this issue, otherwise Paul would not have devoted so much space to discussing his relationship with Jerusalem. This is problematic because:

• Acts makes it clear that there was no such rift. One would have to suppose that Acts has glossed over the supposed dispute, but this is special pleading, as I argued here.
• Paul's continuing close collaborations with Silas-Silvanus and others show that there was no rift between Paul and Jerusalem. See here.
• Gal 2:7-9 implies that Paul and the pillars found themselves to be in agreement.

c) It would be surprising that Galatians does not mention the decree of Acts 15:23-29.

d) In Gal 2:2 Paul implies that the Jerusalem church had authority, and this would be counterproductive if Paul wanted the Galatians to ignore the Jerusalem church leaders.

e) There is too little evidence in Galatians that Paul's authority (rather than his independence) was under attack.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the Jerusalem church leaders were against the circumcision of Gentiles. The agitators, on the other hand, supported circumcision and assumed that Paul did too, since Paul had circumcised Timothy and was educated in the scriptures. Paul had preached against circumcision to the Galatians, but the agitators reasoned that Paul had done these things out of obedience to the Jerusalem church leaders, whose letter he had delivered. This understanding of the background to Galatians reconciles the letter with Acts. It also confirms that Galatians was written after the events of Acts 16:4, and that it was addressed to south Galatia. These last two theories are also confirmed by Titus-Timothy and I may blog about this one day.

In a future post I hope to show that there is the same sequence of thought in the three passages in Galatians that deal with the agitators.

Does Acts gloss over conflicts in the church?

I am amazed at how confidently people assert that the author of Acts suppresses conflicts within the church. This is often stated without evidence, as if it were established fact. An example is Michael Goulder's "Silas in Thessalonica":

We cannot but admire the subtlety with which kindly Luke, the great reconciler, has covered his tracks.

With this slight of hand, Goulder attempts to deflect attention away from the fact that Acts contradicts his theory that there was an ideological rift between Paul and the Jerusalem church leaders. The very common assumption that Luke had a tendency to down-play conflicts in the church is, I think, a piece of special pleading designed to permit the common understanding of Gal 1-2 that sees Paul in conflict with the Jerusalem church leaders. Here's why.

Acts is full of conflict. For example, there are conflicts between Paul and other Jews, and between Paul and pagans, and even between Paul and the civil authorities (though Luke had to tread carefully there). Luke was therefore no "kindly reconciler". It is arbitrary to suppose that Luke would down-play the supposed conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem church, but not down-play the conflicts between Paul and his other co-religionists, for example.

Acts also contains plenty of conflict among the followers of Jesus. Luke tells us that:

1) Peter confronted Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10)

2) the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews over the distribution of food (Acts 6:1)

3) Peter and John opposed Simon in Samaria (Acts 8:18-24)

4) the disciples in Jerusalem were suspicious of Paul (Acts 9:26)

5) believers in Jerusalem criticized Peter for eating with Gentiles (Acts 11:2-3)

6) Paul clashed with Bar-Jesus, a believer.

7) men from Judea clashed with Paul and Barnabas over the need for circumcision (Acts 15:1-2)

8) other believers in Jerusalem also opposed the views of Paul and Barnabas on circumcision (Acts 15:5)

9) Paul rejected John-Mark (Acts 15:37-38)

10) Paul and Barnabas had a sharp dispute and parted company (Acts 15:39-40)

11) seven "sons of Sceva" believed in the power of name of Jesus over evil spirits, but are humiliated

12) many believers who were zealous for the law were suspicious of Paul (Acts 21:20-21)

This list shows that Luke was not shy about recording conflicts in the church. In most cases Luke takes sides, and it is clear that he considers Simon Magus, Bar-Jesus, and the sons of Sceva to be beyond the pale. If the Jerusalem church leaders had opposed Paul on the issue of Gentile inclusion Luke would have recorded it and he probably would have taken sides. Luke does, after all, record similar conflicts (see 5, 7, 8, 10 & 12 above).

It is true that Luke does not mention the agitators in Galatia, or the opponents in Corinth, but this is merely because the focus of Acts is on the initial spread of the gospel around the mediterranean, not on the subsequent history of those churches.

In a future post I will (finally) explain why I think Galatians demonstrates that Paul and the Jerusalem church were in complete agreement on the issue of Gentile inclusion.

"Barnabas and Paul": name order in Acts

On his blog Charles Seville mentions Rackham's comments on why Luke sometimes mentions Saul/Paul before Barnabas, and sometimes reverses the order. There is always significance to name order in the NT, and I think the order that Luke chooses in each case fits with what we know from the rest of Acts and from Paul's letters.

The order is not the same throughout and this shows that the two men had roughly the same prominence. This is in agreement with what we learn from Paul (Gal 2:1, 9, 13; 1 Cor 9:6).

Barnabas is always mentioned ahead of Paul until Paul becomes the dominant speaker from Acts 13:9 onwards (see Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:1; 13:2; 13:7). This suggests that Saul was not prominent prior to the 'first missionary journey', which is consistent with the fact that Luke has little to say about these first ~11 years of his Christian life, and it is also consistent with the fact that we have no letters of Paul from this period. Paul prominence in preaching after Acts 13:9 (see Acts 14:12) explains why he is mentioned first in Acts 13:43; 13:46; 13:50; 15:2; 15:22; 15:35; 15:36.

There are only 3 times after Acts 13:9 when Barnabas is mentioned before Paul. The first occurs in Acts 14:12-14 when the followers of Zeus attempt to offer sacrifice to Barnabas and Paul, having concluded that Barnabas was Zeus. Barnabas is more central to the story than Paul and this explains why he is mentioned first.

The 2 other cases are in connection with Jerusalem (Acts 15:12; 15:25) (see also Acts 11:30; 12:25). This is presumably because Barnabas was better known then Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 4:36-37; 9:27; 11:22; Gal 1-2).

Thus the name order of all 15 cases is explained. The data confirm Paul's relative obscurity in the early years, and Barnabas's prominence in Jerusalem.

Goulder on Silas in Thessalonica

Mark Goodacre reminded me of Michael Goulder's "Silas in Thessalonica" (JSNT 48 1992). Here Goulder suggests that:

a) Silas and Paul had very different doctrines.

b) After Paul had left Thessalonica, Silas may have returned there and promoted is own version of the gospel.

c) 1 Thess (& probably 2 Thess) are Paul's response to Silas's influence in Thessalonica.

This is problematic.

Firstly, Paul would not have chosen to travel with Silas if there were significant doctrinal differences between them. Paul was selective about who should be in his team (Acts 15:37-38), and he chose Silas in preference even to Barnabas. Goulder seems to be aware of this problem, writing:

They could hardly have undertaken the mission together if they did not get on; but we have to consider the possibility that having worsted Paul in the incident of Gal. 2.11-14, the Jerusalem emissaries may have insisted on having one of their men go on mission with him and keep an eye on him. (p102)

This is ingenious, but not convincing. It is doubtful that Paul, who was capable of holding his ground against Peter (Gal 2:11-14) and resisted the inclusion of Mark in his team, would then allow others to impose Silas on him if Silas was likely to create the kinds of problems that Paul addresses in 1 Thess. Also, if Silas accompanied Paul to make sure that Paul did not promote Gentile inclusion too strongly, as Goulder implies, we would expect the issue of Gentile inclusion to surface in 1 Thessalonians if Goulder is right that this letter responds to Silas's influence.

Secondly, Paul includes Silas/Silvanus as a co-sender of 1 Thess, implying that Silas endorsed the letter. Goulder's explanation (without evidence) is that:

When Silas came to Corinth, Paul browbeat him into joining in the two Thessalonian letters (p104)

This is again ingenious but unconvincing. The Thessalonians would surely have realized that the letter(s) contradicted Silas's views, if that were the case. The use of Silvanus as co-sender would then be a charade that would convince no-one. Furthermore, the letter uses the first person plural almost entirely. Paul and his colleagues write that 'we' had brought the gospel to Thessalonica, and they make no distinction between Paul's gospel and Silas's (see for example 1 Thess 1:5; 2:8-13; 4:2-6; 4:11; 4:15; 5:14). If Silas's gospel was different from Paul's, the Thessalonians would feel that these texts were misrepresenting what had happened. Goulder claims that Silas had encouraged the Thessalonians to give up work, but Paul and Silas wrote, "we worked night and day" (1 Thess 2:9) .

Also, if Paul was able to 'browbeat' Silas into endorsing his letter to the Thessalonians, it would be odd that he was not able to browbeat him into conforming to his teaching while in Thessalonica. Furthermore, if Silas had been imposed on Paul by Jerusalem to keep him in check, as Goulder must suppose, Silas would not have been so easily browbeaten. Goulder's ingenious explanations are therefore in tension with each other. Why would anyone force Paul to accept Silas as his fellow missionary if Silas was too weak to stand up to Paul?

Thirdly, there is no solid evidence for Goulder's hypothesis that I can identify. He attempts several arguments, but they are based on particular exegetical decisions that I am not confident in (for example the tendency of the Thessalonians to shun work can be interpreted in terms of patron-client relationships). If Silas was the cause of so many problems (as Paul saw them) in the church, why does Paul not address Silas's influence directly? Why does he not write, "Silas told you abc, but we/I now tell you xyz"? Goulder writes:

there is no suggestion in either letter of a competing mission which has been spreading these false ideas. (p101)

Goulder implies that this excludes the possibility that the false ideas had been spread by missionaries from outside of Paul's team. Fair enough, but neither is there any suggestion of a competing mission from within Paul's team.

But Goulder is correct when he writes:

We learn little of Silas from the Thessalonian letters, but there is no reason to distrust Acts, where Luke seems well informed about him, and for the most part without an axe to grind.

Therefore we can be confident that Silas was indeed a leader of the Jerusalem church, and that he was chosen by the other Jerusalem church leaders to represent them on the issue of Gentile inclusion. His views on Gentile inclusion were therefore representative of those of the Jerusalem church leadership. Since Paul chose him at a time when Gentile inclusion was the hot issue, it is very likely that Paul shared the same views. In a future post I will argue that Gal 1-2 also tells us that Paul was known to preach the same message of Gentile inclusion as the Jerusalem church leaders.

No split between Paul and the Jerusalem church

In Gal 1-2 Paul states that his gospel was independent of the Jerusalem church leaders. From this commentators invariably jump to the conclusion that the Jerusalem church leaders and Paul had different views on the issue of circumcision and Gentile liberty. They conclude that the Jerusalem church leaders must have been traditionalists, in contrast to Paul's uncompromising support for the unconditional inclusion of Gentiles. In future posts I will argue that Gal 1-2 has been completely misunderstood and I will offer a new reconstruction of the background of the letter. Here, though, I will argue from other texts that there was no split between Paul and the Jerusalem church leaders, and that he remained an integral part of the mainstream church.

Silas/Silvanus helped Paul evangelize Europe (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Cor 1:19; Acts 16:19-29; 17:10,14-15; 18:5). Paul even mentions him ahead of Timothy (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Cor 1:19). All this shows that there can have been no significant ideological difference between the two men on the issue of Gentile liberty. Yet we also read that Silas was a leader in the Judean church and that he represented the church of Jerusalem on this very issue (Acts 15:22-34; 15:40). The apostles and elders sent Silas to Antioch to represent their views on the issue of Gentile inclusion so we can assume that Silas's views were similar to theirs. Furthermore, Silvanus is attested by "Peter" in 1 Peter 5:12. So Paul's views = Silas's views = Jerusalem's views, therefore Paul's views = Jerusalem's views. In any case, a big gulf between Paul and the Jerusalem church leaders is problematic.

Prisca and Aquila had almost certainly come to the faith independently of Paul's missionary work (Acts 18:2-3). They were from Italy, where Paul had not been. If Paul had a gospel that was at variance with the wider church, as many suppose, it would be hard to explain why Paul collaborated so closely with Prisca and Aquila. He stayed with them (Acts 18:3). They risked their necks for him (Rom 16:3) and he gives them the position of honor at the top of the list of those in Rome whom he greets, and they headed a house church in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19), presumably with Paul's approval.

Andronicus and Junia came to the faith independently of Paul (Rom 16:6-7), yet he esteems them highly and recognizes their apostleship. They had probably been in prison together.

Apollos was from Alexandria and had clearly not inherited his faith via Paul (Acts 18:24). While there were some in Corinth who claimed to belong to Apollos (1 Cor 1:12), Paul recognized the important role that Apollos had played (1 Cor 3:6). Paul makes no distinctions between the various parties in Corinth, including the "Paul" party, but is critical of the divisions. While there may have been some theological differences between Paul and Apollos (Acts 18:25-19:7), the issue of Gentile liberty was not one of them. Circumcision and Law observance are hardly mentioned in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 7:18-19), so Apollos had not encouraged the Corinthians to Judaiz.

It seems that there were some in Corinth who claimed allegiance to Peter (1 Cor 1:12). If Paul and Peter had distinct theologies on Gentile inclusion, we would expect Paul to bring up the issue in 1 Corinthians, but he does not.

Luke was clearly an admirer of both Peter and Paul. This is hard to explain if, as some suppose, there was a Paul camp and a Peter camp, representing distinctly different ideologies.

Clement of Rome reveres Peter and Paul in the same breath:

Take the noble figures of our won generation. Even the greatest and most virtuous pillars of our Church were assailed by envy and jealousy, and had to keep up the struggle till death ended their days. Look at the good Apostles. It was by sinful jealousy that Peter was subjected to tribulation, not once or twice but many times; it was in that way that he bore his witness, ere he left for his well-earned place in glory. And Paul, because of jealousy and contention, has become the very type of endurance rewarded. He was in bonds seven times, he was exiled, he was stoned. He preached in the East and in the West, winning a noble reputation for his faith. He taught righteousness to all the world; and after reaching the furthest limits of the West, and bearing his testimony before kings and rulers, he passed out of this world and was received into the holy places. I him we have one of the greatest of all examples of endurance.

In summary, it seems to me that the evidence outside Galatians suggests that Paul remained firmly within the circle of the mainstream church, as presided over by the Jerusalem church leaders. Those who are determined to see a theological chasm between a Paul camp and the 'pillars' in Jerusalem will no doubt suggest that the lack of evidence for their hypothesis just shows how thoroughly the truth has been suppressed by Luke. However, such a conspiracy would have to have involved not only conscious distortion of the direct data by Luke, but also careful manipulation of subtle incidental details, and deliberate corruption of the undisputed letters of Paul!