Why did Paul emphasize his independence from James?

[unshinbop]

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Galatians 1:15-20
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

All scholars are agreed that Paul was not content for others to think that he derived his authority solely from those who were apostles before him, but desired others to know that his apostleship was based on grounds independent of the original 11 apostles.

I was just wondering, why? If Paul had simply asserted that he learned the gospel from James and Peter the same way everybody else was supposed to learn it, how exactly would this have negatively impacted his ministry to the Gentiles?

If Galatians 2 is describing his attendance at the Council of Jerusalem, wouldn’t Paul’s quoting the Apostolic letter have been sufficient? If Galatians 2 is not describing the Council of Jerusalem, wouldn’t a statement from Paul that James disapproves of the Judaizers have sufficed? The Judaisers might claim Paul was dishonest, but how could they have survived with proof that the original 11 apostles disapproved of them?

And now the hard part: Given the above far more easy solutions to the Judaizer problem, would it be reasonable to say that Paul’s desire to maintain his independence from James, during the time of the Galatian Judaizer crisis, by addressing it with his own theological musings, hurt his alleged cause more than helped?

Why does Paul feel the need to be viewed as an equal to the apostles, when in fact his being viewed as their trusted but subordinate pupil would have sufficed for the purposes of restoring the Galatians?

My own theory is that James was the leader of the Judaizers, which placed Paul in a dilemma: Paul disagreed with the Judaizers so he disagreed with James. However, given James’s status as leader of the original church, Paul cannot just brush him aside as a heretic. Paul must walk a very fine line by both a) providing reasons why the Judaizers were wrong, but b) without directly criticizing James himself, whom all Christians would realize was indeed the head of the original church (James “renders a decision” in Acts 15, Peter would be the one to do that had he been the original post-resurrection leader). The Judaizer crisis starts when “men from James” arrive in town (Galatians 2:10-13).

This theory is confirmed by what most scholars call a mess of confusing greek and intentions in Galatians 2, where Paul tries to explain the false brothers whose spying required him to go present his gospel to James in Jerusalem. Paul refers to to the original apostles as “those who were reputed to be pillars”.

Can you imagine a Catholic who refers to the Pope by saying “that guy in Rome who is reputed to be the Catholic leader”? Paul is using obviously depreciating language to describe his view of James and Peter, but yet, he does not directly come right out and say they are wrong. Inexplicably, he ends up saying they gave him the right hands of fellowship, when in fact their approval of Paul should have been obvious years previous if they truly did approve of him. Hence, scholars continue to admit that what exactly Paul is trying to say is difficult to discern given the dilema of authority Paul placed himself in, and the Judaizer crisis he wished to plug his two cents into.

So, was Paul a heretic for wishing to be independent from the original apostles, when this could not have helped resolve the Judaizer crisis even if true?

 

[Tiberius1701]

All scholars are agreed that Paul was not content for others to think that he derived his authority solely from those who were apostles before him, but desired others to know that his apostleship was based on grounds independent of the original 11 apostles.

I was just wondering, why? If Paul had simply asserted that he learned the gospel from James and Peter the same way everybody else was supposed to learn it, how exactly would this have negatively impacted his ministry to the Gentiles?

…

So, was Paul a heretic for wishing to be independent from the original apostles, when this could not have helped resolve the Judaizer crisis even if true?

I’ll let more learned minds cover the finer points of this, but I think part of the point Paul was trying to make here is not that he’s depreciative of Peter and the Eleven, but that, in point of fact he didn’t learn the gospel from the Apostles: Paul was unique. He received the Gospel first from Christ Himself on the road to Damascus. Thus, if he “had simply asserted that he learned the gospel from James and Peter the same way everybody else was supposed to learn it,” then he’d be lying to the Gentiles and to anyone he allowed to believe that. He makes it very clear that, even before he’d met any of the original Apostles, he’d received the entirety of the Gospel of Christ, i.e. the Catholic Faith. Peter and the others “added nothing to [him]” because Jesus Himself had revealed it all before he met them. Obviously, if he had thus based his ministry on a lie, rather than telling them that Jesus taught him the Gospel, it would be very detrimental to his mission of preaching the Truth to them. You can’t base Truth on a lie…

Secondly, I’d just like to ask why you think St. James was the leader of the Judaizers when it was St. James himself who proposed drafting the letter to explain the Jerusalem council’s decision to the effect that the Judaizers were wrong. Your hypothesis just seems… highly illogical to me.

 

[unshinbop]

I’ll let more learned minds cover the finer points of this, but I think part of the point Paul was trying to make here is not that he’s depreciative of Peter and the Eleven, but that, in point of fact he didn’t learn the gospel from the Apostles: Paul was unique. He received the Gospel first from Christ Himself on the road to Damascus. Thus, if he “had simply asserted that he learned the gospel from James and Peter the same way everybody else was supposed to learn it,” then he’d be lying to the Gentiles and to anyone he allowed to believe that.

But the claim of independence creates so many problems (why claim independence if it is the same exact gospel? Why claim Jesus revealed to you in a vision that he rose from the dead, if you could get that much from reading the bible? Why tell the truth about a private religious experience when in fact such a thing can never be established sufficiently to prove that one is a divinely sanctioned “leader”?).

He makes it very clear that, even before he’d met any of the original Apostles, he’d received the entirety of the Gospel of Christ, i.e. the Catholic Faith. Peter and the others “added nothing to [him]” because Jesus Himself had revealed it all before he met them.

And even if that was true, he could have avoided problems with people not believing his stories of private religious experiences had he simply joined the apostles after his conversion on the road to Damascus, stayed in Jerusalem, and waited until he became an emmissary for Peter, James and John. My point is that Paul’s claims of independence do not make sense if his gospel was the exact same thing as James’s gospel, even if those religious experiences were true. Once again, I think that Paul knew James would never approve of his gospel, therefore Paul needed to preach independence. Paul never actually says James agreed with his gospel anyway…he merely says Peter, James and John gave him the right-hand of fellowship. I’ve known several Catholics that gave Mormons the right-hand of fellowship. They agreed there were serious differences, but that the need to preach the gospel outweighed those differences. Once again, James could have easily, for politically expedient reasons, sided with Paul against the Judaizers.

Obviously, if he had thus based his ministry on a lie, rather than telling them that Jesus taught him the Gospel, it would be very detrimental to his mission of preaching the Truth to them. You can’t base Truth on a lie…

Yes you can and Paul did this. Paul was truly NOT under the law, nevertheless, he was willing to lie and pretend to be under the law when in the company of those who viewed themselves as under the law, so he could gain converts, 1st Corinthians 9.

Secondly, I’d just like to ask why you think St. James was the leader of the Judaizers when it was St. James himself who proposed drafting the letter to explain the Jerusalem council’s decision to the effect that the Judaizers were wrong. Your hypothesis just seems… highly illogical to me.

Easy, I am an atheist, I don’t believe everything I read, especially when it comes to religious claims made in ancient documents (do you?), and I find that Paul’s claim of independence so problematic that it is more reasonable to take Acts 15 as pious fiction to help Paul, and make it look like he and James were more in agreement than they really were. Christians sometimes scoff and say I only believe the parts of the bible that support my theories but 1) what I “believe” in the bible is often nothing more than a concession to what my opponents believe simply so we can move the argument along and 2) I have independent reasons for saying those parts of the bible that don’t agree with my theories, are false. I do not simply say Acts 15 is fiction because it doesn’t support my theory. I have independent reasons why it is fiction (it doesn’t even deal with Judaizer arguments, it quotes two-opinion statements, that’s all, then it spills much ink recording what James and Peter said. Fair and balanced reporting, Acts 15 is not.

 

[WFS5801]

Why does Paul feel the need to be viewed as an equal to the apostles, when in fact his being viewed as their trusted but subordinate pupil would have sufficed for the purposes of restoring the Galatians?

St. Paul didn’t “feel the need to viewed as an equal” he proved by his credentials that he was an equal of the Apostles. The reason he did this was not to oppose the Church, but to correct a serious problem in the Galatian church by first showing he had the authority to do so. In other words, “Listen to what I tell you, my authority comes directly from our Lord.”

 

[Mintaka]

First, because in the ancient world, and even in the modern world in many professions, it’s important to be honest with people about exactly who your teachers were and how you got your schooling with them. It’s not a matter of bragging, or a matter of humility. It’s a matter of fact. It’s how people know whether to trust you or not. Knowing somebody’s lines of teachers, both in the Jewish rabbinical world and in the secular Greco-Roman world of philosophy, was vital to knowing who they were.

Second, if God does something amazing in your life and you are told that you’re allowed and encouraged to talk about it, it’s absolutely essential that you do so. (Unless you’re an ungrateful wretch who wants to suffer punishments of Biblical proportions, of course. As happened to people on occasion in the OT and NT.)

Paul had a unique conversion story in which he spoke personally with Jesus after His Ascension, was taught the doctrine of the Body of Christ, and then had a publicly verifiable healing when he got to Ananias’ place, after having been a terrible scourge to the Christian community. To tell people his story was giving glory and proper gratitude to God, even without any educational or theological impact on people hearing it. He also had an obligation to be honest and precise about which people in the Christian community subsequently trained him (from Ananias on), and about why he went out preaching (because he was sent).

He had to be honest about his relationship with James in particular, because Paul had lived and trained with Gamaliel in Jerusalem, and because James was the bishop in Jerusalem. They could have known each other well before all this Jesus stuff came along, and it would have been easy for people to assume that Paul was closely associated with James in Christian teaching lines. Probably they did assume that, which was why the issue came up in this stuff. But that’s not how it happened, so Paul had to make sure people knew that. (Whether it helped their opinion of him or hurt it.) Otherwise, it would have been just like he was lying about who his parents and relatives were. Your “intellectual relatives” were just as important a fact as that.

 

[passer_by]

All scholars are agreed that Paul was not content for others to think that he derived his authority solely from those who were apostles before him, but desired others to know that his apostleship was based on grounds independent of the original 11 apostles.

I was just wondering, why? If Paul had simply asserted that he learned the gospel from James and Peter the same way everybody else was supposed to learn it, how exactly would this have negatively impacted his ministry to the Gentiles?

If Galatians 2 is describing his attendance at the Council of Jerusalem, wouldn’t Paul’s quoting the Apostolic letter have been sufficient? If Galatians 2 is not describing the Council of Jerusalem, wouldn’t a statement from Paul that James disapproves of the Judaizers have sufficed? The Judaisers might claim Paul was dishonest, but how could they have survived with proof that the original 11 apostles disapproved of them?

And now the hard part: Given the above far more easy solutions to the Judaizer problem, would it be reasonable to say that Paul’s desire to maintain his independence from James, during the time of the Galatian Judaizer crisis, by addressing it with his own theological musings, hurt his alleged cause more than helped?

Why does Paul feel the need to be viewed as an equal to the apostles, when in fact his being viewed as their trusted but subordinate pupil would have sufficed for the purposes of restoring the Galatians?

My own theory is that James was the leader of the Judaizers, which placed Paul in a dilemma: Paul disagreed with the Judaizers so he disagreed with James. However, given James’s status as leader of the original church, Paul cannot just brush him aside as a heretic. Paul must walk a very fine line by both a) providing reasons why the Judaizers were wrong, but b) without directly criticizing James himself, whom all Christians would realize was indeed the head of the original church (James “renders a decision” in Acts 15, Peter would be the one to do that had he been the original post-resurrection leader). The Judaizer crisis starts when “men from James” arrive in town (Galatians 2:10-13).

This theory is confirmed by what most scholars call a mess of confusing greek and intentions in Galatians 2, where Paul tries to explain the false brothers whose spying required him to go present his gospel to James in Jerusalem. Paul refers to to the original apostles as “those who were reputed to be pillars”.

Can you imagine a Catholic who refers to the Pope by saying “that guy in Rome who is reputed to be the Catholic leader”? Paul is using obviously depreciating language to describe his view of James and Peter, but yet, he does not directly come right out and say they are wrong. Inexplicably, he ends up saying they gave him the right hands of fellowship, when in fact their approval of Paul should have been obvious years previous if they truly did approve of him. Hence, scholars continue to admit that what exactly Paul is trying to say is difficult to discern given the dilema of authority Paul placed himself in, and the Judaizer crisis he wished to plug his two cents into.

So, was Paul a heretic for wishing to be independent from the original apostles, when this could not have helped resolve the Judaizer crisis even if true?

You have to remember that Paul still did talk to the Apostles about his gospel. He mentions it clearly in Galatians 2.

What Paul is saying here is that he had no reason to doubt his experience on his way to Damascus and therefore he does not doubt the gospel that was given to him by Christ that day. In other words, he doesn’t need a second opinion on whether what he saw was true or false.

The key to remember though is that St. Paul DID present his gospel to the 11 for approval (Galatians 2:2). Nowadays we have many who would claim personal experiences and use it as evidence to draw themselves away or stay separated from the church. Instead, we should all follow the example of St. Paul who even after a personal experience many of ours don’t even come close to, presented it to the church to see if it was in line with Church teaching.

Further, in Acts 15:2, we see St. Paul once again turning to the Authority of the Church.

In short, this shows how much we should submit to the teaching Authority of the Church just like St. Paul.

 

[unshinbop]

St. Paul didn’t “feel the need to viewed as an equal” he proved by his credentials that he was an equal of the Apostles.

I seriously doubt that he “proved” any such thing. The Galatians were certainly so little impressed that they left him for the Judaizer gospel (Galatians 1:6-7). We cannot talk about Paul “proving” anything about himself to his contemporaries until we talk about why his opponents were so successful.

The reason he did this was not to oppose the Church, but to correct a serious problem in the Galatian church by first showing he had the authority to do so. In other words, “Listen to what I tell you, my authority comes directly from our Lord.”

That’s probably the same thing the Judaizers said. Why should anybody alive today think Paul was more honest than any of his first-century opponents?

 

[unshinbop]

First, because in the ancient world, and even in the modern world in many professions, it’s important to be honest with people about exactly who your teachers were and how you got your schooling with them. It’s not a matter of bragging, or a matter of humility. It’s a matter of fact. It’s how people know whether to trust you or not. Knowing somebody’s lines of teachers, both in the Jewish rabbinical world and in the secular Greco-Roman world of philosophy, was vital to knowing who they were.

I’d say the first sign that somebody is a quack is that they explain their absence of learning the hard way in their past, with a story about being ordained “by God”.

Second, if God does something amazing in your life and you are told that you’re allowed and encouraged to talk about it, it’s absolutely essential that you do so. (Unless you’re an ungrateful wretch who wants to suffer punishments of Biblical proportions, of course. As happened to people on occasion in the OT and NT.)
Paul had a unique conversion story in which he spoke personally with Jesus after His Ascension, was taught the doctrine of the Body of Christ, and then had a publicly verifiable healing when he got to Ananias’ place, after having been a terrible scourge to the Christian community. To tell people his story was giving glory and proper gratitude to God, even without any educational or theological impact on people hearing it. He also had an obligation to be honest and precise about which people in the Christian community subsequently trained him (from Ananias on), and about why he went out preaching (because he was sent).

I think you are missing my point. If Paul’s gospel is the same as James’s, then there would have been no reason whatsoever for Jesus to have told Paul to get thee out of Jerusalem quickly. God can appear to and commission whoever he wants, but the details in Paul’s story strongly suggest that he needed a pretext to justify being independent of the apostles. Once again, why all the fuss after he converted? What’s this nonsense about “get thee out of Jerusalem quickly”? That is sort of like a Christian getting saved in the Catholic church, and then having a vision where Jesus says “get thee out of the Catholic church quickly, because they will not believe your testimony about me.” Nobody would assert such a thing except a fraud. And if that person actually believed everything Catholics believe, then there is no basis for needing to assert independence from the Catholic church.

He had to be honest about his relationship with James in particular, because Paul had lived and trained with Gamaliel in Jerusalem, and because James was the bishop in Jerusalem. They could have known each other well before all this Jesus stuff came along, and it would have been easy for people to assume that Paul was closely associated with James in Christian teaching lines. Probably they did assume that, which was why the issue came up in this stuff. But that’s not how it happened, so Paul had to make sure people knew that. (Whether it helped their opinion of him or hurt it.) Otherwise, it would have been just like he was lying about who his parents and relatives were. Your “intellectual relatives” were just as important a fact as that.

But my point is that the position which says Paul and James preached the exact same gospel, removes any need whatsoever for Paul to assert his independence. Even if his vision stories are true, so what? Have your vision of Jesus, then go to Jerusalem and make sure the heavenly voice squares up with what the undisputed leaders are saying (learn from them), then go evangelize. I’m sorry, Paul’s desire to assert his independence form James simply does not make sense except on the theory that he wished to change Christianity just a little bit and then promote his version of it to the Gentiles. When I read in Acts that Jesus told Paul to get out of Jerusalem quickly “I will send thee far hence to the Gentiles”, that just screams “fraud!”.

 

[unshinbop]

You have to remember that Paul still did talk to the Apostles about his gospel. He mentions it clearly in Galatians 2.

Unfortunately, his story cannot be verified, and given that Galatia was at least 500 miles from Jerusalem, no skeptic in Paul’s Galatian church could have checked Paul’s story. A first-century trip to Jerusalem would be costly and dangerous for the entire family. Hence, the only people that would likely convert to Paul far outside Jerusalem are those who blindly believe him.

What Paul is saying here is that he had no reason to doubt his experience on his way to Damascus and therefore he does not doubt the gospel that was given to him by Christ that day. In other words, he doesn’t need a second opinion on whether what he saw was true or false.

But the whole “road to Damascus event” has the ring of falsity to it. I can see Jesus appearing to him to make him see truth and become a Christian. I cannot see the need to tell this person to get out of Jerusalem and go far hence to the Gentiles. That sounds like an excuse cooked up by Paul so that he could peddle his changed form of Christianity without undue inference from the original 11 disciples. I guess his plan didn’t work out concerning the Galatian churches.

The key to remember though is that St. Paul DID present his gospel to the 11 for approval (Galatians 2:2).

Paul’s excuse (that is was because of false brothers spying out his liberty) makes no sense, though. If they were truly false brothers, then what they reproted back to James would never have been believed by James. IMO, those whom Paul calls false brothers, were actually emmisaries from James himself, who threatened to report Paul’s doctrine to James. Paul then went to Jerusalem to present his gospel to James. The fact that he was unsure whether he had the true gospel is proven where he said “lest by any means I ran, or had run, in vain”. If Paul was positive that James would approve of his gospel, then 1) what running in vain did he fear might be proven? and 2) he would never have left his mission field to go prove himself against the testimony of “false” brothers.

Nowadays we have many who would claim personal experiences and use it as evidence to draw themselves away or stay separated from the church. Instead, we should all follow the example of St. Paul who even after a personal experience many of ours don’t even come close to, presented it to the church to see if it was in line with Church teaching.

Lots of converts means lots of money coming into the tithing buckets. And Paul allegedly sent a love gift of money to Jerusalem. I really have to wonder, if there is any truth at all to the NT account, whether James only agreed with Paul due to a bribe. We cannot forget about the sin nature and how it acts up when a sinner is exalted to a place of leadership. We see such people fall mightily all the time.

Further, in Acts 15:2, we see St. Paul once again turning to the Authority of the Church. In short, this shows how much we should submit to the teaching Authority of the Church just like St. Paul.

I am an atheist. I believe Paul was a liar, and much of what is written in Acts is also lies. to make Paul and James look more in agreement than they really were.

 

[WFS5801]

I seriously doubt that he “proved” any such thing. The Galatians were certainly so little impressed that they left him for the Judaizer gospel (Galatians 1:6-7). We cannot talk about Paul “proving” anything about himself to his contemporaries until we talk about why his opponents were so successful.

You’re getting the order mixed up here. The problem was the Judaizers – a pre-existing problem. St. Paul’s appeal was to his authority, directly granted to him by Christ and that comes later in his letter to the Galatians. So, as any good debater would do, he first highlights the problem and then provides the solution. You seem to think the introduction to the letter was the final argument and outcome of the St. Paul’s epistle. At any rate, you’ve made my argument. St. Paul appealed to his authority (whether the Galatians accepted it or not), which is why he mentioned that he learned directly under Christ.

That’s probably the same thing the Judaizers said. Why should anybody alive today think Paul was more honest than any of his first-century opponents?

“Probably” what the Judaizers said? So you really don’t know, do you? I know St. Paul was more honest than his Judaizing opponents, he was an Apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have the testimony of the Church, I don’t really care about the “probability” suppositions of a modern day skeptic.

 

[unshinbop]

“Probably” what the Judaizers said? So you really don’t know, do you? I know St. Paul was more honest than his Judaizing opponents, he was an Apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have the testimony of the Church, I don’t really care about the “probability” suppositions of a modern day skeptic.

I don’t know why you think the testimony of the church is relevent to this debate, according to your own bible, Paul admitted that he would lie and pretend to be an orthodox Jew when in the company of orthodox Jews, so that he could win more converts:

1 Corinthians 9:19-22
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Would you pretend to view works and salvation in the false manner that a person of some other religion does? If so, then you are willing to give a false impression about what you really believe merely to win converts. It’s a politician’s game called “playing to the crowd”.

If Paul truly believed that the law is no longer in force, then his accepting James’ advice in Acts 21 and pretending to still believe the law was in force (“then they will know that thou walkest orderly, keeping the law”) was nothing less than the giving of a false impression. If Acts is telling the truth about the rumor on Paul they heard, all Paul had to do with verbally tell them that it wasn’t true. The fact that James thinks his converts are so hard-headed that they won’t believe Paul without a public demonstration either means the original converts to the apostles were idiots who might believe any rumor that came along, or there were excellent reasons for believing that rumor about Paul was true.

It is ridiculous to think that among that mix of Gentiles and othodox Jews who followed Christ, a ruckus about Gentile circumcision would never have been raised and answered by Jesus before he died. In Acts 15, James and Peter never depend on the answer Jesus surely gave to this issue before. They quote the old testament as if this was some new issue the church had never dealt with before, requiring a first-time answer, which is ludicrous.