Another article by McGuire on the same subject is found here:
https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/McGuireClash.pdf
The main thesis is that the false "Paul" of Galatians 2 was going to eclipse
deliberately the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15.
In particular, the false "Paul" would have placed Peter in Antioch with the only goal of having him reproached by Paul.
The anonymous emissaries of James are obviously the bearers of the Apostolic Decree, identified in Acts 15:22 as Judas Barsabbas and Silas, although in Galatians they are just as silent about the Decree as they are concerning circumcision.
Acts 15:22:
Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers.
The article is very brilliant insofar it gives also what is for me the best explanation about why 2 Corinthians talks about the governor of Aretas (and
not the Jews) being the persecutor of Paul in Damascus: by accusing the Pagan Aretas of persecution against Paul, the false "Paul" was going
de facto to remove the
Acts's anomaly of a Paul persecuted by the
Jews in Damascus
and in the same time visiting totally
undisturbed Jerusalem itself, where more than any other place the Jews could have persecuted him (even more so if their
longa manus against Paul could reach the distant Damascus),
contra factum that they didn't.
Hence, the Aretas passage
alone betrayes blatantly knowledge (and correction) of Acts by "Paul".