I'm not sure the issue is denial of an account of a visit to Jerusalem to visit Peter. It would seem to be whether there were two visits as outlined in the present day versions of Galatians 1:18-19 and Galatians 2:1-2 (Peter is not mentioned in Gal 2:1-2).
It would seem everyone who has doubted the authenticity of Gal 1:18-19, or the wider Gal 1:18-24, has done so on the basis of, or partly on the basis of, a reconstruction of Marcion's
. Book V. At the beginning of chapter 3, Tertullian recounts "
. Book V make reference to only vv. 1-8 of Galatians 1, and even then in what I think are interesting contexts, such as Tertullian claiming Paul "as much mine as the Christ is", -
... Since therefore I am brought, in the course of my little work, to this point, I require to know of Marcion the origin of his apostle even — I, who am to some degree a new disciple, the follower of no other master; who at the same time can believe nothing, except that nothing ought to be believed hastily (and that I may further say is hastily believed, which is believed without any examination of its beginning); in short, I who have the best reason possible for bringing this inquiry to a most careful solution, since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue of the apostles. Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter rather than a deliberate selection ...
Wherefore, O shipmaster of Pontus, if you have never taken on board your small craft any contraband goods or smuggler's cargo, if you have never thrown overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading you admitted the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him, what owner forwarded him, who handed him to you, that so you may land him without any misgiving, lest he should turn out to belong to him, who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings. He professes himself to be "an apostle"
— to use his own, words — "not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ"
[Galatians 1:1] Of course, any one may make a profession concerning himself; but his profession is only rendered valid by the authority of a second person ...
Let there be a Christ, let there be an apostle, although of another god; but what matter? since they are only to draw their proofs out of the Testament of the Creator. Because even the book of Genesis so long ago promised me the Apostle Paul. For among the types and prophetic blessings which he pronounced over his sons, Jacob, when he turned his attention to Benjamin, exclaimed, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall impart nourishment/apportion the spoil"
[Genesis 49:27]. He foresaw that Paul would arise out of the tribe of Benjamin, a voracious wolf, devouring his prey in the morning: in order [other?] words, in the early period of his life he would devastate the Lord's sheep, as a persecutor of the churches; but in the evening he would give them nourishment, which means that in his declining years he would educate the fold of Christ, as the teacher of the Gentiles. Then, again, in Saul's conduct towards David, exhibited first in violent persecution of him, and then in remorse and reparation, on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation of Paul in Saul — belonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe — and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended according to the Virgin's genealogy.
Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man""
[Galatians 1:1], thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defense of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. Then you deny the Apostle Paul. I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him. I deny him, to convince you that he is mine ... Take now from my point of view the apostle, in the same manner as you have received the Christ — the apostle shown to be as much mine as the Christ is ...
The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator, — a point which we have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God ...
... Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the supersession of the law comes from the appointment of the Creator — a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind. Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law — especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, "I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him who has called you to His grace to another gospel"
[Galatians 1:6-7]. He means "another"
as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship; another
as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another god. For nobody had induced them to apostatize from the Creator, that they should seem to ''be removed to another gospel"
, simply when they return again to the Creator. When he adds, too, the words, "which is not another"
[Galatians 1:7], he confirms the 'fact' that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator's. For the Creator Himself promises the gospel, when He says by Isaiah: "Get you up into the high mountain, you that brings to Sion good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, you that brings the gospel to Jerusalem
." Also when, with respect to the apostles personally, He says, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring good tidings of good
[Isaiah 52:7] — even proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, "In His name shall the Gentiles trust"
; that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, "I have given you as a light of the Gentiles"
[Isaiah 42:6]. However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another gospel"
[Galatians 1:7], since there is (on the hypothesis) another; and so he might have made a better defense of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed"
[Galatians 1:8] because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! ... His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel
[Galatians 1:8]. It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then neither might an angel ...
[no further citations of Galatians for the short rest of the chapter, though Tertullian touches on Paul being a persecutor, - ]
He [Paul] then cursorily touches on his own conversion from a persecutor to an apostle — confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles, in which book may be found the very subject of this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even had not been able to bear ...
But with regard to the countenance of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us that "fourteen years after, he went up to Jerusalem
", in order to confer with them [Galatians 2:1-2] about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case,) of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method ...