Part I
Did Paul really submit to the so-called “Twelve”
Apostles?
By James M. West.
Copyright © Sept. 22, revised
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
Back in the days of the Catholic Fathers
early Christianity was a deeply divided movement. Based on what the Fathers
reported, early Christians often shared little in common other than the name
“Christian” and a belief in someone named “Jesus.” Aside from this, the early
“Christian” movement had no unity or sense of itself. The early Christian
movement was divided among numerous dissenting sects which disagreed radically
on even the most fundamental dogmas. Thus one Christian’s “Creator God” was
another Christian’s “devil.” And one Christian’s “flesh and blood” Messiah was
another Christian’s other-worldly phantom. Some Christians believed that Jesus
came to save the flesh; others believed He came to destroy the flesh. Some
Christians believed that Jesus wanted his followers to obey the Law of Moses;
others believed that Jesus came to destroy the Law. Some Christians believed
that the Law was given by God; others said this Law was given by lower angels
who opposed God. Indeed no other religious movement in history was so
profoundly divided as were the early Christians.
Yet another issue which divided early
Christians was the basic concept of history. What was the history of the
early Church and the Apostles? What did the Apostles teach—and did they agree
on what Jesus taught? Who was the most important of the Apostles? Was it
Peter?—or Paul? Were Peter and Paul brothers in the ministry? —or were they
enemies? Once again early Christians were divided over these kinds of questions
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.13f., 15; Tertullian, On Prescription
Against Heretics, 23f.).
The writings of
the Catholic Fathers provide a valuable historic record of one faction—the
Catholic Church—which tried to provide the ‘correct’ answers to all these questions,
whether they concerned history or theology. All of the ‘correct’ answers came
to be known as “orthodoxy” and all of the wrong answers came to be known as
“heresy” —meaning that all the wrong answers were derived from the numerous “sectarian”
churches or factions. Our word “sect” is the modern English equivalent of the
ancient Greek word for sect(s) “aireseis” (=heresies). Today
“heresy” is synonymous with wrong or evil doctrine. In ancient times it was
associated with the ‘wrong’ or ‘evil’ doctrines which were taught by other
sects which also called themselves “Christians” and who professed to
know the sacred history of the Gospel. The Catholic Father Tertullian described
the word “heresy” also in terms of the word choice, which is another
meaning of the word. This refers to the notion that sectarians split from the
original church and doctrine because they chose to believe something
different (Tertullian, ibid., 6).
In opposition to all the other “Christians”
(i.e. the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, etc.) the Catholic Fathers advanced
their ‘correct’ version of history which they referred to as the “tradition of
the Apostles” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.1., Tertullian, On
Prescription Against Heretics, 20, 21; see archive Mission Statement,
note 1). Also referred to as the “Apostolic Tradition”, this term refers to the
standard theology and history which are at the foundation of all Christian
orthodoxy. This “tradition” maintains that all the Apostles were 1) in complete
agreement on the doctrine that Jesus taught, 2) that Jesus was a “flesh and
blood” being, and 3) that Jesus revealed no other God above the Creator as
the heretics often insisted. The Apostles in turn imparted this ‘correct’
tradition to their disciples who are designated, according to tradition, as the
“Apostolic Fathers” (e.g. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias,
Polycarp of Smyrna, etc.). The “Apostolic Fathers” were those men who
supposedly spent their youth in the company of the Apostles and learned
directly from them; and who in turn handed the ‘correct’ tradition down through
a succession of Catholic bishops.
On the historical
record Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202) was the first Catholic writer to set
forth this concept of an Apostolic Tradition and succession (Irenaeus, ibid.,
3.2.2–3). It must be noted of course that Irenaeus’s concepts were directed
against other traditions which were advanced by the “Gnostics” and other
heretical groups who had their own versions of the “Apostolic Tradition” (e.g.
Ptolemy, Letter to Flora)[1]. Irenaeus’s basic summary of the ‘correct’ Apostolic
history and theology is described in the following words:
“For
after our Lord rose from the dead, the apostles were invested with power from
on high…who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.
Matthew issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while
Peter and Paul were preaching at
I wish to stress the point to my readers
that that the whole “orthodox” notion of history has its beginning with the
words of Irenaeus above (A. Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 2, pg. 16;
W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, pg. 151;
Eusebius, Church History, 4:21). Moreover, Irenaeus is the first to
quote the New Testament Gospels and Epistles by all the names we know today.
Irenaeus is the first to quote scripture by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John, and to quote all of Paul’s letters by name. Before him the Gospels
are never quoted by name in the literature of the Apostolic Fathers. Justin
Martyr, who lived in the generation before Irenaeus, quoted the Gospels as
“memoirs of the Apostles” but never by name (Harnack, ibid., pg. 41). Only with
Irenaeus do these writings all of a sudden have names—although the extant
manuscripts to this day have no one’s name on them. Nonetheless, since the time
of Irenaeus the four New Testament Gospels, being anonymous in and of
themselves, have been regarded exclusively as authoritative witnesses to the
original Apostolic Tradition. (Irenaeus makes his case for these writings in
book
It must also be noted that Irenaeus is
the first on the historical record to introduce and quote the “Acts of the
Apostles” in support of his “tradition” (ibid., 3.13.3f.). There are of
course numerous problems with the book of Acts as used by Irenaeus. First,
there is no record of the existence of this book before him. Second, there is
no evidence by which to verify that this book (and the Gospel section) were
written by a companion of Paul named “Luke” as Irenaeus claims (ibid.). Third,
and most important, is that the account of the early Church in Acts does not
match with Paul’s account as recorded in his letters, viz. Galatians and
Corinthians [2]. The lack of harmony in these accounts is our primary concern
here. The Acts account provides a picture of the early church that is ideal,
and in which there is little in the way of controversy. Paul and the “twelve”
Apostles are portrayed as working together, and Paul has a subsidiary role; whereas
in Paul’s letters the opposite is true (see below).
The differences between these sources in
turn carry profound historical and theological implications—just as much today
as in Roman times. Behind this is the essential question of authority. Who
indeed possesses the true doctrine of Jesus which was handed down by His
Apostles? Was it the Catholic clergy with their four conflicting and anonymous
Gospels/Acts? —or was it the Gnostics and their secret tradition? Or was the
true doctrine imparted through Paul alone as the Marcionites insisted? Or was
Paul to be blamed for profaning the Gospel, as the Ebionites insisted? (E.g.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.26.2) The Jewish Ebionites insisted that
the true doctrine was imparted by the “Twelve” only, via “Matthew”, and that
the only true Christians were those who remained steadfast in the Law of Moses
(Mt. 5:17f.).
What I have just described are the four
main historical factions within early Christianity, and the diverse and
conflicting concepts of Apostolic history and authority that they
embraced. Everyone knows of course that the Catholic version of the ‘tradition’
eventually won the popular consensus. This consensus was eventually established
as the law of the Catholic Roman state; and to question this tradition, or to
espouse contrary views, meant jail time or exile (or worse). However, to this
day neither popular opinion nor the rule of law can resolve one simple question
regarding the Apostolic Tradition: Is this tradition based on a unity that can
be found in the New Testament? Were Paul and Peter really buddies who preached
the “Gospel” together at
Let us now take a look at the evidence
and see whether Acts provides a coherent account that is consistent with Paul’s
own account, in his own words. An obvious problem is the blatant contradiction
between the Acts account of Paul’s conversion, and his first visit to the
In Acts 9 we learn that Paul was
miraculously converted while on the way to
Paul’s stay at
According to Acts 9 the time-span from
Paul’s arrival to
There is a major difference between the
testimony of Acts and the testimony of Paul. Acts says that Paul was in
Yet in the Acts account of Paul’s visit
to
Another discrepancy of note is the Acts
account of Peter’s ministry to the Gentiles. The problem here is that according
to Paul, in Galatians, there was no such ministry. And Paul makes the following
statement regarding his second visit to
“But
contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcised was committed
unto me, as the gospel of the circumcised was unto Peter; (8) [for he that
worked effectively in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcised, the same
worked effectively through me toward the Gentiles] (9) And when James, Peter
and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given
unto me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we
should go to the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcised.” (Emphasis added.
Note: verse 8 in brackets is a creed inserted later by a scribe [5].)
And following this passage is the
infamous account of how Peter and his fellow Jews withdrew the right-hand of
fellowship toward Paul and his non-Jewish and uncircumcised converts at
According to Paul’s testimony in
Galatians, Peter preached only to Jews and was unwilling to even accept
uncircumcised non-Jews into the church. Yet according to Acts the opposite is
true. And in Acts 11 there is an eloquent speech attributed to Peter in which
he defends his ministry to the Gentiles. Yet according to Paul there was no
such ministry on Peter’s part; which means that this speech never happened. If
we are to believe what Acts says, then there should have been no controversy as
that in Galatians: because the whole circumcision controversy had already been
resolved by Peter; who was already preaching to the Gentiles before Paul made
his second trip to Jerusalem to resolve the issue (cf. Gal. 2:1–10, Acts 15).
Acts 15 covers Paul’s second visit to
Briefly we must note that both Acts and
Galatians indicate, and agree, that James was the leader (or bishop) of the
A further problem with the credibility
of Acts appears in chapter 10, and which further calls into question the
historical veracity of Peter’s ministry to the gentiles. This is in regard to
Acts 10:9–28 where Peter has the vision and the revelation that he is to begin
preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. This passage contradicts Luke 24:47 where
Jesus stated His intent that the gospel was to be preached to the gentiles, but
only that the Apostles were to wait for the Holy Spirit (Lk. 24:49, Acts 2:1–4).
Moreover in Mark
The scriptural comparisons above clearly
show that Acts is at odds with the Gospels as well as with Paul in Galatians.
The next problem to be addressed is
whether Paul upheld the Apostolic edict toward the gentiles as recorded in Acts
15:29. This is in reference to the final pronouncement by James at the council
which took place during Paul’s second visit to
“That
ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do
well.” (Acts
The problem of course is that Paul does
not recall the agreement this way in Galatians 2. Paul tells the Galatians
(swearing all the while that he is telling the truth) that the only requirement
was that “we remember the poor” (Gal.
At this point it will be helpful to
understand the purpose behind Paul’s letter to the Galatian churches, and why
Paul was compelled to swear to them that he was telling the truth. Emissaries
had been sent from
According to his account, Paul returned
to
For reasons I have explained above, I
see no reason to believe that Peter ever had a ministry to the gentiles, and
that the more plausible historical reality is that Peter and the Jewish Church
had always been concerned solely with preaching to Jews. Peter seems to have
accepted Paul as a fellow missionary and the notion of a gentile wing to the
Church. But this agreement later fell apart at
At this point I will state my suspicion
as to why the edict in Acts
Getting back to the edict in Acts 15:29,
I want to address the question of whether Paul upheld that edict as Acts
reports. The first point of the edict is that gentiles abstain from meats
offered to idols. An example of Paul’s position can be seen in these words from
1 Corinthians 8:9–11:
“But
take heed lest by any means this liberty of your’s become a stumbling block to
them that are weak. For if any man see you which has knowledge (gnosis) eating
meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be
emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through your
knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died?”
Obviously the concern of Paul has
nothing to do with obedience to the ordinances of either the Law or the edict
of the Apostles. And it is evident that Paul specifically allowed for certain
members of the
The reality is that there is no evidence
in any of Paul’s letters that he enforced an edict from the Apostles which prohibited
the eating of meat which originated from idol sacrifices. Paul’s concern was
not about the meat itself, but about who might get offended; hence the
statement in 1 Corinthians
Paul’s own words show that he allowed
the eating of sacrificial meat: which was forbidden in the Law of Moses and the
Noahide ordinances, and by edict of the Apostles. Thus what tradition expressly
forbids as unclean or unlawful, Paul responds with the notion that “all things are lawful.” Hence Paul’s decisions on whatever
he chooses to indulge in, or avoid, is not dictated by the Law, but by whether
or not a given activity is spiritually edifying. Paul’s statements could be
construed to mean that the traditional ordinances were to be regarded with
indifference. Thus we read in 1 Corinthians 8:8,
“But
meat commendeth us not to God: for neither if we eat, are we the better;
neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.”
In short, Paul’s doctrine and reasoning
do not reflect the Apostolic standard as reported in Acts. In the same vein,
Irenaeus attacked the Valentinians for eating meat sacrificed to idols, “…they
make no scruple about eating meats sacrificed to idols, imagining in this way
that they can contract no defilement” (Against Heresies, 1.6.3). Yet
Paul’s own words in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 show that Paul himself did not live
up to the standards of Irenaeus and the “tradition” that he sought to impose on
all Christians everywhere (ibid., 1.10). The Catholic Fathers quote Acts 15:29,
but Paul’s letters actually say something different.
In some respects Paul’s logic is also
applicable to the question of his position on the issue of fornication.
Certainly there is language in the letters in which Paul states plainly that he
is opposed to fornication. But then Paul on this occasion also expresses
extraneous rhetoric to the effect that “all things are lawful” (e.g. 1 Cor.
6:12f). Why doesn’t Paul just condemn fornication as unlawful and sinful and
leave it at that? Why the qualification? (See my article On the Ethics of
St. Paul.)
Overall, the evidence in Paul’s letters
shows that he was not concerned with any edict from the Apostles as alleged in
Acts 15:29. And the Galatian letter basically amounts to Paul’s declaration of
independence from the 12 and the
Paul’s ongoing conflict with the
Acts vs. Paul in history
The inherent problems between Acts and
the writings of Paul were also part of the historic controversy between the
Catholic Fathers and the Gnostic/Marcionite factions. The Catholic Fathers
appealed to Acts in order to oppose the heretical view of Paul. In this case,
the Catholic Fathers had to address a persuasive Gnostic argument which alleged
that Paul had been a Gnostic sage who worked independently of the 12 Apostles
and was spiritually superior to them. On the basis of this formula the Gnostics
used Paul as a vehicle by which to establish the apostolic authority of their
doctrine over against the Catholic clergy: The latter claimed its authority via
an established line of apostolic
succession which supposedly went back to a unified group of Apostles which
included Paul. The clergy maintained that Paul and the other Apostles were
unified, and that they preached the same orthodox doctrine (i.e. the “Apostolic
Tradition”).
Paul was useful to the Gnostic cause
because of such controversial statements as found in Galatians 1:1, where Paul
described himself as an Apostle “not of
men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ…” And in verses 11 and 12 Paul
expressly denied that he received his gospel
from any man, i.e. Peter or the other Apostles. For the Gnostics Paul’s
statement would constitute a negation of the institution of Apostolic
succession; and his testimony in Galatians was construed to mean that any man
could have a revelation directly from the risen Christ and become an apostle.
The approval of the ‘Twelve’ was not needed: nor was there any need for the
approval of the Catholic clergy.
The Gnostics also tied Paul’s
independent status into the notion that he rejected the traditional theology of
the Jewish Church. And they would have recognized Paul’s spiritual independence
from both the Jewish tradition and apostolic authority in his rejection of the
Law of Moses; which was in turn imputed to symbolize his covert rejection of
the Creator of the world. This was the basic theological spin which the
Gnostics placed on the history of Paul and his doctrine. It was therefore
necessary for the Catholic Fathers to counter all evidence in the Pauline letters
which might support the Gnostic view of Paul: which the latter used effectively
to lure proselytes away from the Catholic Church and into the Gnostic schools;
and into the worship of a God other than the Creator of the world. In order to
refute the heretical interpretation it was necessary that the Fathers
demonstrate that Paul had been in submission to the original 12 Apostles. This
would in turn validate the institution of Apostolic succession, and the Apostolic Tradition itself, and
thereby refute the Gnostic claim to apostolic authority via the example of Paul
and the notion of his independent ministry to the Gentiles.
Again the book of Acts was the primary
document which the Catholic Fathers used to validate their ‘correct’ view of
history. (In my view it is no coincidence that Acts was first quoted in history
in direct reference to this conflict.) But the use of Acts also led to certain
awkward problems: and this points back to the fact that Acts and Galatians do
not really fit together, and that somebody is not telling the truth. The result
is that the Catholic Fathers were forced to twist Paul’s words in order to
force him into harmony with Acts. An example can be seen with the Catholic
Father Clement of
In regard to the question of meat left
from idol sacrifices Paul advises in 1 Corinthians 10:25, “Whatsoever is sold in the meat-market, that eat, asking no question for
conscience sake…” But Clement’s reading and interpretation of the same
passage are remarkably different:
“For
the Apostle says All other things buy out
of the meat-market, asking no questions with the exception of the things
mentioned in the Catholic epistle of all the apostles… which is written in the Acts of the Apostles, and conveyed to
the faithful by the hand of Paul himself. For they (the Apostles) intimated that they must of necessity abstain from
things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication, from which keeping themselves, they should do well (Acts
In Clement’s statement it is obvious
that 1 Corinthians 10:25 has been interpolated and subjected to Acts 15:29, and
thereby Clement maintains the orthodox consensus that Paul was in submission to
the Twelve. However, this consensus is maintained only upon violence done to
the passage. Thus Clement has forced Paul to say that the Corinthians can buy
anything in the market except meat
sacrificed to idols; whereas Paul in fact said that it is ok to buy the meat,
just don’t ask where it came from.
A more bizarre twist in Clement’s
exegesis is that he justified his misrepresentation of Paul in accordance with
the exact same principle by which Paul justified the partaking of idol meats: gnosis. Thus, according to Clement, Paul
obeyed the injunction of the Apostles because “not all have gnosis and lest our liberty prove a stumbling block to
the weak. For by your gnosis he that is weak is destroyed” (i.e. 1 Cor.
8:9–11; ibid.). Clement’s twist on Paul’s gnosis was of course designed to
rescue Paul from the heretical theology which the Gnostics believed was implied
in Paul’s rhetoric. The word “gnosis” in this case referred to Paul’s belief
that the Law of Moses was “ordained by angels” and was not from the supreme
Being (Gal.
Another example of such twisting can be
seen in the way that both Irenaeus and Tertullian twisted Paul’s words in
Galatians 2:5. In this case the purpose was to prove that Paul did submit to the Apostles and allowed
his gentile companion Titus to be circumcised. Thus in Gal. 2:5 both Fathers
removed the negative “not” so that the passage read “to whom we did yield by subjection…” whereas all
manuscripts accepted by orthodox churches today read “to whom we did not yield…” In both cases Irenaeus and
Tertullian twisted the passage in order to refute the Gnostics and Marcionites,
and to establish that Paul did submit
to the 12. Of course this is not what Paul said; and no orthodox theologian or
historian engages in these tactics today. Obviously Irenaeus and Tertullian
could not rely on the scriptures for what they wanted to establish in terms of
a ‘correct’ historical account. Paul’s words do not fit the consensus in Acts
and cannot be used in full, consistent support of the Apostolic Tradition
without twisting in the process. (See Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul,
pg. 104; see also Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.16.2; Tertullian, On
the Flesh of Christ, 19)
In direct conflict with Paul’s position,
in Galatians 2:5, is the report in Acts that Paul circumcised Timothy
(Timotheos; Acts 16:1–3). Yet in Paul’s own testimony, under oath, he vehemently
refused to circumcise Titus because he believed it was a compromise against
everything that Christ died for: “that the truth of the Gospel might continue
with you” (Gal. 2:5). Can we really believe the book of Acts when it reports
that Paul made such a compromise in regard to Timothy—when Paul’s position is
so passionately stated in his own words?
The contrast between Paul’s testimony
and the book of Acts constitutes an irreconcilable account of ‘Christian’
history. The book of Acts portrays the early church and its leaders as a
unified institution: but Paul’s testimony shows that the opposite was true.
Paul’s testimony shows that there was no original apostolic consensus or unity.
Moreover this lack of cohesion is evident in certain other New Testament
sources and themes when these are compared with Paul. One of the most obvious
examples is the diverse teachings on the Law as found in the Gospel of Matthew
and Paul’s letters. In Matthew 5 and 19 Jesus teaches that the Law is the path
to salvation, and that his followers should obey it. Whereas Paul teaches that
no salvation can come through obedience to the Law. Hence the Apostle wrote: “Therefore
by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified” and “Christ has
become of no effect unto you; those of you who are justified by the Law, ye are
fallen from grace” (Rom.
In part II of this series we will look
at the similarities and differences between Paul’s letters, the book of Acts,
and the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. In this presentation
we will see how that Paul’s letters and the Clementines tend to
corroborate each other, and together contradict the book of Acts. This
interrelationship will show once again that the real history of the Apostles
and their doctrine(s) was something radically different than the ideal picture
that “orthodox” Christians derive from the dubious book of Acts. –jw
Notes
1] Ptolemy writes
to Flora that the Gnostic secrets will be revealed to her if she is “judged
worthy of the apostolic tradition which we too have received by
succession” (Letter to Flora, B. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, pg.
314). Numerous books in the Nag Hammadi Library portray Jesus as
imparting secret Gnostic teachings to his Apostles. Many of the Gnostic texts
are named accordingly; hence there is the Apocryphon (“secret book”) of
James, the Apocryphon of John, the Book of Thomas the Contender
to the Perfect (Initiates), the Apocalypse of James, and the Apocalypse
of Peter (Apocalypse = revealing of secrets). The Gospel of Mary also
contains this theme where Jesus imparts a secret teaching to Mary Magdalene
just as he has done with the other apostles. See my archive article Orthodoxy,
Heresy & Jesus, IV: The Fullness of the Gospel.
2] Tradition
tells us that Paul’s intimate friend Luke wrote the Acts account. But critics
have expressed doubt on the basis that the Acts account of Paul’s life,
ministry and doctrine cannot be reconciled with Paul’s writings: e.g. W.
Kümmel, Introduction to the NT, pp.
181f., 183. R. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the NT.,
pg. 145f. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the
Apostles, pg. 133.
3] My
presentation on the conflict between Paul and Acts is based in part on the
research of the late Unitarian theologian Arthur Powell Davies and his
excellent book The First Christian: A study of
4] Of note is
that Paul never writes of this incredible conversion experience: which is
repeated three times in Acts, and each time the story changes (cf. Acts 9:1–8,
22:4–11, 26:13–18). Would we accept such testimony in court where we swear our
oaths on the Bible?
5] The phrase in
Gal. 2:8, “for he that worked effectively in Peter to the apostleship of the
circumcised, the same worked effectively through me toward the Gentiles” is
more than likely a creed added by a later “orthodox” scribe—with the purpose of
uniting Paul and Peter. The clue to this is the conflicting context between the
statement above as compared with Paul’s statement in verse 9 that Peter
“seemed” to be one of the “pillars.” If Paul really believed that Christ
“worked effectively in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcised” then
there would be no question that Peter was one of the “pillars” or leaders of
the church at
By James M. West, Copyright © September 22, revised
Readers
can e-mail their comments, etc., to me at ogdood@yahoo.com