Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:34 pm
do you agree with Bernard that Acts 9.26-30 is describing the same trip to Jerusalem that Galatians 1.18-24 is?
Sort of. The question is, what did Galatians look like when the writer of Acts read it?
The first issue is, acknowledging that the writer of Acts used the Pauline letters. The Acts Seminar emphatically concludes that the writer of Acts used Paul's letters. Joseph Tyson makes the case in
Marcion and Luke Acts that the writer made extensive use of Galatians, pointing out that Acts 15 is an exact mirror image of Galatians, that turns the meeting in Galatians 2 upside down. Tyson notes:
Altogether Pervo treats some 86/87 places in Acts that exhibit traces of Pauline letters, including Romans, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thess. The presence of Ephesians and Colossians is significant ... it means that Luke wrote after the publication of the duetero-Pauline letters and that, unlike modern scholars, he was unable to distinguish between [them].
Citing Pervo on Acts 15:
To put it rather sharply, in the matters of the dispute at Antioch Luke has turned Galatians 2 upside down. Galatians appears to be his major source, but what he claims is quite opposed to what Paul said in Galatians.
And:
Despite the present consensus about the nonuse of the Pauline letters in Acts, Enslin, Walker, Leppa, Pervo and other scholars have succeeded in mounting a serious counterargument. In my judgement they have shown that there is now sufficient reason to question the usual scholarly conviction that Acts was written in ignorance of the Pauline letters.
So the first question is, did Luke use Paul's letters when he wrote Acts? I believe strongly that he did. The second question is, what form of the letters did he use? The third question will be, what was his agenda?
As for the form of the letters that he used, if we work from the position that Luke/Acts is a counter to Marcion's Evangelion/Apostolikon, with GLuke being essentially built on top of Marcion's Evangelion, then there is a reasonable assumption that Luke was simply using the Apostolikon as his source of Pauline letters, performing the same treatment on them that he did on the Evangelion, which is to say, taking Marcion's own work and trying to turn it upside down to show that his own scriptures work against him.
If that's true, then perhaps that explains why he makes no mention of James being a brother of Jesus, because that passage didn't exist in Marcion's Apostolikon. But if Luke is working from an "orthodox" collection, assuming that such a thing existed at that time, one would expect that the passage about James would have been present under the assumption that the "orthodox" collection looked the same then as it does now. Yet its also possible that an orthodox collection existed, but it still didn't have the "James, the Lord's brother" passage in it yet. The question then would be, what was missing, just "the Lord's brother" (or v19-20) or was all of Gal 1:18-24 missing?
I'm not set on either conclusion, I just think its possible that all of Gal 1 18:24 was missing. However, its also possible that v18:24 was there, and just "the Lord's brother" (or v19-20) was missing.
So we have several possibilities:
1) Luke used the Apostolikon, in which Gal 1 18:24 was most likely missing, or at least v19-20.
BeDuhn
1.13–17 Tertullian, Marc. 5.2.7, 5.3.5 (v. 17). In 5.2.7, Tertullian refers
vaguely to this section of the letter: “After that, as he briefly describes
the course of his conversion from persecutor to apostle, he confirms
what is written in the Acts of the Apostles.” The quotation of v. 17 in
Tertullian, Marc., 5.3.5 is more exact.
Gal 1.18–24 is unattested.
2) Luke used an orthodox version of Galatians in which Gal 1.18–24 was missing.
3) Luke used an orthodox version of Galatians in which Gal 1.18–24 was present, but the phrase "the Lord's brother" was missing (or v19-20)
4) Luke used an orthodox version of Galatians in which the phrase "the Lord's brother" was present.
5) Luke made no use of any Pauline letters.
Galatians 1:
13 For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when He who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see another one of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 .Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which are in Christ; 23 but they only kept hearing, “The man who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
Acts 9:
26 When he came to Jerusalem, he tried repeatedly to associate with the disciples; and yet they were all afraid of him, as they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus at Damascus. 28 And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. 30 Now when the brothers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.
The detail about Damascus surely comes from Galatians. The rest is very hard to say, given the fact that Luke was clearly manipulating his source and not necessarily following it. One can presume that if Gal 1:18-24 were written based on Acts, that the interpolator would have made it match Acts more closely, so that seems out, however it could still have been written after Acts by someone who hadn't read Acts. The fact that Paul said he only met Peter and James is contradicted by Acts saying he met with "the disciples".
Tarsus is in Cilicia, so that seems to be a tie between the two. Tarsus is clearly a contrived location, attempting to associate Paul with a Roman background, but it is consistent with Galatians in terms of being in Cilicia. So that supports Luke having read v21.
The agenda of Luke was anti-Marcionite. Showing that Jesus had a brother would seem to be a big deal. Furthermore, by the late second century it was being claimed that the leader of the Jerusalem church was "the Lord's brother". Clearly Luke never made that claim. Such a claim is unattested until Hegesippus. Luke does not support the claim that James was "the Lord's brother."
So the fact that Acts never introduced a brother of Jesus named James, nor indicates that Paul ever met the brother of Jesus, has to be explained.
Working from the view that the writer of Luke had read Galatians, the fact that Luke never mentions Paul meeting the brother of Jesus, or that James the leader of the Jerusalem church was a brother of Jesus, has to be explained either by concluding that the passage didn't exist in the version of Galatians that Luke read or that Luke read the passage and consciously decided never to mention that James was a brother of Jesus or that Paul had meet a brother of Jesus, whom Peter and others would have also known too.
So what is the case for Luke having read the passage but decided not to make use of it? This seems particularly odd given his anti-Marcionite agenda, in which identifying familial relations with Jesus would be a significant anti-Marcionite claim. What is more likely: that he read it and decided not to mention it, that it wasn't present in his version of Galatians, or that he read it but didn't interpret it as meaning that James was a literal bother of Jesus (though everyone after him did)?
When you see a passage that clearly causes so much confusion, and its unattested by what appears to be our earliest witness to Galatians 1, and it was not present in Marcion's version of Galatians, that's a significant reason to suspect that the passage is a later interpolation. Not to mention that it's followed by "I swear I'm not lying!".
This is perfectly fine:
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him for fifteen days. 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which are in Christ; 23 but they only kept hearing, “The man who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
In fact it could have been in Marcion's version and not warranted a mention. However I like BeDuhn's reconstruction too:
15 But when God, who had separated me from my mother’s womb and called (me) through his favor, thought (it) good 16 to reveal his child in me, so that I might proclaim him among the nations, I did not present myself immediately to flesh and blood, 17 neither did I go
up into Jerusalem to] those who were emissaries before me, [but . . .2 1. . .] after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem . . .2. . . [And I laid before them the proclamation that I am declaring among the nations . . .], in order that I not somehow run or have run pointlessly.
