Recognizing then the favour that was bestowed upon me, those reputed pillars of our society, James,Cephas and John accepted Barnabas and myself as partners and shook hands upon it agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles while they went to the Jews"
It all seems harmonious to me, but do you have another thought?
I used to spend countless hours studying these passages that might appear to defend the apostles at Jerusalem and might appear to damn them. I've read one good book that does a good job harmonizing Acts and Galatians, but I realize that it's too much of a stretch for me now to accept its claims. But, yes, I do have another thought, which I don't mean to be dogmatic about, it's only that there is some evidence that this is what it COULD mean.
(Hooberus: I take it that Paul does recognize the GB/trio: James (Jesus' brother, not the "apostle"), Cephas and John as legitimate apostles to the Jews, I just think that he himself finally completely broke with them over what they taught about Gentile conversion, and Galatians is his explanation of why.)
I changed my mind a couple years ago on the idea that Paul is defending the true apostles and is only against certain false brethren (who also existed, I agree) because I previously had not considered the importance of Paul's absolute, direct denial of their authority in the case of "things sacrificed to idols." Also, when I compare Acts, Corinthians and Galatians, especially, a scenario emerges that fits and finally explains for me some of those odd words about the apostle's reputation and Paul's own anger at what they were promoting and why Paul was having so much trouble stopping it.
BTW, I don't believe Paul was referring directly to the GB/trio when he spoke of the emasculations, he was probably reserving that for the problem he had with false brethren sent from James, and the extra anger, I'd guess was based on fact that he thought he had an agreement that circumcision was out of the question for Gentiles. Paul, for his part, must not have agreed to any law for Gentiles at all (i.e, "further burden") no matter how obviously correct or Biblical it sounded -- but at least he thought he had already "won" on the circumcision issue. The problem, as I see it, is that Paul is associating the renewed problems with the fact that he was up against the reputation of the "GB" (Peter,James,John) who still didn't "get it." These troublemakers still came ultimately, Paul says, "from James." Furthermore, Paul immediately goes on to explain his "run-in" with Peter apparently just to prove that he Peter didn't quite get it and was, in effect, going back on his word -- even after the handshake at Jerusalem.
Paul calls them "so-called" pillars (muted by translations that say reputed), which might be ambiguous on its own, but it ties in with a theme Paul brought up in almost every letter where he found himself discussing reputation and authority and tied it to the difficulties of getting his point across about the differences between Jewish and Gentile conversion.
Galatians itself starts out with the idea that "even if an angel from heaven were to preach a different Gospel, let them be accursed/anathema/damned)". Why such an exaggeration about the reputation of those preaching a different Gospel, if it weren't possible that the different Gospel was coming from the closest thing Christians had to "angels:" the likes of James or Peter or John? And if they weren't preaching a different Gospel, why specifically mention them by name in a way that could denegrate their reputation? Why give a story about Peter living a different Gospel than one he agreed on? And doesn't a specific contradiction of one of the "GB's" "further burden" in Acts 15 count as preaching a different Gospel?
Denying the rule about things sacrificed to idols effectively denies the one on blood, too. Paul also went to great lengths to show that we didn't need a rule against fornication to avoid fornication. He literally preached a Gospel that was absolutely different from the GB's words in Acts 15. Per Galatians that made the Acts 15 GB accursed/anathema/damned. Even if Luke is trying to smooth over the differences, the differences are still there, and Luke mentions some of the same people involved that Paul does.
That's most of the argument, but the specific details run through all of Paul's letters.
Gamaliel
