Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
There is no contradiction between Acts 9:26-30 and Galatians 1:18-24 either. The disciples mentioned in Acts 9:26 refers not to the other apostles, but to believers in general. In Acts 9:27 the apostles referred to are only Peter and James as mentioned in Gal 1:18-19.
|
There are plenty of details that are contradictory. The basis for the contradiction does not only rest upon the
'disciples' and
'apostles' issue.
Quote:
|
As for Paul's visits to Jerusalem, I didn't spend much time on this, but you're perhaps referring to the omission in Gal 2:1 of a visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11:29,30-12:25
|
That alignment does not work very well - Paul is not 'omitting' anything (see below).
First, let me preface my remarks with this point - Contradictions really are beside the point because of one very important principle in logic -
Coherence does not necessitate
Correspondence. The Bible could be without contradictions and still not correspond to reality.
Second, although the 3 years problem was not my focus there can be a strong case for a contradiction regarding it. I was simply granting it in order to focus on the more obvious contradiction regarding Paul's first visit - Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18
Now onto the contradictions.
There are three issues:
1) The 3 Years Problem
The tone of Acts suggest a short time period between Paul's conversion (near Damascas) and his 1st subsequent trip to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18).
*Acts suggest that Paul tried to
join the
disciples but they were
afraid. This is precisley because of Paul's recent persucution just prior to his conversion. Why would the disciples be afraid of Paul after 3 years?
* Paul goes to
great measures to seperate himself from the Church in Jerusalem in Galatians - he certainly did not try to join the fellowship. Why would Paul try to join it after three years of being in Arabia, being taught by Christ himself, and teaching in Damascus? Antioch was the center of his ministry.
*Paul is very adamant and clear, in Galatians, that he did
NOT go up to Jerusalem prior to Arabia (v.17 - the very thing Acts fails to mention). Why does Paul feel it necessary to clarify this issue in such a forceful manner - even so much so as to take and oath - v.20. Who was saying otherwise? Notice that Paul contrast going up to Jerusalem first (the lie) and going to Arabia first (the truth according to Paul). Why does Paul make this distinction between the two? The simple answer is that there was some lie/rumor that Paul had gone to Jerusalem prior to going to Arabia. Acts presents that scenario (the lie) that Paul corrects - hence Acts does not mention Arabia but presents it as if Paul went there only shortly (many days) after his conversion.
Sidebar: The difference between I Kings 17 and here is that
'many days' and
'3 years' is in the same verse not so with the passages we are dealing with - One is in Acts the other Galatians. You are meshing the two together precisly becuase there is a difficulty.
*Acts downplays the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem Church and highlights the unity as it spread (Acts 9:31). Why? Paul thinks that there was another gospel - one of faith and works. It seems clear that Acts edited the facts to reduce the theological differences that were competing in Christianity prior to any N.T. writings which were started primarily to correct such differences. Remember no N.T writings were started until 20-25 years after the death of Christ.
Like I said I was not trying to even argue for the above because the real problems come with the first visit.
2) The 1st Visit Problem (Acts 9:26 and Gal.1:18)
*The Apostles and Disciples Issue: Acts does not mention two apostles it is just vague and says Aposltes (granted this could mean technically just two - Peter and James). The problem is that Acts states that Barnabas brought him to the apostles and Acts calls Barnabas an apostle (Acts 14:4, 14). Barnabas was part of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 4:36). So that would be at least
three apostles that Paul met or saw according to Acts - not two. You might quible that Paul means two of the
twelve - OK - let flesh this out.
If that is the case then how do you reconcile the fact the James (the Lord's brother Gal.1:19) was not one of the twelve. When Paul uses the word apostles he means any apostle in the
broad sense not the narrow sense. Interestingly, Paul does not mention Barnabas regarding his 1st trip only the second trip. If Barnabas was there on the 1st trip (as Acts says)why did not Paul mention him and why is he not included in the term 'apostles?' Acts cannot mean that Barnasbas was just taking Paul to two of the Twelve since James was not one of the Twelve. Acts sugests that Paul was brought by Barnabas to more than just Peter and James.
As far as the term disciples are concerned Paul says that he only saw James and Peter - he makes no mention of meeting any of the disciples which would certainly be the case when trying to join them as Acts suggests.
Acts has 1) Paul meet the disciples which become afraid (
Seeing and Fearing), as aresult 2) Barnabas takes him to the Apostles.
Galatians has 1) Paul unknown by face to the churches of Judea (Gal.1:22) and only sees Peter and James, and 2) No Barnabas. The disclpes only heard of Paul's conversion and rejoiced at it (Gal.1:23-24)
(Hearing and Rejoicing).
Completely different tone between Seeing and Fearing and Hearing and Rejoicing.
*In Acts Paul was
'coming in and going out' and
'disputing with the Hellenists.' Nothing like this is even hinted at in Galatians. Paul says he was only there 15 days with Peter. Acts makes it sound as if Paul came there to join them and stayed awile, going in and out, disputing with people, preaching and fellowshiping with them - all is well in Jerusalem no tension here (Acts 9:31). Paul has a completely different tone - unkown by face to the churches, confered only with Peter (even though he met James), stayed there a short time, and corrects lies about the very trip itself. It is very clear this is not reconcilable. Paul's face, according to Acts, seems to have gotten around quite a bit on that 1st Journey.
Sidebar: It is also interesting that Acts sides with the Hebrews not the Hellenist (Liberal Jews who thought some compromises were alright with the Greco-Roman culture and had differences with regard to the application of Jewish Law). Acts tries to have Paul side with Jerusalem against the Hellenist - once again highlighting unity not tension. There are many clues like this throughout.
3) The 2nd Visit Problem (Acts 11 and Galatian 2)
Once again this is not the main problem but it still is a problem.
*Titus is absent in the Acts narrative. Titus also has probelms with some compeling him to be circumcised (more tension) and Paul lays into them and even contrast this compulsion with his gospel - that is after 14 years the Jerusalem Church was still preaching another Gospel. Note this false gospel is not a pagan teaching it is a aberrant Christian teaching. This is the struggles Paul had with this sect of Christianity in Jerusalem that Acts seems to downplay.
*Paul says that he went up by
revelation not a
prophecy from Agabus. Paul does not mention any relief only that he went and communicated what he thought was the gospel (Gal.2:2). Was Acts 11 14 years later from 9:26?
*Paul explicitly says
'Then (
Next) after 14 years I went up
again...' Barns is completely wrong when he says that Paul just omittied this relief visit. There is no room for a visit between Gal 1:18 and 2:1. There is a
strict chronology with the terminology that Paul uses not to mention the seriousness of his tone in laying out the trips he has made to Jerusalem in order to correct those lies - there is no room for an omission. The only omission is, as Metzger points out, the word
'again' is missing in some witnesses and subscibes this to scribal error or scribal uncertainty. Yeah, I would think so seeing that
'again' in directly in reference to 1:18 (the 1st trip). Seeing such a problem it is no wonder some scribes removed it.
*No mention of the Feast days and Mark in Galatians as in Acts 12:3, 25).
There is plenty more but frankly I am tired.
The musings and Scriptural gyrations that people have done to try to reconcile this is sad.
Acts seems clear on downplaying the problems between Antioch and Jerusalem. As such it promotes a vision of the Church that is far from the facts of Paul's letters - A Church of Unity - not one with a different gospel. So much is made of this unity that God even strikes down any disunity and deception with death (Ananias and Sapphira).
The very question and ambiguity regarding these sections is even more telling when Paul explicitly deals with these travels to Jerusalem in such a strict, forceful, correcting, and chronological manner that it is obvious that Acts seems to fudge the facts and fits the lie category nicely.
The main concern for me is the first visit but the other two only add to the overall problem.
Anyway, with such a powerful God you would think inspiration would not have such ambiguity.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amen!!
