Rick Sumner

To Paul Jesus was a man then a god--the two aren't compatible to his Platonic mind; Flesh is bad, Spirit is good. His understanding of the two is clearly dichotomous.

Regards,
Rick

Bernard Muller

Since this board is also addressing the "we", I allow myself to display a recent addition to one of my page (which I may touch up a lot in the next weeks)

More about the three "we" passages in 'Acts' (16:10-17, 20:6-21:17 & 27:1-28:16):

a) The first two (out of three) "we" passages keep going when the "we" travel by land and even after arriving at destination (Philippi & Jerusalem).

b) In Acts20:1-6, the "we" member(s) are not named (as in the two other "we" passages) but are those who reached Troas with Paul, ahead of the "we":
Ac20:4-6 "And Sopater of Berea accompanied him [Paul] to Asia--also Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. These men, going ahead, waited for us at Troas. But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days."

c) The first "we" "appears" with Paul at Troas (which had no Christians then) as a Christian missionary close to him:
Ac16:10 "Now after he [Paul] had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them."
Then "we" goes to Macedonia with Paul. However it "disappears" when staying in Philippi, before Paul & Silas get in trouble & go to jail.
Remark: since Paul traveled with Timothy & Silas only (according to Ac16:1-3), with Timothy, a new addition from Galatia, the lesser one of the trio then, the "we" is most likely Timothy. At least, that's what "Luke" wanted his/her audience to believe.
In the first "we" passage (Ac16:10-17), Timothy is never named but resurfaced later in Berea (Ac17:14-15), when he & Silas stay behind while Paul goes to Athens.
And Timothy is here when Paul has his all important vision, that is the one ordering him to go to Macedonia (Ac16:9), and above all Philippi, making the creation of a Christian community there part of God's plan!

d) On the second "we" trip (Ac20:6-21:17, from Philippi to/in Jerusalem), Timothy is named among Paul's companions and consequently cannot be one of the "we" (20:4). Because this "we" starts from Philippi, there is a good chance they were from Corinth or/and Philippi: these cities harbored important Christian communities then, but do not have named representatives with Paul (but Berea and Thessalonica have some! Ac20:4, previously quoted).

e) For the third "we" travel (Ac27:1-28:16, from Cesarea to Rome), the "we" starts as apparently being in jail with Paul in Cesarea, according to:
Ac27:1-2 "And when it was decided that we should sail to Italy, they delivered Paul and some other prisoners to one named Julius, a centurion of the Augustan Regiment. So, entering a ship of Adramyttium, we put to sea, meaning to sail along the coasts of Asia. Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, was with us."
But no other Christian is reported to be a prisoner then with Paul, according to Acts itself! Could the "we" here be no more than a literary artifice?

f) It is clear there is no general rule about the "we". In the first case, it is strongly implied the "we" is from Timothy's perspective; in the second one, companion(s) of Paul from Corinth or/and Philippi; and finally in the last case, who knows?
The "we" word is therefore loosely used and does not indicate a same person (such as the author) participated in each of the three "we" trips.

g) Furthermore, these "we" occur in the three most important Pauline trips (from the author viewpoint, that is the one of a Gentile Roman Christian woman from Philippi; see this page for explanation), which is rather suspect:
- The "historic" crossing from Asia (the birthplace of Christianity) to Europe and Philippi, including how the Christian community was created there (that is among women first!).
- The final trip to Jerusalem and arrest (paralleling Jesus' ones).
- The (difficult) journey to Rome & Paul's preaching there, the culmination (& fulfillment) of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles (once again, duplicating the one to Jerusalem by Jesus, ending here his ministry to the Jews).

Any comments?

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: "I think these are important distinctions Kirby. But what do you see as their significance for understanding Luke/Acts?"

I hope to learn more about their significance as I learn more about their nature. But there are several possible directions in which this could go. If the Acts blatantly contradicts the epistles, one could use this as a basis for arguing that the two were independent, that the author of Acts was distorting the facts in the letters, or that the letters of Paul were forgeries written to counter Acts. It's very hard to settle these issues with the general and bland idea that "Letters and Acts disagree." That's why I suggest that we take a closer look at the existence, nature, and possible origin of these Acts-Letters discrepancies.

Please allow me to summarize the points brought forward and the responses to this point, focusing solely on the narrative problems (rather than the theological) for the moment.

1. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 disagree about the Jerusalem Council.

Layman suggests that Galatians predates the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, thus recording a different event. Is there evidence to support this?

Bernard has many specific suggestions, with the overall idea that Acts has garbled and smoothed over the facts that are best preserved in Galatians, though without knowledge of Galatians.

2. Acts 9 and Galatians 1 disagree on the nature of Paul's first visit to Jerusalem.

Acts 9:23-30. "After a long time had passed, the Jews conspired to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. Now they were keeping watch on the gates day and night so as to kill him, but his disciples took him one night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. When he arrived in Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. Then Barnabas took charge of him and brought him to the apostles, and he reported to them how on the way he had seen the Lord and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. He moved about freely with them in Jerusalem, and spoke out boldly in the name of the Lord. He also spoke and debated with the Hellenists, but they tried to kill him. And when the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him on his way to Tarsus."

Galatians 1:15-24. "But when (God), who from my mother's womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. (As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown personally to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only kept hearing that 'the one who once was persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.' So they glorified God because of me."

Bernard suggests that Luke embellished or fantasized in this case. Both Bernard and Layman rightly criticize the web page's wording, but there is some substance here. As Layman notes, Acts says nothing of Paul going to Arabia. Acts says that Paul moved about freely after Barnabas introduced him to the apostles. Galatians says that Paul was personally unknown to the Judeans and that Paul met only with Peter and the Lord's brother.

3. 1 Cor 15:6 reports a vision to 500 not found in the gospels or Acts. Acts says that the community in Jerusalem after the ascension numbered 120 brothers.

Bernard suggests that the whole of 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation, as Robert Price also has done. Although Price argues for interpolation of the whole passage, the suggestion of inteprolation for just the 500 reference has some arguments in its favor. Once upon a time, I said: "But many scholars consider 1Cor 15:6 to be an interpolation. On one interpretation, 1Cor 15:1-11 evinces two fourfold hymns (fused together a little): 'that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, that he rose on the third day, and that he appeared' and 'Christ was seen by Kephas, then by the twelve; Next he was seen by James, then by all the apostles.' The long and awkward sentence of 1Cor 15:6 interrupts any kind of rythm or formulaic pattern there might have been. The focus of the tradition seems to be on notable leaders of the community, and thus the sudden mention of the 500 anonymous brethren seems to be an intrusion (Evans, _Resurrection_, pp. 50-51). And if Wilckens is right, this list is one establishing credentials, as one who claimed to be an apostle must have seen Jesus (cf. 1Cor 9:1). On the other hand, the reference to 500 witnesses available for corroboration can only be an apologetical device for the resurrection (Wilckens, _Resurrection_, p. 13). The extravagance of this claim seems more characteristic of later apocryphal writings. Moreover, it is difficult to understand why the evangelists left out this important detail if it were really an early tradition." So the arguments include that (a) the long sentence interrupts a hymn, (b) all the other appearances are to leaders as though to establish credentials, (c) the claim seems to be a fancy similar to second century apocrypha, and (d) an early tradition of such importance would not have been passed over by the evangelists.

Layman asks, "Does Acts say there were only 120 followers in existence?" No, Acts speaks only of the group in Jerusalem shortly after the ascension of Jesus. But Acts would prefer not to think of a larger group of followers congregating in Galilee or some other location for an appearance prior to the ascension. Such would disturb his picture of the spread of faith starting from Jerusalem. But this is more of a Matthew-Mark vs. Luke sort of thing.

The next couple of things from that site are more theological than narrative.

4. The Gospels and Acts represent the apostles as a fixed quantity of Twelve, with the criterion that an apostle was present during the life of Jesus (Acts 1:21-26). Paul calls himself an apostle.

Layman writes: " Paul and Luke use the term 'apostle' differently. Why? The most likely explanation is that Luke was influenced more by the Palestianian Christians and their traditions (remember, he claims by use of the first-person plural, to have visited the Jerusalem Church for some time) on this point than by Paul. What does this tell us about the relationship of Luke and Paul? Just that Luke was more independent of Paul than many assume. It certainly does not foreclose their having ministered together. Remember, Luke was not a convert of Paul. He's not a 'spiritual son' as was Timothy or Titus. He was likely a Christian with his own ideas when he first met Paul. That they labored together and Luke thinks highly Paul does not mandate identical theologies."

This seems to be a genuine discrepancy, though it is mostly a theological issue if the difference is the understanding of the term "apostle."

Vorkosigan helpfully adds some more potential contradictions.

5. "The Pauline epistles are full of conflicts between the various Churches in which Paul plays a variety of roles, in Acts these conflicts are downplayed or disappear."

This hasn't been addressed, though it hasn't really been fleshed out either. Does the tendency of Acts to omit or downplay conflict lead to narrative discrepancies, and on what particulars?

6. "Eisenman notes that in 1 Cor 15 there are 12 apostles, but there were in fact only 11 at the time, as Acts avers."

Come to think of it, this is a rather good reason to disbelieve that 1 Cor 15:3-11 was composed in the second century, when the story of Judas, and his fall-out with the Twelve, was well known (cf. Matthew, Acts, Papias). I consider it to be a probable discrepancy.

7. "Galatians has no vision on the way to Damascus, but Acts does. Eisenman points out that in both Gal 1:17 and 2 Cor 11:32, nearby Paul claims he does not lie. In Gal 1:15 Paul says he was called from his mother's womb."

But Paul is referring to some pivotal event, in which the Son is revealed to him so that he would preach to Gentiles, such that he "did not immediately consult flesh and blood" although, it must be admitted, he "after three years" had a little visit with Peter and James. The three different accounts of the event in Acts are contradictory; the Galatatians letter simply does not give much detail on the revelatory event.

8. Paul got his commission to the Gentiles through Ananias, not directly from God, in the Acts.

I would like to see some discussion of this.

"James is an apostle in Acts, but not a member of the 12 in 1 Cor."

I am unaware that James the brother of Jesus is called an apostle or a member of the Twelve in the Acts.

I look forward to further examples of potential disagreement, or discussion of the ones already noted.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

The theory is that Galatians 2 = Acts 11, not Acts 15.

Evidence for this is that a "revelation" is cited as a basis for the meeting in both Galatians 2 and Acts 11. Acts explicitly says that he occasion for the visit was to provide famine relief (Acts). As I mention below, Galatians indirectly makes a similar connection between the visit and material aid. While there, the leaders of the Jerusalem Church naturally wanted an update as to Paul's gentile ministry (Galtians). Paul provides it and gains their acceptance but no public ruling as of yet (Galatians). Note that in Galatians 2:10 the leaders of the Jerusalem Church ask that the Galatians should "continue to remember the poor," suggesting that the visit was in some way connected to providing for the Jerusalem Church.

The other evidence is features about Galatians that suggest an early date. I don't have the time or resources to recount those here and now. This topic is deserving of its own thread.

Peter Kirby

I already summarized the matter to date, but it has not gotten much response (excepting Layman's helpful note), so I will indicate clearly which I see as being inconsistent.

1. If Layman is right and Galatians 2 is about the Acts 11 visit (and I've seen the suggestion before), then there is no disagreement. Unless someone points out where these two accounts (Acts 11 and Galatians 2) disagree, or can show the identity of the visit of Galatians with the Jerusalem Council of chapter fifteen?

2. Acts says that Paul moved about freely after Barnabas introduced him to the apostles. Galatians says that Paul was personally unknown to the Judeans and that Paul met only with Peter and the Lord's brother. This is a real disagreement. What the motivation of Acts would be to contradict the Galatians account is not clear to me, but Paul has clear motives to downplay the influence of the Jerusalem group on him, so he may have particularly lodged with Peter and James and so plausibly denied associating with the others. (Yet a Marcionite forger would not have to worry about the facts and so would not record such an incident at all.)

3. 1 Cor 15:6 reports a vision to 500 not found in the gospels or Acts. Although I once argued that it left a residue in the multiplication of the loaves, backdated to the ministry of Jesus, I am now more inclined to think that verse 6 is the work of an interpolator with an active imagination. If an interpolation, it is not a genuine contradiction between Acts and Paul's letters.

4. Acts 14:4,14 refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles. So some outside the Twelve are regarded as apostles by the author of Acts, including Paul.

5. We need particulars.

6. This is a genuine contradiction. Paul didn't believe that the Twelve became the Eleven upon the defection of Judas (Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:9, Luke 24:33, Acts 1:26, Acts 2:14). Revelation 21:14 similarly knows "the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb"--and this is inscribed on the foundations of a heavenly city, so there was no whiteout over Judas for Matthias!

7. Paul doesn't give a description of his conversion/call experience, but Paul does indicate that he had a conversion/call at a particular point in time.

8. Ananias is told in the vision that Paul would carry the name to Gentiles, but significantly Ananias did not commission Paul with this message; what Ananias does is have Paul baptized. While the vision of Ananias is fiction in my opinion, this is not quite a contradiction to the epistles, so far as I've seen.

So, the discrepancies between Acts and Letters on matters of narrative might be reduced to two points: whether Paul consorted with more than Peter and James while first in Jerusalem, and whether the Twelve became the Eleven because of dropping Judas from the count. Would someone like to demonstrate more?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Peter, from my page, this is an outline of Paul's ministry, according to my study, for the record:

More info and back up on these pages: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appb.shtml
and http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appp.shtml

Early years and 1st & 2nd journeys
a) Winter/spring 35: persecution against the proto-Christians starting in Jerusalem (Gal1:13,23a, Ac7:57-8:1-4a,9:1-2)
b) Late spring 35: Paul's conversion in Damascus (Gal1:15-16a, Ac9:18b)
c) Spring 38: three years later (Gal1:18a), Paul escapes from Damascus (2Co11:32-33, Ac9:25) and returns to Jerusalem for a fifteen days visit at Peter's home (Gal1:18b-19, Ac9:26).
d) Spring 38 to spring 42: Paul's exit from Jerusalem (Ac9:30) and stay in his home city, Tarsus in Cilicia (today southern Turkey)
Note: 42 is likely (according to the clue in 2Co12:2) but cannot be firmly established.
e) Spring 42: Paul is invited by Barnabas to join him in Antioch (Ac11:25-26a).
f) Spring 42 to winter 48/49: Paul is based in Antioch as the protege and companion of Barnabas, participating in missionary journeys in Syria and Cilicia (Gal1:21).
g) Spring & summer of 49: most likely time for Paul and Barnabas (westward) missionary trip ("Paul's first journey") to Cyprus, Pamphylia and southern Galatia. Back to Antioch for the winter
h) Spring 50 to spring 52: Paul's second journey leading to the creation of Christian communities in Macedonia (Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea), Athens and Corinth (where he stays one year and a half - Ac18:11)
[Paul writes 1Thessalonians during his early weeks/months in Corinth]

3rd journey
a) Spring 52: Paul's trip to Jerusalem from Corinth (fourteen years (Gal2:1) after the one in 38).
["Council of Jerusalem" at that time]
b) Summer and early fall 52: Paul spends time in Antioch and in the cities of southern Galatia.
[At that time, Paul has his dispute with Peter (in Antioch), nullifying in great part the "understanding" from the "council"]
c) Late fall 52 to winter 53: Paul becomes sick on his way to Ephesus and stays in a town of Galatia.
[At that time, Paul converts the future addressees of 'Galatians'].
d) Winter 53: Paul's arrival in Ephesus.
e) Winter 53 to spring 55: Paul preaches in Ephesus for two years and three months (Ac19:8,10).
[Then, Paul writes his 1Corinthians letters]
f) Spring 55: Paul's shortened trip to Macedonia and (the second trip to) Corinth where Paul is rejected. Likely no collection is done (as planned in 1Co16:1-4).
g) Summer 55 to spring 56: Paul stays in Ephesus (about nine months).
[Then Paul writes his two first 2Corinthians letters]
h) Spring 56: Paul's short trip to Troas and Macedonia (when Paul heard the good news from Titus) then back to Ephesus. Meanwhile a collection is started in Corinth.
i) Late spring 56: The riot in Ephesus.
j) Late spring 56 to fall 57: Paul is imprisoned in Ephesus. The collection in Corinth is aborted.
[Part of 'Philippians' & whole of 'Philemon' written then]
k) Fall 57: Paul is freed and goes to Macedonia (probably Philippi first).
l) Fall 57 to early spring 58: Paul visits the Macedonian Christians.
[Then Paul writes his last 2Corinthians letter]
Then Paul stays in Corinth (for three months (Ac20:3a); the third trip to that city). The collection is then restarted in Corinth.
['Galatians' & then 'Romans' written then]
m) Late spring 58: Paul's arrival in Jerusalem and arrest.

On a next post, I will list my evidence for my dating of 'Galatians'.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Peter, here is my evidence for the dating of 'Galatians', straight from my page:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3xx.shtml
where everything is a lot more readable than this email format.

3) Dating of 'Galatians'

The dating of 'Galatians' has been proposed anywhere from 48 to 57C.E. My late dating is based mostly on:

A) Gal2:10 "All they [the "Nazarene" leadership] asked was that we should continue to remember the poor,
[collect "survival" money for the church of Jerusalem: 1Co16:1-4, 2Co8-9, Ro15:25-27]
` the very thing I was eager to do.
[and not "am eager to do" or "will be doing"]"
That would suggest the money collections have been done already, as in late 57 or early 58C.E., or more specifically for the Galatians, in early 55 (1Co16:1).
Note: details on the dating are according to my study, as explained in Appendix B (28) and Paul and the Corinthians

B) According to Gal 4:13-14 "You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, ... For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me."
those Galatians got converted because Paul (apparently travelling on his own) had to stay among them, in their care, in order to recover from illness.
That would preclude these Galatians as being city folks of southern Galatia, the ones met by Paul with Barnabas during the so-called first missionary journey (as narrated in Ac13:14-14:24) and revisited by Paul (with companions) in 50C.E. (Ac16:1-6) and (without companions) in the latter part of 52 (Ac18:23).
The most likely time for Paul's unplanned stay among (strictly) Gentiles in Galatia is when visiting the Christians in Galatia/Phrygia (as per Ac18:23), as "Paul took the road through the interior" (Ac19:1) on his way to Ephesus from Antioch (Syria). The place Paul had to stop was probably a town in southern Galatia.
Let's also notice the epistle is not addressed to the Christians of one city or to an individual (as for all other Pauline epistles) but rather inhabitants of (a part of) Galatia, implying those new believers were rural people.
The expression "at the first" (Greek root "proteron") does not imply Paul preached again to the same people. 'Proteron' normal translation is either "before", "prior", "former" or "first", therefore alluding only to Paul having done the initial (first) preaching to them.
More details about Paul's third missionary journey (and time slot within which Paul was stranded in Galatia) on this page.

C) There is nothing in 'Acts' or 'Galatians' to indicate the later was written soon after the conversion of these Galatians.

D) Eligibility of Gentiles (and Jews) in the Christian church & for salvation is the major theme in both 'Galatians' & 'Romans' (written early 58C.E.) and probably the major issue then for Paul.

E) Similarities with 'Romans':
a) Mentions of 'Abraham':
Gal3:6 "just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.""
Gal3:8 "preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."" also Gal3:7,9,14,16,18, 4:27 (8)
Ro4:1,2,3 "For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.""
Ro4:16 "Abraham, who is the father of us [Christians] all (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")"
also 4:9,12,13, 9:7, 11:1 (9)
The only other occurrence of 'Abraham' in all the Pauline letters is in 2Co11:22.
b) Mentions of 'Isaac':
Gal4:28 "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise."
Ro9:7-8 ""In Isaac your seed shall be called." ... but the children of the promise are counted as the seed."
'Isaac' does not appear in any other Pauline letter.
c) Mentions of 'sons' (of God):
Gal3:26 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."
Gal4:6 "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts"
also Gal4:5 (3)
Ro8:14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God."
also Ro8:19, 9:26 (3)
In the two Corinthians letters, there is only one occurrence of 'sons' (2Co6:18)
d) Mentions of '(un)circumcised' and '(un)circumcision' (multiple occurrences in one verse not indicated):
Gal5:2,3 "And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law"
Gal5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything"
also Gal2:3,7,8,9,12, 5:11, 6:12,13,15 (12)
Ro2:25 "but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision."
Ro3:30 "there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith."
also Ro2:26,27,28,29, 3:1, 4:9,10,11,12, 15:8 (12)
In the two Corinthians letters, these words occur in only two verses (1Co7:18,19).
e) Mentions of 'law':
Gal2:16,19,21, 3:2,5,10,11,12,13,17,18,19,21,23,24, 4:4,5,21, 5:3,4,14,18,23, 6:2,13 (25)
Ro2:12,13,14,15,17,18,20,23,25,26,27, 3:19,20,21,27,28,31, 4:13,14,15,16, 5:13,20, 6:14,15, 7:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,12,14,16,21,22,23,25, 8:2,3,4,7, 9:4,31,32, 10:4,5, 13:8,10 (53)
In the two Corinthians letters, this word occurs in eleven verses only, all of them in '1Corinthians'.
f) God sending his (pre-existent) Son as a human:
Gal4:4 YLT "... God sent forth His Son, come of a woman ..."
Ro8:3 YLT "... God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh ..."

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Peter wrote:
1. If Layman is right and Galatians 2 is about the Acts 11 visit (and I've seen the suggestion before), then there is no disagreement. Unless someone points out where these two accounts (Acts 11 and Galatians 2) disagree, or can show the identity of the visit of Galatians with the Jerusalem Council of chapter fifteen?

I sorted that out from a previous post, which also indicated which of my pages contained the justifications.

2. Acts says that Paul moved about freely after Barnabas introduced him to the apostles. Galatians says that Paul was personally unknown to the Judeans and that Paul met only with Peter and the Lord's brother. This is a real disagreement. What the motivation of Acts would be to contradict the Galatians account is not clear to me, but Paul has clear motives to downplay the influence of the Jerusalem group on him, so he may have particularly lodged with Peter and James and so plausibly denied associating with the others. (Yet a Marcionite forger would not have to worry about the facts and so would not record such an incident at all.)

"Luke", writing well after the events, could afford to embellished and distort to her own advantage.
Paul writing much closer to the events, knowing contemmporaries knew first hand about these events, could not outrightly lie. All he could do was to get the best spin he could, without stretching the envelop too much.

3. 1 Cor 15:6 reports a vision to 500 not found in the gospels or Acts. Although I once argued that it left a residue in the multiplication of the loaves, backdated to the ministry of Jesus, I am now more inclined to think that verse 6 is the work of an interpolator with an active imagination. If an interpolation, it is not a genuine contradiction between Acts and Paul's letters.

The whole passage is an interpolation:

Here are from my page (I want to stress the following is a lot more readable on my page, where I use different colors and bolding, which add another level in the readability and at times, completely necessary for understanding. But I am resigned you won't look at it so I display it here in a raw email format for the record):
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/co1c.shtml


Addition C

15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

A) The earliest gospel (Mark's) does not have "the third day" but "three days" (Mk8:31,9:31,10:34), even if the duration of Jesus' death is little more than thirty-nine hours (maximum). Then, if "the third day" was accepted by Paul's contemporaries (and "according to the scriptures"), why did it not appear in Mark's gospel?
However, "third day" came later with Matthew's gospel (Mt16:21,17:23,20:19) and Luke's one (Lk9:22,13:32,18:32). The same goes for "according to the scriptures":
Lk24:45-46 "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"
Let's compare the above quote with:
1Co15:3-4 "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"
Note: nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures (we know of) there is anything about someone rising on the third day but it seems our interpolator knew about GLuke.

B) 1Co15:5-8 "and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time"
Many of the reapparitions in 1Co15:3-8 (and their alleged sequence) do not appear in any gospel or 'Acts'. On this matter of greatest importance, how could such a huge discrepancy be explained if, in Paul's times, many (still alive) people reported they witnessed (the same) reappearances?
In the canonical gospels and 'Acts':
a) There is only one mention (but no description) of a resurrected Jesus appearing to Peter only (Lk24:34).
b) There are three different (especially on "who heard the voice" and Jesus' words) accounts of Jesus appearing to Paul (as a light and a voice) in 'Acts' (9:3-8,22:6-11,26:12-18).

Beside these two alleged reappearances, there is NO mention in the gospels of the other ones as related in 1Co15:3-8:
a) The twelve only (however in Mt28:16-20, he appears to the eleven; in Jn20:19-23, to ten)
b) Five hundred brethren at once
c) James (Jesus' brother). Note: one apparition to James is narrated in each of the uncanonical gospels "to the Hebrews" and "of Philip". The descriptions are very different between the two.
d) All the apostles (early Christian missionaries)

Then, these following reapparitions described in the gospels are not part of the ones in the sequence of 1Co15:3-8:
a) To the two women near Jerusalem (Mt:28:9-10)
b) To the eleven in Galilee (Mt28:17-20)
c) To the two disciples walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus (Judea) (Lk24:13-35)
d) To the eleven, the two aforementioned disciples and some other followers in Jerusalem (Lk24:36-49), but not 500 of them in a room! According to Ac1:20, there are only 120 followers then!
e) To Mary Magdalene only, near Jerusalem (Jn20:10-18)
f) To disciples, with a maximum of ten out of the "twelve" (Jn20:19-23), again in a room
g) To six disciples in Galilee (Jn21:1-23)

Notes:
a) The earliest gospel (Mark's) did not include resurrected Jesus' apparitions, just the empty tomb (as explained in "HJ-3a").
b) Except for 1Co15:3-8, in his letters Paul never mentioned resurrection apparitions to others. At times, Jesus "risen from the dead" is presented as an act of faith:
1Th4:14 "We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him."
1Co15:14-15 "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God [here, the knowledge of a raised Christ would come from God, not from testimonies!] that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise."
Ro10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
And in this verse, Jesus' resurrection is known from preaching, again not from testimonies:
1Co15:12a "Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead ..."
c) Another very early letter, 'Hebrews' (see HJ-3b: last Section) does not relate of any alleged Jesus' reappearances. Just that, after his death (crucifixion, sacrifice), Christ went to heaven (Heb1:3,10:12,12:2). The author's justification? for Christ to become the High Priest on behalf of Christians, in the true (heavenly) temple (Heb8:1-2,4-5a,9:11-12,24).
d) The Greek word for 'seen (by)' (or 'appeared (to)') (Greek root 'optanomai') is only used in 1Co15:5-8 (four times), among all of the (generally agreed) authentic letters (Ro,1-2Co,Gal,1Th,Php,Phm).
The same root ('optanomai') appears also in Ro15:21 "will see" but it is in a quote from Isaiah52:15 (LXX)
However, in "Have I [Paul] not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1Co9:1), the Greek root for "seen" is different ('horao'). Compare it with "he was seen ['optanomai'] by me [Paul]" (1Co15:8). Why would Paul used two different words for the same thing?
But the same word ('optanomai') occurs in:
Lk24:34 "saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon [Peter]!""
Ac1:3 "... He [resurrected Jesus] also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days ..."
Ac13:31 "He [resurrected Jesus] was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, ..."
Note: other items which appear only in 1Co15:3-11 (among the authentic Pauline epistles) are:
- "according to the scriptures"
- "the twelve [disciples]"
- "[Jesus] was buried" ("buried with" in Ro6:4 has a different Greek root)
- "[Jesus] rose again the third day"

C) 1Co15:6 "After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep"
Why would Paul make such a comment?
Some twenty years later, it was obvious that many of them would still be alive!
However, in all likelihood, the interpolator wanted to stress that, in Paul's times, many people were still bringing out their (massive) common testimony on this big event (unfortunatly, the later gospel authors did not know!).

D) 1Co15:9 "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle"
In the context of the letter, Paul's demeaning statement about himself is totally out of place. '1cCorinthians' is about a "triumphant" Paul, very confident (1Co11:34b), judging a sinner at a distance (5:3-5), commanding as the "Lord" would (1Co7:10,12), complimenting then chastising (1Co11:17-22). Why would he say such a thing here?
And after having written in the same letter:
1Co11:1 "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ"
Furthermore, in earlier times, Paul had problems to be accepted as an apostle and was suffering from any competition (1Co1:12,9:1-3). Consequently, making statement like 1Co15:9 in this particular letter would be stupid, sending the wrong signals and self-destructive.
Later, Paul will write:
2Co11:5 "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles."

E) 1Co15:10-11 "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed"
The past tense in the first two "was", "labored" and "believed" is very suspicious. The third "was" is not matching the present tense in "preach", a grammatical error!
Note: the present tense in "preach" may indicate the interpolator was thinking about himself or other presbyters as part of "they". Let's compare with 1Th2:9 "... we preached ...", with the past tense denoting justifiably that the preaching had been done by Paul before the writing of the letter.
And corroborated from the same 1cCorinthians letter:
15:1-2 "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you ..."

Why would Paul say "his grace toward me was not in vain", rather than " ... is not in vain"?
As in:
2Co9:8a "And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, ..."
And then why would Paul use the past tense in "labored" or "believed" rather than the present?
As in:
1Co4:12 "And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure;"
1Co1:21b "... it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."
2Co4:13b "we also believe and therefore speak"

This passage displays the signs of having been written by someone who struggled to intermix the past (Paul's times) with the present (the interpolator's times).
If Paul had written this passage, then the tense of the verbs would have been changed as such:
1Co15:10-11 "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me is not in vain; but I labor more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which is with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preached and so you believe"

And why would Paul put his teachings on par with the others?
Certainly, Paul did not want to be considered as just one of them, but as the "father" in Christ:
1Co4:15-16 "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me."

The interpolator probably wanted to say (in 15:11) it did not matter from where the Christian message came (Paul, other apostles or even contemporary presbyters).
"Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed"
The demeaning statement in 15:9 can now be interpreted as lowering Paul below other preachers. In other words, the Christian message was preached as well by others (and better!), not only by (suspect) Paul!
"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle"

I'll address your other points later.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Peter Kirby wrote:
4. Acts 14:4,14 refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles. So some outside the Twelve are regarded as apostles by the author of Acts, including Paul.

Ya, definitively

5. We need particulars.

???

6. This is a genuine contradiction. Paul didn't believe that the Twelve became the Eleven upon the defection of Judas (Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:9, Luke 24:33, Acts 1:26, Acts 2:14). Revelation 21:14 similarly knows "the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb"--and this is inscribed on the foundations of a heavenly city, so there was no whiteout over Judas for Matthias!

Was Judas Iscariot a traitor responsible for Jesus' arrest? For me it is 50/50. Judas was probably a follower. If it is so, then it is certain he died soon after. In this days, the disciples were thought to stay alive up to the Kingdom's advent, so if one died before, more so soon after Jesus' times, a lot of bad rumor about him were bound to be circulating and maybe "Mark" used one of them in his gospel (or created it). Or Judas did really betray. As I said, I am 50/50 on that one.
For me the 12 appears in GMark, at the earliest, and I am rather certain the 12 are not genuine, that is as chosen by Jesus & set at that number.
After GMark, there was a dilemma:
- Twelve is one of God's number, the initial number of Jesus' hand picked disciples. The synoptics had the twelve here, or there, in company of Jesus. Difficult to erase from the mind of the believers.
- Eleven is not one of God's number so it is very awkward.

I think later writers, in full knowledge of the gospels, kept referring to the 12, even for the times after Jesus' death, because 12 is a "good" godly number, a proof of divine action.
Some used artifice. In Acts, Judas is immediately replaced, so the twelve are still twelve during the following Pentecost.

7. Paul doesn't give a description of his conversion/call experience, but Paul does indicate that he had a conversion/call at a particular point in time.

Agreed

8. Ananias is told in the vision that Paul would carry the name to Gentiles, but significantly Ananias did not commission Paul with this message; what Ananias does is have Paul baptized. While the vision of Ananias is fiction in my opinion, this is not quite a contradiction to the epistles, so far as I've seen.

Ya, Ananias' vision is fiction. I do not see what's your point next.

So, the discrepancies between Acts and Letters on matters of narrative might be reduced to two points: whether Paul consorted with more than Peter and James while first in Jerusalem, and whether the Twelve became the Eleven because of dropping Judas from the count. Would someone like to demonstrate more?

Well, I pretty well expressed myself on those points already.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Some brief responses. I hope to do a more complete treatment in the future. Adding arguments for the Southern Galatia/Early theory instead of a few quick rebuttals.

Actually, the combination of the charge to "continue to remember the poor" and Paul's response that he was "eager to do this very thing" makes it clear that the collection was yet to occur. Paul plans to do it, but gives no indication that he has begun to do so.

This exchange fits much better with equating Acts 11 with Galatians 2. Paul has brought some relief from the Antioch church because of the famine. But as he is leaving, James encourages Paul to do more. Paul expresses his present desire to do so in the future. H.D. Betz's study on Galatians implies an ongoing activity. Galatians, at 54-56. The future holds the collection, not the past.

Paul nowhere says that he had to stay with them in their care. Here is the entirety:

"I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong; but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. Gal. 4:12-14.

How Paul's illness caused the occasion of his preaching the gospel is unsaid. For all we know, Paul was in Tarsus recovering when Barnabas found him. Moreoever, as I indicate below, this line of argument is unconvincing because Acts failed to mention any sickness associated with any of Paul's evangelizing efforst in any part of Galatia.

Why would Gal. 4 preclude Southern Galatia?

The basic problem for this entire line of argument is that Acts, despite having Paul missionize various parts of Galatia, nevermentions any physical infirmity at all. Indeed, other than mentioning some persecution, Luke is almost conspicuous by failing to mention Paul's "thorn in his flesh." Therefore, his failure to mention it in conjunction with missionizing Southern Galatia is irrelevant to the issue.

Not hardly. Paul was in Antioch for a year or so. It is unlikely he (or other Christians from Antioch) neglected to establish other churches in the region. Indeed, Paul's stragety seemed to be to establish a church in a major area and he or his disciples would missionize the surrounding area as well.

And Paul is inclined to use provincial titles, including Macedonia (16:5), Achaia (16:15); and Asia (16:19). Additionally, Paul refers to "the churches of Galatia" in 1 Cor. 16:1.

[Actually, that is not true. The Epistle to the Galatians indicates quite forcefully that a short time has passed between conversion (or, perhaps, Paul's presence) and the writing of the letter.

First, there is Gal. 1:6-7. "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ." Gal. 1:6-7.

The term used here means "quickly," or "shortly," often with an emphasis of inconsideration best translated as "hastily." Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, at 616. It is highly doubtful that Paul would use this term if, as the Acts 15 = Gal. 2 theory maintains, he was referring to a signficant gap between their conversion to the gospel (or being under Paul's leadership) and their "quickly" turning away from it. This is especially true given how Paul uses the same term in his other epistles:

"Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power. For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power." 1 Cor. 4:18-20.

"But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, so that I also may be encouraged when I learn of your condition. For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare." Phil. 2:19-20.

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come." 2 Thes. 2:1-2.

Second, there is the complete lack of references to church leaders or elders. In his other letters, Paul appeals to the church to give heed to its leaders in resolving the present situation. (1 Cor. 16:15-16; Phil. 4:2-3; 1 Thess. 5:12-13). Galatians is conspicuous by its lack of such references. The impression reasonably gained from this omission is that the church is so young that it lacks the established leaders or that Paul was part of its leadership until only recently. Another possible explanation is that Paul came out on the short end of the Antioch incident with Peter and had few people he could appeal to. Under any of these, the implication is that a shorter period of time has passed.

I listed these two together because (D) explains away (E). The similarities you list in (E) arise out of topic (D). It would be difficult for someone with Paul's theology to talk about salvation, and especially against Judaizers, without discussing Abraham's being saved by faith, the law, becoming sons of God, mentioning the circumcision/uncircumcision, and God sending his Son as an eschatological act of salvation.