Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Paul and Peter

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Goffin
    Should we not be extremely wary of anything Paul says in Galatians, since his axe grinding is only too obvious. We only have his word for what happened in
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Should we not be extremely wary of anything Paul says in Galatians, since his axe grinding is only too obvious. We only have his word for what happened in meetings with Peter and James. Luke in Acts is also suspect, since his aim is to paper over the cracks and make it appear that there were no unbridgeable gulfs between Paul, and the Jerusalem leaders.
      Dennis


      ---- Original Message -----
      From: Ron Price
      To: Synoptic-L elist
      Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 7:27 PM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark as a Pauline gospel



      Jeff Peterson wrote:

      > Do you then think that Peter welcomed into his home for a fortnight (Gal
      > 1:18) and recognized as a fellow emissary of Christ (Gal 2:9) someone with
      > whom he fundamentally disagreed about Christ's identity,

      Jeff,

      I agree that Peter, as a Jew, is unlikely to have welcomed into his home
      anyone who openly proclaimed a theology which appeared to elevate a human to
      the status of God. But various factors make this scenario unlikely. Firstly
      at this first meeting, Peter may have known initially only that Paul had
      converted from persecutor to supporter of the Jesus movement. Secondly, not
      knowing much about the young Paul, Peter may have hoped to convince Paul of
      the correctness of the 'Son of Man' theology which the Jerusalem disciples
      had worked out as a reaction to the crucifixion. Thirdly, at this early
      stage in Paul's allegiance to Jesus he may not have formulated his 'Son of
      God' Christology (and here I concede that Acts 9:20, though it captures the
      essence of Paul's theology, may have got the timing of its first
      proclamation wrong).

      > ... and that Paul was
      > so unperceptive as to engage Peter in halakhic controversy on the premise
      > that they were alike believers in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:16-17)?

      I follow RSV, NRSV etc. in taking the quotation to finish at the end of
      2:14, so I don't take this as a direct debate with Peter. The "we" who are
      justified by faith may have included Peter, but only if Peter had accepted
      Paul's theology of 'justification by faith [in Jesus Christ]'. This is
      questionable. At any rate there's no evidence that he *did* accept it, for
      no extant document attributed to Peter is authentic.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jeff Peterson
      Paul writes Galatians with his credibility on the line and the Galatian churches on the verge of abandoning his gospel (as he sees things). Anything he says
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Paul writes Galatians with his credibility on the line and the Galatian
        churches on the verge of abandoning his gospel (as he sees things). Anything
        he says that can be readily falsified will leave his credibility in tatters.


        We should of course allow for differences of interpretation between Paul and
        the Jerusalem worthies he names and for his rendering of episodes in a way
        favorable to his appeal to reject circumcision, but to imagine that the
        basic facts of Paul's history with the Jerusalem apostles are not as he
        recounts is to fail to reckon with the human situation in which the letter
        was dispatched.

        Jeff Peterson
        Austin Graduate School of Theology

        On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Dennis Goffin <dgoffin@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > Should we not be extremely wary of anything Paul says in Galatians, since
        > his axe grinding is only too obvious. We only have his word for what
        > happened in meetings with Peter and James. Luke in Acts is also suspect,
        > since his aim is to paper over the cracks and make it appear that there were
        > no unbridgeable gulfs between Paul, and the Jerusalem leaders.
        > Dennis
        >
        > ---- Original Message -----
        > From: Ron Price
        > To: Synoptic-L elist
        > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 7:27 PM
        > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark as a Pauline gospel
        >
        > Jeff Peterson wrote:
        >
        > > Do you then think that Peter welcomed into his home for a fortnight (Gal
        > > 1:18) and recognized as a fellow emissary of Christ (Gal 2:9) someone
        > with
        > > whom he fundamentally disagreed about Christ's identity,
        >
        > Jeff,
        >
        > I agree that Peter, as a Jew, is unlikely to have welcomed into his home
        > anyone who openly proclaimed a theology which appeared to elevate a human
        > to
        > the status of God. But various factors make this scenario unlikely. Firstly
        > at this first meeting, Peter may have known initially only that Paul had
        > converted from persecutor to supporter of the Jesus movement. Secondly, not
        > knowing much about the young Paul, Peter may have hoped to convince Paul of
        > the correctness of the 'Son of Man' theology which the Jerusalem disciples
        > had worked out as a reaction to the crucifixion. Thirdly, at this early
        > stage in Paul's allegiance to Jesus he may not have formulated his 'Son of
        > God' Christology (and here I concede that Acts 9:20, though it captures the
        > essence of Paul's theology, may have got the timing of its first
        > proclamation wrong).
        >
        > > ... and that Paul was
        > > so unperceptive as to engage Peter in halakhic controversy on the premise
        > > that they were alike believers in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:16-17)?
        >
        > I follow RSV, NRSV etc. in taking the quotation to finish at the end of
        > 2:14, so I don't take this as a direct debate with Peter. The "we" who are
        > justified by faith may have included Peter, but only if Peter had accepted
        > Paul's theology of 'justification by faith [in Jesus Christ]'. This is
        > questionable. At any rate there's no evidence that he *did* accept it, for
        > no extant document attributed to Peter is authentic.
        >
        > Ron Price
        >
        > Derbyshire, UK
        >
        > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: GPG Cc: Synoptic In Response To: Dennis Goffin On: Paul in Galatians From: Bruce DENNIS: Should we not be extremely wary of anything Paul says in
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 10, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          To: GPG
          Cc: Synoptic
          In Response To: Dennis Goffin
          On: Paul in Galatians
          From: Bruce

          DENNIS: Should we not be extremely wary of anything Paul says in Galatians,
          since his axe grinding is only too obvious.

          BRUCE: Rule 1 is, don't trust anybody, and that certainly applies to
          Paul, especially when he is going out of his way to insist on his
          veracity. This is most conspicuous when he is insisting on his
          credentials as an Apostle, and especially on his independence from
          other traditions about Jesus. He claims to have his own direct
          channel, and not to be anybody's student.

          DENNIS: We only have his word for what happened in meetings with Peter
          and James.

          BRUCE: And right lucky we are to have it, too. A first-hand lie is
          still a first-hand testimony, and we don't have much of it. I think my
          point above governs.

          DENNIS: Luke in Acts is also suspect, since his aim is to paper over
          the cracks and make it appear that there were no unbridgeable gulfs
          between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders.

          BRUCE: Luke, it has always seemed to me (with some support from the
          publications of learned persons) is wallpapering in various
          directions. He seeks to show amity between Paul and Jerusalem, as
          Dennis says. He also seeks to mutually homogenize the figures of Peter
          and Paul, making Peter a sort of precedent for Paul, down to and
          including wording of speeches. Not that this lie is without interest
          either. An irenic picture can alert us to actual unresolved
          hostilities. It can remind us to ask the question, What was REALLY
          going on here? The stones of Gortyn were used to build other
          buildings, but they still carried the text of the laws of Gortyn. The
          thing with Acts is to get at its subtext; the thing papered over, the
          thing misrepresented.

          So for Paul, we have one retrospective Irenic construction, and one
          exaggerating eyewitness. If we can't triangulate from that much
          evidence, we should give up, and let someone else navigate the ship.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          > Dennis
          >
          >
          > ---- Original Message -----
          > From: Ron Price
          > To: Synoptic-L elist
          > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 7:27 PM
          > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark as a Pauline gospel
          >
          >
          >
          > Jeff Peterson wrote:
          >
          > > Do you then think that Peter welcomed into his home for a fortnight (Gal
          > > 1:18) and recognized as a fellow emissary of Christ (Gal 2:9) someone with
          > > whom he fundamentally disagreed about Christ's identity,
          >
          > Jeff,
          >
          > I agree that Peter, as a Jew, is unlikely to have welcomed into his home
          > anyone who openly proclaimed a theology which appeared to elevate a human to
          > the status of God. But various factors make this scenario unlikely. Firstly
          > at this first meeting, Peter may have known initially only that Paul had
          > converted from persecutor to supporter of the Jesus movement. Secondly, not
          > knowing much about the young Paul, Peter may have hoped to convince Paul of
          > the correctness of the 'Son of Man' theology which the Jerusalem disciples
          > had worked out as a reaction to the crucifixion. Thirdly, at this early
          > stage in Paul's allegiance to Jesus he may not have formulated his 'Son of
          > God' Christology (and here I concede that Acts 9:20, though it captures the
          > essence of Paul's theology, may have got the timing of its first
          > proclamation wrong).
          >
          > > ... and that Paul was
          > > so unperceptive as to engage Peter in halakhic controversy on the premise
          > > that they were alike believers in Jesus Christ (Gal 2:16-17)?
          >
          > I follow RSV, NRSV etc. in taking the quotation to finish at the end of
          > 2:14, so I don't take this as a direct debate with Peter. The "we" who are
          > justified by faith may have included Peter, but only if Peter had accepted
          > Paul's theology of 'justification by faith [in Jesus Christ]'. This is
          > questionable. At any rate there's no evidence that he *did* accept it, for
          > no extant document attributed to Peter is authentic.
          >
          > Ron Price
          >
          > Derbyshire, UK
          >
          > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Jeff Peterson On: Paul in Galatians From: Bruce As to the idea that Paul is not absolutely truthful in his statements
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 10, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Synoptic
            Cc: GPG
            In Response To: Jeff Peterson
            On: Paul in Galatians
            From: Bruce

            As to the idea that Paul is not absolutely truthful in his statements
            about his relations with Peter in Galatians, raised by a previous
            correspondent and seconded by myself, we had:

            JEFF: Anything he [Paul] says that can be readily falsified will leave
            his credibility in tatters.

            BRUCE: Short response: Not cogent. Fear of discovery never deterred
            any of the bolder spirits, from ventures such as modern investment
            fraud and bookkeeper embezzlement.

            Long response: These analyses, these talks about Paul and Peter, are
            typically carried on by people of good deportment and faultless
            morals, persons of light and leading, who would not dream of going
            outside without combing their hair, or keeping the extra penny when
            the cashier makes a mistake in their favor. I admire that, and I wish
            everyone would do likewise, but it does not necessarily extrapolate
            well.

            More generally, the idea that any imposture will be instantly exposed,
            and that this fact will entirely deter those tempted to commit an
            imposture, rests on especially slender foundations in antiquity. What,
            precisely, is Paul's risk of falsification?

            To make it answerable, I would ask it this way: What are the Galatians
            to do? Galatia is very far from Jerusalem. Are they going to get up a
            collection, and send one (or safer, two) of their number to interview
            Peter for confirmation or disconfirmation? And if they do, will Peter
            actually still be at Jerusalem? And if they find him (say at Corinth,
            where he and Paul are involved in yet another controversy), and
            interview him, and he falsifies Paul, will they have grounds to trust
            him? Or are they, as good historians, obliged to entertain the
            possibility that Peter, being still sore over Paul's exposure of his
            perfidy in Antioch, never mind any more recent tensions at Corinth,
            may give a somewhat unbalanced and tendentious report of the
            proceedings in question?

            One sees the difficulties.

            I personally wish everyone were as nice, as honest, and as reticent,
            as me. But that's just my preference. As to whether the world owes
            more to its turbulent spirits or to its docile ones, I am very much
            afraid that this may be a separate question, with its own separate
            answer.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Jeff Peterson
            Bruce, The confidence we can repose in Paul s evidence in Galatians depends not on his being nice but merely prudent. Early Christians exploited the benefits
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 10, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Bruce,

              The confidence we can repose in Paul's evidence in Galatians depends not on
              his being nice but merely prudent. Early Christians exploited the benefits
              of Roman roads and clearing of the sea lanes, and they traveled; Michael
              Thompson conveniently collects the evidence in R. Bauckham, ed., *The
              Gospels for All Christians*, pp. 49�70.

              Paul's letter suggests that the Galatian churches were not so remote that
              they could not be reached by missionaries who cited their ties to Jerusalem.
              By Thompson's computations, Corinth is not more distant from Jerusalem than
              Galatia (whether north or south); as Paul proposes travel from Corinth to
              Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:3-4), and as he knew that representatives of Jerusalem
              traveled to other churches (Gal 2:12), he would have to abandon all
              semblance of prudence to sell his churches on the notion of a fundamental
              concord between them and Jerusalem if this didn't in fact exist. And as Paul
              was managing a far-flung network of churches in cities from any one of which
              he was necessarily absent most of the time (and thus unable to control who
              came and went), I don't think his "boldness" suffices as a counterargument.

              Jeff Peterson
              Austin Graduate School of Theology

              On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM, E Bruce Brooks
              <brooks@...>wrote:

              >
              >
              > To: Synoptic
              > Cc: GPG
              > In Response To: Jeff Peterson
              >
              > On: Paul in Galatians
              > From: Bruce
              >
              > As to the idea that Paul is not absolutely truthful in his statements
              > about his relations with Peter in Galatians, raised by a previous
              > correspondent and seconded by myself, we had:
              >
              > JEFF: Anything he [Paul] says that can be readily falsified will leave
              > his credibility in tatters.
              >
              > BRUCE: Short response: Not cogent. Fear of discovery never deterred
              > any of the bolder spirits, from ventures such as modern investment
              > fraud and bookkeeper embezzlement.
              >
              > Long response: These analyses, these talks about Paul and Peter, are
              > typically carried on by people of good deportment and faultless
              > morals, persons of light and leading, who would not dream of going
              > outside without combing their hair, or keeping the extra penny when
              > the cashier makes a mistake in their favor. I admire that, and I wish
              > everyone would do likewise, but it does not necessarily extrapolate
              > well.
              >
              > More generally, the idea that any imposture will be instantly exposed,
              > and that this fact will entirely deter those tempted to commit an
              > imposture, rests on especially slender foundations in antiquity. What,
              > precisely, is Paul's risk of falsification?
              >
              > To make it answerable, I would ask it this way: What are the Galatians
              > to do? Galatia is very far from Jerusalem. Are they going to get up a
              > collection, and send one (or safer, two) of their number to interview
              > Peter for confirmation or disconfirmation? And if they do, will Peter
              > actually still be at Jerusalem? And if they find him (say at Corinth,
              > where he and Paul are involved in yet another controversy), and
              > interview him, and he falsifies Paul, will they have grounds to trust
              > him? Or are they, as good historians, obliged to entertain the
              > possibility that Peter, being still sore over Paul's exposure of his
              > perfidy in Antioch, never mind any more recent tensions at Corinth,
              > may give a somewhat unbalanced and tendentious report of the
              > proceedings in question?
              >
              > One sees the difficulties.
              >
              > I personally wish everyone were as nice, as honest, and as reticent,
              > as me. But that's just my preference. As to whether the world owes
              > more to its turbulent spirits or to its docile ones, I am very much
              > afraid that this may be a separate question, with its own separate
              > answer.
              >
              >
              > Bruce
              >
              > E Bruce Brooks
              > Warring States Project
              > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • E Bruce Brooks
              Jeff, Your travel data are interesting, and I will file them for future use, but I don t think they provide what is needed. It is granted on all sides that the
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 10, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Jeff,

                Your travel data are interesting, and I will file them for future use,
                but I don't think they provide what is needed.

                It is granted on all sides that the possibility of travel existed for
                the Galatians, just as for a modern swindler the possibility of an
                audit always exists. I merely point out that the modern deterrent,
                greatly amplified as it is in the age of the newspaper, does not
                prevent all swindling, and that the ancient deterrent need not be
                asssumed to be absolutely effective either.

                What is immediately at risk for Paul in the passages in question is
                his Apostolic credentials. You argue that he would not dare to fake
                those credentials, or any fact supporting them, by making an open
                misstatement, a findable-out misstatement, about them. I respond that
                he might well have dared; that the immediate importance of his
                certification as an Apostle (under challenge at the time, as we agree)
                might have weighed heavier for him than the eventual risk of
                supporting it by statements of whatever dubiety.

                If you will allow a modern example, I offer the recent and briefly
                notorious case of Joe Ellis, a highly capable American historian
                teaching at a school near me. Joe was never in Vietnam, but over the
                years, in lecturing to his rapturously admiring students (this is
                Mount Holyoke College), he built up a persona which included not only
                service in Vietnam, but high staff status in Vietnam, giving him a
                privileged position from which to observe, and later to speak with
                authority on, the war and its misconduct. He became, he made himself
                into, the definitive voice from that period.

                Someone, I forget just who or why (but Wikipedia probably has it),
                finally checked, and it came out that the whole thing was a lie, a
                personal myth, whatever you like to label it. Once that was generally
                known, Joe's authority as an insider on the Vietnam War evaporated
                down to nothing. The College administration tried to shrug this off,
                but in the face of considerable public outrage (the newspapers had
                gotten hold of it, and the public's sense of morality began to impinge
                on the administration's sense of morality, which latter was more or
                less non-existent), it finally relieved Joe of his chair
                professorship, and furloughed him for a year. (All has since been
                quietly restored, so there was in fact no long-term loss).

                In retrospect, any decent person would be inclined to say, Why would
                Joe have done this? He had a secure position at the College, his
                publications had won him deserved respect in his field, he was popular
                and successful in every relevant category; why would he risk all that
                on a lie that anyone, at any time, could investigate and expose?

                I think all those questions, though commendable to the moral instincts
                of those who ask them, are beside the point. The point is that he did
                it. No possbility of error here; the documents, and what they do not
                contain, are unmistakable, and Joe eventually issued a public apology.

                My conclusion is that the risk of exposure doesn't operate equally on
                all persons, and that the immediate advantages to be gained by a
                strategic misrepresentation may sometimes outweigh the more remote
                risks of exposure. Scholars in all fields, not just NT (and I include
                my own field, Sinology) are very reluctant to acknowledge violations
                of probity, whether verbal or textual, and correspondingly hesitant to
                call things by their names. But this is just modern elite-discourse
                ethos; it has no weight as a guideline for historical investigation.

                I thus consider the veracity of Paul, especially on sensitive points
                concerning his qualifications to do what he was doing, and in the way
                he was doing it, may not be taken as given, but must be weighed
                against the historical and psychological probabilities.

                Bruce

                E Bruce Brooks
                Warring States Project
                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              • Jeff Peterson
                Bruce, You will forgive me if I do not leap at the suggestion that Paul is best understood by analogy with a modern swindler. I rather thank Ed Sanders had it
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 10, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bruce,

                  You will forgive me if I do not leap at the suggestion that Paul is best
                  understood by analogy with a modern swindler. I rather thank Ed Sanders had
                  it right commenting on Paul's statement in Gal 1:20, "In what I am writing
                  to you, before God I do not lie": Paul believed in God, and he believed that
                  God avenged people who took his name in vain; he wouldn't say this and lie
                  (paraphrased from memory). I'd say, similarly with Paul representing the
                  circumstances of his apostolate, which he believed to be a divine
                  appointment.

                  Jeff

                  On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:01 PM, E Bruce Brooks
                  <brooks@...>wrote:

                  >
                  >
                  > Jeff,
                  >
                  > Your travel data are interesting, and I will file them for future use,
                  > but I don't think they provide what is needed.
                  >
                  > It is granted on all sides that the possibility of travel existed for
                  > the Galatians, just as for a modern swindler the possibility of an
                  > audit always exists. I merely point out that the modern deterrent,
                  > greatly amplified as it is in the age of the newspaper, does not
                  > prevent all swindling, and that the ancient deterrent need not be
                  > asssumed to be absolutely effective either.
                  >
                  > What is immediately at risk for Paul in the passages in question is
                  > his Apostolic credentials. You argue that he would not dare to fake
                  > those credentials, or any fact supporting them, by making an open
                  > misstatement, a findable-out misstatement, about them. I respond that
                  > he might well have dared; that the immediate importance of his
                  > certification as an Apostle (under challenge at the time, as we agree)
                  > might have weighed heavier for him than the eventual risk of
                  > supporting it by statements of whatever dubiety.
                  >
                  > If you will allow a modern example, I offer the recent and briefly
                  > notorious case of Joe Ellis, a highly capable American historian
                  > teaching at a school near me. Joe was never in Vietnam, but over the
                  > years, in lecturing to his rapturously admiring students (this is
                  > Mount Holyoke College), he built up a persona which included not only
                  > service in Vietnam, but high staff status in Vietnam, giving him a
                  > privileged position from which to observe, and later to speak with
                  > authority on, the war and its misconduct. He became, he made himself
                  > into, the definitive voice from that period.
                  >
                  > Someone, I forget just who or why (but Wikipedia probably has it),
                  > finally checked, and it came out that the whole thing was a lie, a
                  > personal myth, whatever you like to label it. Once that was generally
                  > known, Joe's authority as an insider on the Vietnam War evaporated
                  > down to nothing. The College administration tried to shrug this off,
                  > but in the face of considerable public outrage (the newspapers had
                  > gotten hold of it, and the public's sense of morality began to impinge
                  > on the administration's sense of morality, which latter was more or
                  > less non-existent), it finally relieved Joe of his chair
                  > professorship, and furloughed him for a year. (All has since been
                  > quietly restored, so there was in fact no long-term loss).
                  >
                  > In retrospect, any decent person would be inclined to say, Why would
                  > Joe have done this? He had a secure position at the College, his
                  > publications had won him deserved respect in his field, he was popular
                  > and successful in every relevant category; why would he risk all that
                  > on a lie that anyone, at any time, could investigate and expose?
                  >
                  > I think all those questions, though commendable to the moral instincts
                  > of those who ask them, are beside the point. The point is that he did
                  > it. No possbility of error here; the documents, and what they do not
                  > contain, are unmistakable, and Joe eventually issued a public apology.
                  >
                  > My conclusion is that the risk of exposure doesn't operate equally on
                  > all persons, and that the immediate advantages to be gained by a
                  > strategic misrepresentation may sometimes outweigh the more remote
                  > risks of exposure. Scholars in all fields, not just NT (and I include
                  > my own field, Sinology) are very reluctant to acknowledge violations
                  > of probity, whether verbal or textual, and correspondingly hesitant to
                  > call things by their names. But this is just modern elite-discourse
                  > ethos; it has no weight as a guideline for historical investigation.
                  >
                  > I thus consider the veracity of Paul, especially on sensitive points
                  > concerning his qualifications to do what he was doing, and in the way
                  > he was doing it, may not be taken as given, but must be weighed
                  > against the historical and psychological probabilities.
                  >
                  > Bruce
                  >
                  > E Bruce Brooks
                  > Warring States Project
                  > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  Jeff, Forgiveness readily granted, but agreement still withheld. I do not think we can hope to understand ancient events on the prior and unexaminable
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 10, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jeff,

                    Forgiveness readily granted, but agreement still withheld. I do not
                    think we can hope to understand ancient events on the prior and
                    unexaminable assumption that everybody on the orthodox side (in the
                    view of the narrator of the moment, including the principals
                    themselves) always does as Jesus (in their view) would have wanted
                    them to do, and that only the bad people resort to strategic
                    misrepresentation.

                    Paul in Galatians says that the visit to Jerusalem "after fourteen
                    years" was at his initiative, to verify that his teachings were
                    orthodox. Ga 2:1-2. "Then after fourteen years I went up again to
                    Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. [2] I went up by
                    revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who
                    were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest
                    somehow I should be running, or had run, in vain."

                    Paul here represents himself as voluntarily, and indeed by personal
                    inspiration, seeking the opinion of Jerusalem as to the correctness of
                    his preaching. The initiative, that is, was entirely on his part.

                    Do you accept that? Or was he in any degree being called to account by
                    other entities?

                    Later in that same passage, Paul represents an amicable division of
                    mission fields, arrived at without argument, "when they saw that I had
                    been entrusted . . . and when they perceived the grace that was given
                    to me," Paul to have exclusive franchise for the Gentiles. Does that
                    agree with Paul's own conduct as he himself recounts it, in sometimes
                    preaching to Jews, or with the evidences, in and out of Paul, that his
                    and Peter's zone of activity and indeed of popularity continually
                    overlapped?

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Washington
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.