McCulloch wrote:Heterodoxus wrote:McCulloch wrote:... some conservative apologists have suggested that the account in Galatians 2:1-10 is not about the same event as described in Acts 15:1-29. Instead they suggest that the Galatians account was of an earlier trip by Paul to Jerusalem, recounted in Acts 11:27-29, the so-called famine relief visit.[/size]
The several Christian commentaries I've researched all confirm different visits; i.e.:
- > if Paul's conversion indeed happened in 36-37 CE, visit #1 (Acts 15) is estimated to have occurred in 39-40 AD, or 3 years after Paul's conversion; and,
> based on Paul's conversion date, the year of Paul's second visit (GAL 2) was in 50-51 CE, or 14 years after his conversion experience.
More info is available at
biblos.com. The math works, and I've found nothing that disputes the date, purpose, or results of the two separate trips.
That makes no sense to me. If Paul had a visit to Jerusalem in 36-37 CE to deal with the issue of Gentile converts, why did the issue come up again in 50-51 CE? Why was the resolution of the issue different fourteen or so years later?
Even more importantly, why was this an issue among any of the Apostles? Consider that law of Moses in general is at issue here, not just foreskins. The issue of food, which comes up in Acts in the story of Cornelius, as well as in Paul's letters (see especially Romans chapter 14) is part and parcel of the whole controversy. Circumcision is just an external symbol of adherence to the Mosaic Law.
The food issue should have been considered settled before Jesus even died. Consider Mark Chapter 7.
Mark 7
Followers of Tradition
1(A)The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come (B)from Jerusalem,
2and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with (C)impure hands, that is, unwashed.
3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the (D)traditions of the elders;
4and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of (E)cups and pitchers and copper pots.)
5The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the (F)tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with (G)impure hands?"
6And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
'(H)THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7'(I)BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the (J)tradition of men."
9He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your (K)tradition.
10"For Moses said, '(L)HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, '(M)HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is (N)Corban (that is to say, [a]given to God),'
12you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13thus invalidating the word of God by your (O)tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."
The Heart of Man
14After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand:
15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.
16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."]
17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable.
18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared (R)all foods (S)clean.)
20And He was saying, "(T)That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, (U)envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
If Jesus declared all foods clean while still on earth, in the presence of Peter and the other Apostles, why was it necessary for Peter to later have a vision in order to consider all things clean? Consider Acts Ch. 10
9On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, (N)Peter went up on (O)the housetop about (P)the [e]sixth hour to pray.
10But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he (Q)fell into a trance;
11and he saw (R)the sky opened up, and an [f]object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and [g]crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
14But Peter said, "By no means, (S)Lord, for (T)I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
15Again a voice came to him a second time, "(U)What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
16This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
17Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what (V)the vision which he had seen might be, behold, (W)the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate
Did Peter simply forget that Jesus had already declared all foods clean? Is this why he had to be reminded in a vision? He seems not to have any recollection of the teaching given in Mark chapter 7, even though he was supposedly present.
If Jesus had declared all foods clean during his life, as well as declaring that the sabbath was created for man and not man for the sabbath, why does Paul write about both in Romans 14?
1Now (A)accept the one who is (B)weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2(C)One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is (D)weak eats vegetables only.
3The one who eats is not to (E)regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to (F)judge the one who eats, for God has (G)accepted him.
4(H)Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5(I)One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be (J)fully convinced in his own mind.
6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he (K)gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
It seems to me the most logical explanation for the various discrepancies is that the situation among followers of Jesus was in flux during the time these various writings were written. We should remember that Mark, although it is the earliest gospel, is dated by most scholars later than the letters of Paul, at least most of the letters of Paul. Luke is dated later than Mark, and Acts, being essentially a follow up to Luke's gospel, would also be dated later.
In my view, each author was writing for a particular audience at a particular time. THus, the issues and controversies dealt with are probably those the community being written for were experiencing, not necessarily those occuring at the time of Jesus or at the time of the events being described. It's possible, for example, that although Mark is describing events during Jesus' life and authentic teachings of Jesus, he is also adding some of his own commentary based on the situation at the time of writing, probably some 30 years or so after Jesus' death.
The same might be true for Paul's writing of Galatians and Luke's writing of Acts. It seems pretty clear there were a lot of differences of opinions and controversies within the early Jesus movement and between that movement and the larger Jewish religious community. The spin put on particular events thus reflects the viewpoint of the authors relating those events. The incongruencies in the timing of certain events, or why some people did things at a particular time when by that time the issue should have been moot reflects that people are writing after the events occurred, and perhaps because they are compiling events related from different sources." . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
