Did the Author of Acts Know About Paul's Letters?

[Secret Alias]

The latter clearly. So exactly. Good point.

[Bernard Muller]

Galatians and the Council of Jersusalem in Acts is kind of hard to reconcile with the idea that 'Luke' just didn't feel the need to mention Paul's epistolary exploits. One of those two books really seems to be trying to rewrite the story of the other

On the contrary, the huge differences, including clear-cut contradictions, in the two narrations of the same event, would prove that "Luke" and his/her community were not aware of Paul's Galatians: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html

Cordially, Bernard

[perseusomega9]

Yes Bernard, we are painfully aware of your website, in fact I associate you with the phrase, "it goes without saying".

[Ben C. Smith]

Galatians and the Council of Jersusalem in Acts is kind of hard to reconcile with the idea that 'Luke' just didn't feel the need to mention Paul's epistolary exploits. One of those two books really seems to be trying to rewrite the story of the other

On the contrary, the huge differences, including clear-cut contradictions, in the two narrations of the same event, would prove that "Luke" and his/her community were not aware of Paul's Galatians: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html

Clear-cut contradictions and huge differences ought also to prove that Luke was not aware of the gospel of Mark, either, then.

[Ben C. Smith]

I just think the OP has suggested a 'problem' that there is no real good reason to assume exists.

Galatians and the Council of Jersusalem in Acts is kind of hard to reconcile with the idea that 'Luke' just didn't feel the need to mention Paul's epistolary exploits. One of those two books really seems to be trying to rewrite the story of the other

The latter clearly. So exactly. Good point.

So which came first? The heretic-encouraging, apostle-insulting epistle to the Galatians? Or the everybody-wins, all-get-together-and-sing-kumbaya Acts of the Apostles?

[Secret Alias]

I know Trobisch thinks Acts is a rewriting of Galatians. I guess it depends on whether you think human beings are contentious or amicable by nature. I guess you already know what my disposition has led me to believe.

[Ben C. Smith]

I know Trobisch thinks Acts is a rewriting of Galatians. I guess it depends on whether you think human beings are contentious or amicable by nature. I guess you already know what my disposition has led me to believe.

Well, if Galatians came first, and if one of these texts is a rewriting of the other... then apparently the author of Acts knew Galatians, even if Acts does not mention any of the epistles as such.

[Secret Alias]

I know life is about reconciling differences. Why would the Church version of Galatians 'correct' Acts? The Pseudo-Clementines go to town with Galatians but notice also that they too are 'dealing with' a heretical acceptance - even glorification - of Paul's condemnation of Peter 'to his face.' To be honest I struggle with the first two chapters of Galatians. I don't know what to make of them. There don't seem to be any references to Marcion's use of this material in Jerome's borrowing of Origen's Commentary on Galatians after the first line down to the third chapter.

[Secret Alias]

It is tempting also to suppose that Marcion understood Paul to have rebelled against a 'Jewish church' and the like. But if you actually look at Tertullian's references in this section of Galatians too there is very little in the way of a discernible 'Marcionite interpretation' of this material. The fact that neither Origen nor Tertullian know of any Marcionite interest in this material leads me to question whether any of it was in the Marcionite 'Apostle.'

[Secret Alias]

So the next question is what purpose could a Paul fighting with the Jerusalem Church have served. Well for one, it would dent the Marcionite claim that Paul was the first apostle who (Adv Haer 3.15, 16) was the only one who knew the truth. The section of text also establishes Paul as fighting 'Jewishness' and sets him specifically as an apostle to the Gentiles. It also contradicts the premise that the Marcionite text did not give any biographical information about Paul. Paul is defined quite clearly in the first two chapters of Galatians. So if chapters 1 and 2 were later interpolations could they have come after Acts? Sure why not. But it seems less likely than the alternative possibility.