Talk:Council of Jerusalem/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Council of Jerusalem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

opening comments

Peter also opposed the practice of circumcision in the first century. His name has been added to that of Paul.

Actually, you added back a whole bunch of irrelevant information about circumcision, as the various Catholic anti-circumcision ranters have been wont to do on a number of pages. However, this is a page about the Council of Jerusalem, not your personal crusade against circumcision. Jayjg 02:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Basic information on the nature of circumcision and the dominant Hellinistic culture is necessary for full understanding.Truthbomber

Everyone knows what circumcision is, and in the unlikely case that someone doesn't, they can click on the linked word in the article. Insertion of this irrelevant material is only necessary for you to continue your personal crusade against circumcision, and detracts from the article. Jayjg 23:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have done a good condensation and a removal of irrelevant material that was inserted in the article by others. Truthbomber

Noahide laws

Jayjg: If the statement about the Noahide laws is to stay, we need a citation to support the statement. Christian Knight 00:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's actually a fairly ancient view; the first citation I can find is by Jacob Emden in the 17th century[1]. Other people who make this linkage: [[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the Catholic Encyclopedia also making this linkage: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

Isn't Acts 15:16-18 (Jer12:15,14:9,Amos9:11-12,Is45:21,63:19,Deut28:10,Dan9:19,James2:7) making the linkage?

Noahide#Christian_criticism

PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCE AND VERIFICATION

Please verify this information: "However, the council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against fornication and idol worshipping." Where do you find that the council retained this in the bible? I think that it is preety clear that this was not the case in 1 Corinthinans 8 where paul does not lay down a legal law but a law of love that is accorodance with the law of the spriti that frees man from all laws pertaining to meriting righteousness. In this situation the Judaizers are telling the chrisitians at Corinth that they cannot eat meat sacrificed to idols. Pauls pint is most clearly seen in 1 Corinthians 10:25-27 "Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake; FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake." If Paul were establishing this as a rule of Holiness then he would tell them to besure that nothing was taken that was polutted by idols but he is not. He clearly states that all is the Lords. In verses 28-30 he institutes a rule of love saying, "But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? He makes clear three things:

1. It is for the sake of the other's conscience, the one who is weak that tou abstain from foods becuase by partaking of these foods it causes a brother to stumble.

2. Paul lays out or freedom in Christ freedom from all laws concerning purity on the basis of Christ's imparted righteousness, Christians are not under the law.:

3. Paul makes clear that all is to be done to the glory of God and that comes most clearly in verse 31, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." Paul concludes this chapter simpling it is God's will that His church be built up and grow, in love, but if your liberty in Christ causes your brother sin then you are not acting in love toward your brother.

Therefore, I think this sentence needs to be verified.

You're talking about Paul's views, not those of the Council of Jerusalem. Clearly they differed, and the New Testament accounts do not show the Council removing the other prohibitions. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I have done considerable thinking on this issue and I agree the council did not change their position on the guide lines given to the people. There are 3 misunderstandings conveyed through by the current wording.

1) First James was not at odds with the other apostles on this issue. Notice 15:26 “It seemed good to us, having become of one mind to..." This is not a statement of dissention but clearly uniformity. one mind in Greek is Homothumadon which means with one will or with one accord. The letter was drawn by the Apostles and Elders (v.22)"with one accord," thus, the apostles were not split on this issue but were together and in agreement. v. 28 that they had been brought to one accord by the Holy Spirit who was pleased to do so. Therefore, we should understand that they were in agreement and made so by the one true living God.

2) It should be made clear that the council is responding to the Judaizers "to who we[the apostles] gave no instruction"(acts 15:24) had been placing the law on the converts. The council gives them guidelines which were intended to not be burdensome. If they were "laws" then why would it say that Judas and Silas having been sent out with this letter to the converts "encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message?"(Acts 15:32) The Judaizers were not of one accord with the council. The Judaizers were the party which was preaching circumcision and the James is at odds with them.

3) 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues." James is worried about the Jewish Christians. It is clearer that Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:25-30 that in love of those who think it sin to eat of such thinks we refrain from it. This is clearly in line with James's statement in v.21. Paul is encouraging the gentiles who do were not bound by dietary restrictions, because we are not, to accept such restrictions in love. By this they would remain at peace with all men, as far as they were concerned, thus, they provided every opportunity for the gospel to be accepted. Paul was concerned with the gentile believers causing dissention which would distract the Jews from the gospel and would lead to endless debates. In Acts 15:21 this is the concern of James. He knew that the Christians would only cause more problems among the Jews who were hard of heart and unwilling to accept the liberty that the Christians had.

4) Lastly, Paul's views cannot disagree with the views if the council at Jerusalem because he was there. Furthermore, the nature of theology demands that when systematized it must be fully in agreement otherwise it cannot be a system and it cannot be true.

Please review Wikipedia:No original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources

See John Gill on Acts 15:21. He Provides the reasoning that if the Gentiles are hearing that they are free they may go to the Jews and disturb the synagouge worship which shows that the letter [Acts 15:23-29] is writtn to Gentiles not Jews.

Since you've brought up Acts 15, please read the places where it twice mentions the various prohibitions that still remained. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

It may be more correct/neutral to say that Paul opposed the Judaizers. Peter and James may have mediated in the dispute and not specifically belonged to either group. The conclusion of the council is a determination by James (showing his authority), not a vote or consensus or appeal to other authority such as the Jerusalem Priest or Prefect or Roman Emperor.

My suggestion is that the second sentence be modified as such:

The council was convened as the result of the cleavage within the early Christian community between those derogatively called Judaizers, who believed gentiles must observe the rules of Judaism, specifically circumcision, and those, such as Paul of Tarsus, the self proclaimed "Apostle to the Gentiles", who believed there was no such necessity for gentiles.

This rewording is based on a fundamental failure to understand what was going on. Paul was arguing that (what came to be called) Christianity was a universal faith independent of Judaism, while his opponents at Jerusalem were arguing that (what they were preaching that, had the won out, would have become) Christianity was a sect of Judaism, and that anyone who wanted to be a Christian, therefore, who wasn't Jewish, very common-sensibly, had to convert first to Judaism. Tomer ^TALK 05:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg says Judaizers is an anachronism

It most certainly is not. Read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on it. In the Incident at Antioch Paul publicly accuses Peter of Judaizing. Check the cites at Judaize

The Greek is Ioudaizo (to live like a Jew) and it occurs twice in the Greek Bible:

It occurs once in the Septuagint, in Esther 8:16-17 written around 200bce in Susa, Persia:

"And the Jews had light and gladness, in every city and province wherever the ordinance was published: wherever the proclamation took place, the Jews had joy and gladness, feasting and mirth: and many of the Gentiles were circumcised, and became Jews, for fear of the Jews." -Brenton Translation [7]

It occurs once in the New Testament, in Paul's Letter to the Galatians 2:14 (part of the "Incident at Antioch") written around the year 50:

"But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?" -Young's Literal Translation [8]

Let's start with the FACTS, shall we?

"Council of Jerusalem" is an anachronism applied to Acts chapter 15.

According to the Greek (NA27) of Acts 15: Some people from Judea were teaching that if you aren't circumcised then you can't be saved. Paul and Barnabas argued with them and they arranged for Paul and Barnabas to see the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about it. In Jerusalem, with the church and apostles and elders, some of the Pharisee party told them that Gentiles have to be circumcised because they have to proclaim and keep the Law of Moses. Peter asked "Why are you trying to put the yoke around their necks since neither we or our fathers were able to bear it?" Paul and Barnabas recounted the "signs and wonders" God had worked among the Gentiles through them. Then James made his statement: he quoted from the Prophets and then he said his judgement was not to bother the Gentiles. But they should write to them about avoiding the pollution of idolatrous sacrifices and unchastity and meat of strangled animals and blood since the Law of Moses was proclaimed from city to city since time immemorial and was read every Sabbath. Then the apostles and elders decided to send Judas Barabbas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to spread word of James' judgement. In writing, James, with unanimous accord, had decided not to burden them with anything more than to stay clear of sacrifices to idols, blood, strangled meat and unchastity.

Jayjg claims POV as facts

Jayjg claims: The council was convened as the result of the cleavage within the early Christian community between those, such as James, who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism, and Paul, who believed there was no such necessity. The council resolved that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision, was not obligatory for gentile followers, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement. However, the council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against fornication and idol worshipping.

Where do you find: "cleavage", between James and Paul, James believed the church must observe Judaism, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement?

These are all your POV, not facts of evidence. They do not exist in Acts 15.

Please read this first before you take any more actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute

Acts itself documents the dispute, and its resolution. Is it the word "cleavage" you disapprove of? There certainly was a disagerement. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reread Acts 15, get the facts straight first. Yes there was disagreement, between Paul and people from Judea, not Paul and James. Also your assertion that James believed the church must follow Judaism and Paul did not is not found in Acts 15. Also your assertion that James reached his judgement possibly to make it easier for gentiles to join the church is not found in Acts 15. Get the FACTS straight first. If you want to make additional claims based on speculation about the facts, feel free, but do it in another section and provide evidence of your assertions.

As a side note on your claim that Paul rejected Judaism: Acts 16 has Paul personally circumcise Timothy even though his father was Greek because his mother was Jewish. Rather unusual act for someone who has rejected Judaism (more proper Law of Moses) as you claim.

Marcionism is the first to reject the Law of Moses.

Anonymous editor, please sign your posts by following them with ~~~~.

I'm sorry, I haven't asserted that Paul rejected Judaism; however, it is clear that Paul's conflict was with the Jerusalem Church of James, and not just some random Judeans. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you write "James, who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism, and Paul, who believed there was no such necessity" what does that mean?64.169.4.163 07:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where does it say that in Acts 15?

It says it in Galatians 2:12. As for your claims that "the assertion that James reached his judgement possibly to make it easier for gentiles to join the church is not found in Acts 15", try reading 15:19: “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God" etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Galatians 2:12 isn't about the Council of Jerusalem. It's about Peter, a circumcised Jew, eating with Gentiles. You'll recall that the Council of Jerusalem was about uncircumcised Gentiles. It's a pretty obvious conclusion that those circumcised were still supposed to follow the Law of Moses in its entirety, for example Acts 16 has Paul who is circumcised (he says so himself in one of his letters) *personally* circumcise Timothy even though his father is Greek because his mother is of the Jewish faith. But, what you've cited is the infamous Incident at Antioch where Paul accuses Peter, in public, of being a Jew who lives like a Gentile (i.e. Hellenizing: Acts 10:9-16, 24-30, 11:1-14) yet teaches Gentiles they should live like Jews (i.e. Judaizing). The argument here is between Paul and Peter. In addition Paul's Letters are very hard to decipher, they were written to particular churches about which we know nothing so we are missing the context, and they were used to justify just about any form of Christianity from Gnosticism to Marcionism, see 2 Peter 3:16. As for Acts 15:19, the key word here is "possibly". I.e., this is not a fact, it is a conjecture on your part which may or may not be true. James' judgement was not to bother Gentiles about circumcision. He may have done this to make it easier for Gentiles to become Christians or he may have had other reasons, such as his cites of the Prophets or perhaps another conjecture: the Noahide Laws. The point is Acts 15 doesn't tell us directly what James' reasons were, that is fact. One can attempt to read James' mind, but that is not fact, that is conjecture.

James himself says it is so as not to cause a burden to Gentiles; that's no conjecture on my part. And there was never a prohibition of circumcised Jews eating with Gentiles, then or now. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, the conjecture on your part is that James reached his conclusion "possibly to make it easier for gentiles to join the church". See the difference? "Not to burden Gentiles" is fact, "possibly to make it easier for gentiles to join the church" is conjecture. And as for circumcised Jews eating with Gentiles, according to Paul, Peter has a BIG problem with it. I.e. the dispute is between Paul and Peter, not Paul and James.

First of all, the conjecture is not on my part, as I didn't author that section. Second, the reason for "not burdening gentiles" is so they can join the church, or at least it appears that way. Third, it was men from James who appeared to have an issue with whatever Peter and Paul were doing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, cleavage is not a good word to use. "Dispute" perhaps, although I personally lean in favor of "machaloqeth"... Tomer ^TALK 06:14, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Paul's conflict with James starts at Acts 21:17

That's one more example of the conflict, which I'm glad to see you finally acknowledging. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There most certainly is conflict, however this is an article on the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15, not an article on how Pauline Christianity was in conflict with the Jerusalem Church led by James, John and Peter. In Acts 15 there is conflict between Paul and those saying Gentile Christians must be circumcised. James doesn't say Gentile Christians must be circumcised, in fact, he rules that Christians shouldn't bother Gentiles about circumcision, instead they should teach new Gentile converts about what in Judaism is called the Noahide Laws.

So you think they were getting along just fine before Acts 21? Clearly there is conflict between the groups, which is why Paul must go to Jerusalem to make his case. According to Acts, James decides that gentiles no longer have to be circumcised, but do have to follow the other restrictions. The issues between Paul and James then simmer until the next blowup. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, this article is about the COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. Let's get the FACTS correct first.

Summary of factuality disputes

Sentence 1: "The council was convened as the result of the disagreement within the early Christian community between those, such as the followers of James, who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism1, and Paul, who believed there was no such necessity"

The council was convened to resolve the dispute between Paul and those who taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation, see Acts 15. James, more or less, ruled in Paul's favor by declaring that Christians should not bother Gentiles turning to God about circumcision but instead should teach what in later Judaism is called the Noahide Laws, see Acts 15. James and Paul were both Torah observant Jews, James is obvious, for Paul see Acts 16 and 21. Thus the claim that Paul believed there was no necessity to observe the Law of Moses is false. Paul simply believed that it was not necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised. "Traditional Judaism" has no meaning in the time period of the first century and second temple Judaism. The reference to Galations 2:12 is irrelevant as it is not about the Council of Jerusalem and it documents a dispute between Paul and Peter not Paul and James.

Why do you think the differences were only about circumcision? Why do you think Paul was a "Torah observant Jew", when he did not follow the Laws of Moses, but rather denigrated them? Why do you think that Galatians 2:12 is not about James, when it is men from James who are coming to create problems for Paul and Peter? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The differences were only about circumcision because that is what Acts 15 says, again: FACTS!. Paul is depicted in Acts as a Torah observant Jew: Acts 16 and 21. Galations is not about the Council of Jerusalem, again: FACTS!

Paul is also depicted in Acts as a non-Torah observing, Law of Moses denigrating Jew. FACTS! Galatians shows the cleavage between followers of Paul and followers of James, and the reason for Paul's going to Jerusalem. FACTS! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are your cites for Paul the Torah denigrating Jew in Acts? Acts 21 cites the rumor, however Paul follows James' command to show he is Torah observant. That leaves two choices: Paul is a Torah observant Jew or he is pretending to be one in front of James and the people of Jerusalem. Note: this is tangential to the Council of Jerusalem. This topic is better discussed in Pauline Christianity.

Sorry, Paul denigrates Torah in Galatians 3 and Colossians 2. And Paul is clearly doing the latter (pretending), since he no longer considers himself under the law (Galatians 2, 1 Corinthians 9). Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See wikipedia guidelines on original research.

How do you think this qualifies? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue." Acts 15:1-2(NASV)

There you go, the issue is with Paul, and they went up to Jerusalem about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paul v. "some men from Judea", not Paul v. James. The issue is circumsion, not whether Paul is pro-Torah like James and the Jerusalem Church or anti-Torah like Marcionism. At the Council, James doesn't argue against Paul, he more or less judges in Paul's favor.

The men from Judea are clearly from James, since it is James that Paul must appease in order to fix this, and it is men from James who harass them in Galatians 2 as well. As for James judging in Paul's favour, well, that's what Paul and the author of Acts would have us believe. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See wikipedia guidelines on original research.

How do you think this qualifies? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's your source for your belief that Acts 15 is not an accurate account of the Council of Jerusalem?

Sentence 2: "The council resolved that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for gentile followers, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement."

That is not what the council resolved, see Acts 15. "Possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement" is a complete speculation. The reference to Acts 15:19 does not say that, again we have a problem with sticking to the facts.

The sentence says almost exactly that. Please read it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"almost exactly that" is not FACTUAL! Again: FACTS!

"Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles," Acts 15:19(NASV)

"Turning to God" refers to people joining the Church. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"do not trouble" is not the same as "in order to make it easier for them to join". The fact that you preface this statement with "Possibly" shows you understand that this is not factual but is original research. See wikipedia guidelines on original research.

"Do not trouble" is exactly "make it easy", and "turn to God" is "join the church". And again, please recall that it is not my sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See wikipedia guidelines on original research.

How do you think this qualifies? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jayg on this one...you're stretching the semantics a bit far. Paraphrasing is not original research. With many of these individuals, Peter and Paul in particular, we have very little information about their activities outside of the New Testament and Tradition. If people wanted the Bible, they would read the Bible. No...they want an encyclopedia article about Peter and Paul or, in this case, the Council of Jerusalem. That means that we don't always need direct quotes. Paraphrasing and using more common language is entirely acceptable unless it changes the meaning of the statement, and I think you're straining credulity here in asserting that it does. --MikeJ9919 18:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute

   * if only a few statements seem inaccurate:
         o insert ^{[dubious – discuss]} after the relevant sentence or paragraph.
         o insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem.

   * if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises:
         o insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.

o paste

in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.

Note: There is another article on this same topic, at some point they should get merged: Apostolic Council

3o

Someone left a request for a 3rd opinion... so, what's the problem? If there's two folk here at logger heads, could you each briefly outline your view of the issue? Please don't start replying to each other - just let your original statements make your points. Dan100 00:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

See Summary of factuality disputes above

I think both sides agree that Acts 15 is the primary and perhaps only source of information on the Council of Jerusalem, however they disagree about what Acts 15 actually says, hence the dispute over facts. Seems like the article should start with the facts, which I think is Acts 15, then possibly digress into other theories about what really happened at the Council, though of course with cites, rather than original research. But at this point there isn't even agreement on what Acts 15 says. So, seems like it would be useful for a third party to moderate or even originate what they believe Acts 15 says.

My very reason for quoting Acts and keeping interpretation to a minimum. Far from sharing our beliefs, an encyclopedia entry simply reports what various interpretations have been, telling who originated them. History of ideas and all that. --Wetman 02:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, can I ask people to sign their comments (you can do this by typing ~~~~)? I can't tell who is saying what.

Second, the 'summary' above is rather long and rambling - it's rather mis-named :-). So - thanks to Wetman for putting his position - now I'd like to hear from the person who disagrees with his proposal. Dan100 11:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The original dispute was between me and Jayjg. I felt he was straying from Acts 15 in significant ways and reverting any attempts by me to make corrections or additions or add quotes. There seems to be a number of interpretations of what actually happened at the Council of Jerusalem, which is fine, as long as you start with Acts 15 which I believe is the only record of the event, then other theories can be stated after, for example the Eisenman book, as long as sources are given, keeping in mind the wiki policy against original research. I agree completely with Wetman's approach. 209.78.18.105 18:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Acts and Paul's letters present two differing views of the events between Paul and the Jerusalem Church; relying only on Acts would be misleading. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eisenman, Robert, 1997. James the Brother of Jesus

Is it worth summarizing the position of this book on the Council of Jerusalem for this article? If yes, would someone who has read the book do it?

Indeed it iwould be, but for the fury that would be aroused. Very carefully researched, but filled with unwelcome interpretations, however. I have it at my elbow as I enter this. --Wetman 02:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to insert this matter into this dispute, but these points are relevent:

1. Both Acts 15 & Galatians 2 describe the same meeting. This has been accepted by NT scholars. Allow me to quote from Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (where by "Gal" he means the Epistle to the Galatians:

We are fortunate inhaving two accounts, one in Acts 15, the other in Gal 2; and this double perspective teaches us much about the great personalities of early Christianity. Scholars tend to prefer Paul's own eyewitness account and dismiss the Acts account as later bowdlerizing. There is no question that Acts presents a simplified and less acrimonious report; but as regards Gal, we should recognize that a personal account written in self-defense has its own optic, removing it from the realm of the purely objective. (p.306)

(As I type Brown's words, I feel does a nice & succinct job of explaining the issues for these 2 sources.) Also, this is not Brown's unique opinion on the matter -- as he indicates with the words "Scholars tend to prefer" -- but is shared by a number of different experts; for example, the notes in my copy of The New Oxford Annotated Bible to this section of Acts refers to Galatians 2.

2. The two accounts are very different. The author of Acts limits his account to explaining what the members gathered agreed to -- that all Christians should observe several specific points of Mosaic Law (listed at 15:23-9). Paul says only that he was given the authority to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, who were to be treated as the equal of the Jewish Christians.

I could speculate here on why they are so different (although Brown, in the passage I quoted above, offers a better analysis than I could), but I feel it's more important to acknowledge that if the sources disagree over what was discussed & agreed to at this Council, then it should be no surprise that a number of editors would hotly disagree over what happened. May I suggest that the two accounts are both offered, followed by some research over what various authorities have said about this issue?

3. This council assumed great influence over early Christianity. Because it was the first synod of Christianity, over the next few centuries (IIRC, until AD 400) a number of writings appeared which claimed to be the decisions of that council; one example would be the Apostolic Constitutions. AFAIK, no authority seriously believes their claims; they instead read these works as evidence that various factions in later ecclesiastical disputes attempted to drape the authority of this council over their arguments. Neither this article nor Apostolic Council addresses this aspect of the subject -- that this council had a lasting doctrinal effect upon Christianity. (Although from the heat of this dispute, I'm sure no one would be surprised of this fact.)

As a result, I believe this article should try to document at least the earliest examples of various doctrines or beliefs which claimed to have been advocated at this council. While that would admit a number of POVs -- some of which might strain the credulity of Wikipedians -- at least it would help explain the differing opinions we may see about this subject. -- llywrch 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, a possible outline:

1. Council of Jerusalem according to Acts 15:1-35

2. Council of Jerusalem according to Galatians 2:1-10

(making note that there are some scholars who dispute that this is a record of the Council of Jerusalem)

3. Attempts to reconcile the two accounts

4. Other early claims of record, such as the Apostolic Constitutions

(btw a very interesting document, approved by Orthodox Christianity: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-39.htm#TopOfPage)

another source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Since the Didache claims to be the teachings of the 12 Apostles and the only known Apostolic Council is the Council of Jerusalem, seems like it's relevant also: http://earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

5. Other attempts to reconstruct what actually happened at the Council of Jerusalem

This is a big project, seems do-able though, after this - the Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-21)? 209.78.20.203 22:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

regarding translation of Acts 15:5, "paraggellein te terein"

"paraggellein te terein" = proclaim and keep, not proclaim [them to] keep"

So Andy Gaus, Unvarnished New Testament, 1991, ISBN:0933999992: "But some of the Pharisee party who were believers stood up and said, "They have to be circumcised; we have to proclaim and keep the law of Moses.""

The KJV translation shows [them] is an addition.

Why not substitute the most accurate translations throughout?: nothing special about KJV, unless it affects the sense, in which case changes tend to be revealing. --Wetman 04:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be noted as an alternative translation of this verse, in general the KJV is fine. What is the result? Luke is trying to say that the Council was only about circumcision. Of course there would be those who would assume that if circumcision was out, then the Law was out. Against that assumption Luke has James decree the Noahide subset for new Gentile converts and Paul personally circumcise Timothy in Acts 16. Of course the rumor that Paul aims to subvert the Law is persistant, hence Acts 21.

Western Version of Acts

According to Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, the Western Version of Acts has for 15:2 "...for Paul spoke maintaining firmly that they should stay as they were when converted; but those who had come from Jerusalem ordered them, Paul and Barnabas and certain others, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders that they might be judged before them about this question." (anon. edit by 64.169.6.194)

As requested above, please sign your posts (you can do this with ~~~~). Otherwise, it's hard to follow the discussion. Josh Cherry 23:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A good beginning, then, would be to enter some fair-minded and informative material on the Western Version of Acts at Acts of the Apostles, which is probably lacking a "Manuscription tradition' subsection anyway.--Wetman 01:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing my posts, I'm a newbie. Yes, I took a quick look at Acts of the Apostles and it could use some help too, so many articles so little time ... But for now, whenever dealing with Acts one should always keep in mind that there are essentially 2 versions (Alexandrian and Western), this is far more than the usual textual variation - I think this verse is the only change of significance, and I'm not even sure it is significant, but it may be worth squeezing it in somewhere. It paints a different picture, here Paul is almost treated as a possible heretic in the Antioch church, rather than Paul acting and going to Jerusalem to get the issue resolved, he, and the others involved, are ordered to report for judgement. Note even after the council seems to rule in his favor another incident occurs, the more famous Incident at Antioch (not even mentioned in Acts) and soon after Paul leaves Antioch. Significant or just an aside? I'm not sure myself. Regarding Western Acts, one of my favorite quotes:

"Who it was that was responsible for the additional information concerning the apostolic age or where it came from is entirely unknown. According to F.G. Kenyon (Text of the Greek Bible), "What one would like to suppose (but for which there is no external evidence), is that one of St. Paul's companions transcribed Luke's book (perhaps after the author's death), and inserted details of which he had personal knowledge, and made other alterations in accordance with his own taste in a matter on which he was entitled to regard himself as having authority equal to that of Luke."" -Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek NT 64.169.0.206 07:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Western Acts has the negative form of the Golden Rule instead of the prohibition of things strangled in the "Apostolic Decree" (15.20,29). The Didache also cites the negative Golden Rule.64.169.7.34 08:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the term 'Western NT', I'm not a Bible scholar. But both the King James and a modern (American) Catholic version of Acts 15:19 have the prohibitions against fornication, blood and strangled things etc, neither has the Golden Rule in any form. Perhaps someone more informed than me could correct this or put me straight. Via strass 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Acts_of_the_Apostles#Manuscripts

King Izates

What does the ew edit with Josephus' story of King Izates and his circumcision have to do with the Council of Jerusalem. If it's relevant, would someone edit it and make it so. --Wetman 07:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I'm strongly tempted to remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You guys don't think it's *very* relevant? It could very well be a source, at the least it provides historical context, one can see that Paul and "some other Jews" and the Council of Jerusalem were not the only ones concerned with the issue of circumcision during the first century in Jerusalem. Ref: "Jesus, Paul and the Law", James D.G. Dunn

Is that Professor James Dunn, one of whose specialism is ancient death rituals? ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:19 (UTC)

I'll change the section title to "Historical Context", if you guys just don't get it feel free to erase it.

Does anyone else consider this to be a source? Besides you? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James D.G. Dunn. There are many indications that the writer of Acts was aware of Josephus or had access to the same sources. Both writers wrote for a Greco-Roman audience.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/lukejosephus.html http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl79/Comm12m.htm http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/RPeisenman.html

"Eisenman identifies Paul as the first Jewish teacher who tells Izates he need not be circumcised if he has faith in God. (This episode also lies at the basis of the Antioch episode recounted in Galatians, when certain men from James arrived in Antioch to tell Paul's converts they must be circumcised after all.) Paul is one of Helen's agents to bring famine relief to Jerusalem, which he is said to do "from Antioch," in Acts 11."

http://home.freeuk.net/jesusmyth/lukejose.htm http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lukeandjoe.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3679/is_200101/ai_n8932530 http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels2.htm http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/pauline/Law.htm http://www.24hourscholar.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_199907/ai_n8852822 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/26-30/30-2-05.htm

But who ties it to the Council of Jerusalem? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The connection isn't obvious? The Council of Jerusalem is part of the book of Acts. The story of Izates is part of the book of Jewish Antiquities. Both books are related, perhaps Acts is based on Antiquities or perhaps they used common source materials. The Council of Jerusalem is about the conflict between two groups of Jews, one group says new converts must be circumcised, the other group says it is not a requirement, James sides with the group that says it is not a requirement for new converts. Paul says they didn't even require that Titus, a Greek convert, be circumcised. Yet in Acts 16 Paul felt it necessary to personally circumcise Timothy another Greek convert because his mother is of the Jewish faith. The story of Izates is about a new convert (Izates) and one Jew who says circumcision is not a requirement, that faith in God is superior to circumcision, and another Jew who says circumcision is required because the Law is not just for reading but is meant to be put into practice. At the very least the story of Izates is historical context for the Council of Jerusalem. An article on the Council of Jerusalem should include material on historical context. What is the justification for ignoring the historical context of the Council of Jerusalem?209.78.18.187 17:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again who ties it to the Council of Jerusalem? If it's just you, then it's original research. Is this a commonly held view, or a respectable published minority opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 28 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

You don't accept that it's historical context? Is historical context not relevant? I find it interesting that you think Izates is irrelevant to the Council of Jerusalem. Why do you think it is irrelevant? As for connecting Izates to the Council of Jerusalem: "Still more interesting for us, not least because the incident described took place within a few years of the Antioch incident, is the well-known story of the conversion of Izates, king of Adiabene, recounted by Josephus (JA20.2.4). Izates was initially told that he need not be circumcised - 'he could worship God, even without circumcision, if he had fully decided to emulate the hereditary customs of the Jews'. Since the sticking point was circumcision, we may take it that Izates was prepared to go the whole way apart from that, and 'zeal for hereditary customs' suggests that his devotion would have embraced much at least of the oral law as well as the written Torah. This may well be confirmed by the fact that when Eleazar came upon the scene from Galilee, described by Josephus as a Jew 'who had a reputation for being extremely strict concerning the hereditary customs', the only further step he required of Izates was circumcision." Jesus, Paul and the Law, James D.G. Dunn, pg 147 209.78.19.90 28 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)

You keep asserting that this is context, and therefore relevant, but you fail to address the actual question posed. In fact, you are now trying to reverse the burden of prove, insisting that I have to explain why I think Izates is "irrelevant". Your source says nothing about the Council of Jerusalem; in fact, it doesn't even allude to it. I'll repeat this one last time, please try to respond on point: Who ties it to the Council of Jerusalem? Who says that this is "relevant historical context"? If it's just you, then it's original research. Is this a commonly held view, or a respectable published minority opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 28 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)

You don't know who James D.G. Dunn is? Do you know what the "Antioch" incident is that is refered to above? It's Galatians 2:11-18? You refered to it in your footnote #1? It immediately follows Galatians 2:1-10 which is Paul's account of a meeting in Jerusalem with the church pillars? Ringing any bells yet? 209.78.19.86 29 June 2005 00:36 (UTC)

And why is that interesting for Dunn? And you're saying he doesn't actually tie it to the Council of Jerusalem? Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 16:44 (UTC)

Why not edit some of this material where it is more clearly relevant: the "History" subsection at Circumcision. "Circumcision among 1st century Christians" That's your title. Tell the whole story. The text there should mention that the issue was brought up at the so-called "Council of Jerusalem", linking here. A mention of James's decision would be relevant there too. A note here should lead the reader to Circumcision, if that seems germane to the reader. --Wetman 1 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thanks. I've added it to the History section. Circumcision wasn't just an issue with Christians, it was also an issue with followers of Judaism - i.e. from the modern and Roman perspective, followers of Judaism, Proselytes and Christians and other related groups in the first century can be all lumped in the same group - although there are distinctions: the Christians are followers of Jesus, there were a number of groups of Judaism, as an oversimplification one can say modern Judaism is descended from the Pharisees in particular Hillel. All groups are followers of the "Law and Prophets", and make use of the Temple of Jerusalem, though they differ in the details of what it means to be a follower (what it means to be "Torah-observant") and the debate was heated due to pressure from the Romans to assimilate to the empire. 209.78.16.202 1 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)

Translation of Porneia in Acts 15:20

What translation translates Porneia as "unlawful marriage"?

I find: KJV: fornication; NRSV: fornication; NIV: sexual immorality; Young's Literal: whoredom; Gaus: unchastity; BAGD Lexicon: prostitution 64.169.2.246 28 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)

I've NPOVd the entry for now, pending further references. If none are forthcoming, it will have to be further NPOVd. Jayjg ^(talk) 28 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Might it help to know that Porneia is the word we get the term Pornography from? ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Not really; words change a lot in a couple of thousand years. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)

The primary Lexicon of NT Greek and other early Christian lit (cites other Koine works as well) is Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, called BAGD above. For porneia it has: prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. It lists two subsections: subsection 1 is the literal meaning and this is where the Apostolic Decree is filed, subsection 2 is the figurative meaning of apostasy from God as the relationship is seen as a type of marriage. No doubt somebody sometime wrote a paper claiming the Apostolic Decree was meant figuratively, but I wouldn't know who.

Paul seems to define porneia in 1 Corinthians 5-7, food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and the collection for Jerusalem in 1 Corinthians 16. Colossians 3 may be his record of the Apostolic Decree. And of course the "Law of Moses" has definitions of porneia.

The Roman Catholic NAB translates porneia as "unlawful marriage." See Acts 15:20. Along with this explanation in their footnotes:

"According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews."

That is also the standard translation of all Catholic Bibles I have run into, so if we're going to preach NPOV, let's stop just pushing Protestant theology here. --Damiel 04:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Alternate translations and discussion of "porneia" are noted in footnote 4.

Baby Steps

1. James the Just was Torah observant, widely acknowledged by most Christians, in fact, he exceeded the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) as he was a Nazirite.

2. Jesus was Torah observant, widely acknowledged by most Christians today.

3. Paul of Tarsus was Torah observant, a shocker to many Christians, particularly Lutherans, but part of the New Perspective on Paul pioneered by E. P. Sanders and James Dunn (theologian).

4. Some early Christians were Torah observant, others were Gnostics or Marcionites or Montanists.

5. Jewish Christians were Torah observant.

6. Some Ethiopian Orthodox today are Torah observant, in fact the church claims to be the only church free of Marcionism.

7. Some Messianic Jews today are Torah observant.

How are you defining "Torah observant", and more importantly, what is your point? Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 16:46 (UTC)

BINGO! Defining "Torah observant" is THE issue in the first century, among Jews and Greeks, circumcised and uncircumcised, Pharisees and Christians. It is the issue at the council of Jerusalem. It is the issue that Paul wrestles with in his letters. In other words, the rumor that Paul aims to subvert the Torah, cited in Acts 21:21, (probably also 2 Peter 3:16), is incorrect. There are a number of definitions, for example: Hillel and Jesus cite the Golden Rule as summary of the Torah, "some Jews" (recorded in Acts, Paul and Izates) said the uncircumcised must be circumcised, "some other Jews" (ditto) said circumcision is not a requirement for new converts, according to Western Acts Council of Jerusalem, James said circumcision is not a requirement for new converts and cited the Golden Rule, according to Alexandrian Acts Council of Jerusalem, ditto but no cite of the Golden Rule, according to Didache, again the Golden Rule. Now, of course, the Golden Rule expands, for Jesus that expansion is the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), for James it also meant being a Nazirite as John the Baptist was.

Your opinions on this matter are interesting, but are these comments relevant to article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)

YES! If you assume that Paul's aim was to subvert the Torah, as Acts 21:21, Marcion, Augustine, Luther, then you will reach one conclusion about the Council of Jerusalem: namely since Paul in Gal 2:1-10 said the so-called pillars brought up no issues, then the Council must have overthrown the Torah as well and the record in Acts is an exaggeration or the decree had nothing to do with the Torah. On the other hand, if you assume Paul was Torah-observant, as Acts 16, 21:26, New Perspective on Paul, then you will reach another conclusion about the Council of Jerusalem: namely it did not overthrow the Torah but addressed the issue of whether circumcision was required for new converts and suggested a minimum requirement for new converts that looks like an early form of the Noahide Commandments. Are you beginning to understand why the Story of Izates is now important? Don't you think these documents: Acts, Galatians, Didache, Izates should be read in the context of their time or should they be read in the context of Luther versus Rome or even modern times? The Story of Izates is historical context - understand now why it is relevant? Or is the subject matter too complex for you? It could be too complex for wikipedia where anyone even without qualifications can delete material on any pretext, so anyone who is interested may have to study from here instead: http://www.thepaulpage.com

I see. Is that your webpage? It's either original research or an extreme minority view; regardless, it doesn't belong in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)

You don't know who James_Dunn_(theologian) is. Yet you feel you have the right to delete material that you don't understand. 209.78.18.43 30 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

"Anyone who is interested in the rigorous study of early Christianity and who has not engaged with the works of James D. G. Dunn is not really interested in the rigorous study of early Christianity."

You've missed the point; Dunn doesn't tie it to the Council, as I pointed out above. You (and your webpage) do. And please stick to talking about article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of points 1 to 7 being listed rather than just one of them, for example?
What is the evidence for a connection between Josephus' Izates and Acts' Council ?
Who makes such a connection? ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Among NT scholars, it is widely known that there are connections between Acts and Josephus. See Anchor Bible Dictionary for example. Also Acts_of_the_Apostles#Date. Robert Eisenman in James the Brother of Jesus makes a direct connection between the Council and Izates. For the New Perspective on Paul pioneered by E._P._Sanders and James_Dunn_(theologian) the story of Izates is valuable historical context. 209.78.18.43 30 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Could you quote Eisenman making this connection please? Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)

If you are really interested, go and study. I've provided plenty of references and links. I'm not interested in sophomoric wikipedia games. 209.78.18.43 30 June 2005 19:43 (UTC)

You haven't provided any citeable references and links that actually support your claim. And Wikipedia:Cite your sources is not a "sophomoric Wikipedia game", but actually a reasonable Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

The article is extremely messy, and seems obsessed with circumcision, but other than that doesn't strike me as particularly biased, at this moment in time. ~~~~ 30 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Circumcision (of new converts) is the issue, which is why the story of Izates is important historical context, so says the New Perspective on Paul, see http://www.thepaulpage.com for more info. 209.78.18.43 30 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Yes, but your website appears to be an extreme minority view. Please quote someone who is actually citeable. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)

1. Not my website. 2. "Anyone who is interested in the rigorous study of early Christianity and who has not engaged with the works of James D. G. Dunn is not really interested in the rigorous study of early Christianity."209.78.18.43 30 June 2005 19:43 (UTC)

You keep failing to respond to the issue at hand; Dunn doesn't make the connection, only you and your site do. This is the third time I've pointed that out now. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Some thoughts

This important but apparently highly disputed article will, I hope, settle down. It's far too crucial an event to leave the article as messy as it is.

I have NO desire to get involved in the dispute, but as someone who has not really been engaged in this dispute, I thought I'd offer a few suggestions:

You should consider only permitting citations of manistream, generally accepted scholars for the "meat" of the page. Eisenmann, who wrote an absolutely fascinating book, is way out of the mainstream. Brown, Bruce and Metzger pretty much define mainstream. You should doublecheck the Anchor and New Interpreter's series' for some solid scholarship, even where you might personally disagree with it. These are reputable folks who know their stuff and who are acknowledged experts in the field. You might also check historic commentaries by giants of Church history, such as Wesley, Calvin, Augsutine, et al.
Whether you agree with the "New Perspective" folks or not, Dunn, Sanders, and Wright are virtual demigods in the field. All three would probably make the "Top 10 list" of "Most Important NT scholars of the past 30 years". Their "new perspective" isn't really so new, anyway...more a recapturing of an older, almost forgotten view. I admit...I'm a fan and have a bias and agree with the "new perspective". Regardless, don't dismiss them; they know their stuff better (I'm willing to bet) than any editor in Wikipedia. They are mainstream, and among the most respected NT scholars on the planet (and, in Wright's case, one of the most respected Christians on the planet).
You've all developed a kind of nasty tone to your dispute, which is unfortunate. I've no doubt that the Council itself got a little heated before James made his decision, but Scripture seems to record a slightly more civil tone than the one demonstrated here. I would suggest deep breaths all around.
Look at what you agree on. Put all that up in a satisfactory manner. Then maybe put up the disputed stuff saying, "One view says...whereas another maintains...". Then you can at least get the "disputed" tag off the article.
Maybe have a section near the end for more marginal voices such as Eisenmann.

May God bless you as you work this stuff out; I hope you do so successfully and that we have a wonderful, undisputed, NPOV article soon. I meant to offend no one and am sorry if I have...just wanted to offer some suggestions. KHM03 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)