It is surely an article of hard reading
DID PAUL WRITE GALATIANS ?
Frank R. McGuire
http://radikalkritik.de/sample-page/art ... in-english
...but someway it seems that a strong argument to think that Galatians was based on Acts is the role of Paul in Galatians - yes, in Galatians
-, as apostle of the Judaizers!
Detering had in past already persuaded me that skepticism is surely justified about the first
visit of Paul to Jerusalem (Tertullian doesn't report that Paul went up "again"
to Jerusalem, but only that Paul "went up to Jerusalem"
), only where Detering appeared to me less
credible is in his argument against the authenticity of Galatians 2 (second visit of Paul in Jerusalem).
Now I think that McGuire's argument against Galatians 2 is very strong.
|Galatians 2 ||Acts 15|
Peter used to eat with the Gentiles.
7 After they had talked it over, Peter got up and spoke to them. “Brothers,” he said, “you know that some time ago God chose me. He appointed me to take the good news to the Gentiles. He wanted them to hear the good news and believe. 8 God knows the human heart. By giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, he showed that he accepted them. He did the same for them as he had done for us. 9 God showed that there is no difference between us and them. That’s because he made their hearts pure because of their faith. 10 Now then, why are you trying to test God? You test him when you put a heavy load on the shoulders of Gentiles. Our people of long ago couldn’t carry that load. We can’t either. 11 No! We believe we are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus. The Gentiles are saved in the same way.”
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
...until some Jewish people sent from James came to Antioch.
13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon Peter has explained to us what God has now done. He has chosen some of the Gentiles to be among his very own people. 15 The prophets’ words agree with that. They say,
16 “ ‘After this I will return
and set up again David’s fallen tent.
I will rebuild what was destroyed.
I will make it what it used to be.
17 Then everyone else can look to the Lord.
This includes all the Gentiles who belong to me, says the Lord.
The Lord is the one who does these things.’ (Amos 9:11,12)
18 The Lord does things that have been known from long ago.
19 “Now here is my decision. We should not make it hard for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Here is what we should write to them. They must not eat food that has been made impure by being offered to statues of gods. They must not commit sexual sins. They must not eat the meat of animals that have been choked to death. And they must not drink blood. 21 These laws of Moses have been preached in every city from the earliest times. They are read out loud in the synagogues every Sabbath day.”
But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
|McGuire comments: |
Although he makes no further mention of him, Luke gives the impression that Peter accepted the apostolic decree – and that is how he would impose Jewish customs on the Gentiles, as charged in Galatians.
And especially, where the false Paul betrayes himself:
Peter’s former relations with non-Jewish believers in Antioch, according to Gal. ii, 12, recall not only Peter’s address to the apostolic council of Acts xv but also an earlier incident. „Why did you go to uncircumcised men“, a ‘circumcision party’ in Jerusalem demands to know (Acts xi, 2), „and eat with them?“ Note that „circumcision“ does not necessarily refer to the aim of Peter’s critics but makes sense if employed only in contradistinction to „uncircumcised“. In Gal. ii, 12 the situation is the same but Peter’s companions are referred to as „the Gentiles“. Thus his critics should have become „the Jews“; but the Pauline writer, having paraphrased the one Lucan term, mechanically repeats the other in a context to which it is incongruous
But I would really be wrong to begin teaching again those things that I gave up.
22 Then the apostles, the elders and the whole church decided what to do. They would choose some of their own men who were leaders among the believers. They would send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
McGuire notes that Paul is preaching circumcision exactly as the Pillars of Jerusalem:
Gal. vi, 13 refers to those who „desire to have you circumcised“ in such a way as to suggest that they themselves had been circumcised only recently and did not otherwise keep the Law. The earlier apostles would, of course, have been circumcised in infancy; and the Pauline account of the incident in Antioch suggests that all were more zealous for the Law than Paul himself. Moreover, what Paul is now being criticised for is not his neglect of the Law but his continued observance of it, allegedly to escape persecution. „But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision“, is his defence (Gal. v, 11), „why am I still persecuted?“ Obviously the Jerusalem apostles, if they were the circumcision party, would hardly attack Paul for promoting their own aim.
So also Galatians 2 replies the same scenario of Acts:
- the good Pillars: yes to circumcision but without exaggerating.
- the good Paul: yes to circumcision but without exaggerating.
- the evil Judaizers, more papists than the pope: the enemies of Paul.
The curious thing is that the Christian apologists à la
Gabriele Boccaccini insist just on this Acts-based Paul preacher of the circumcision, to assure us that the historical Paul was not against the Torah, etc.