PAULINIZATION OF PETER IN THE BOOK OF ACTS by William 0. Walker, Jr.

Parts of this paper are quoted or adapted from William 0. Walker, Jr. "Acts and the Pauline Corpus Revisited: Peter's Speech at the Jerusalem Conference," in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor ofJoseph B. Tyson (ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), pp. 77-86, and are included with permission from Mercer University Press.

      The earliest Christian writings that we have are almost certainly the letters of Paul, all of which were composed approximately twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus.¹ Even a superficial reading of these letters makes it clear that the Christian communities with which Paul was acquainted constituted anything but a harmonious and unified movement. There were serious disagreements within the churches-apparently quite acrimonious at times-regarding such matters as leadership, belief, lifestyle, and mission.

Direct evidence of such disagreement and even dissension, discord, and strife appears in several of Paul's letters. In 1 Corinthians 1:10-12, for example, he refers explicitly to "quarreling" and factionalism among the Corinthian Christians and appeals to his readers "that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." It is particularly interesting to note that Paul here names himself, Apollos, and Cephas ("Peter" in Aramaic) as focal points of the factionalism. Then, throughout 1 Corinthians, Paul deals with a number of specific issues that obviously were dividing the Corinthian church, including the nature and importance of "wisdom," sexual behavior, relations with civil and legal authorities, marriage and divorce, dietary practices, the Eucharist, "spiritual gifts," and resurrection. In 2 Corinthians 10-13, it is clear that Paul saw himself and his own apostolic authority facing a serious challenge from other Christian preachers whose understanding of the faith was quite different from his own. Here he speaks mockingly and disparagingly of "super-apostles" who "preach another Jesus than the one we preached" and "a different gospel from the one you accepted" (2 Cor 11:1-6).

      For purposes of the present article, Paul's letter to the Galatians is particularly relevant. Near the beginning of the letter, in Galatians 1:6-9, Paul refers to people "who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ" and pronounces an "anathema" upon anyone who preaches a gospel different from the one he proclaimed. Later, in 2:4-5, he speaks scornfully of "false brothers," who, when he went to Jerusalem, attempted to subvert the truth of the gospel to nullify "our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus." Along the same lines, in 5:5, he proclaims that "Christ has set us free for freedom" and exhorts his readers to "stand fast" and "not submit again to a yoke of slavery." In 5:12, he even exclaims, "I wish that those who unsettle you would castrate themselves"-an unmistakable reference to circumcision, which some people, to Paul's great dismay, were demanding of Gentile Christians.

Paul and Peter In Antioch (according to Paul)

One passage in Galatians is of special interest: Galatians 2:11-14. Here, Paul recounts the following sequence of events: Initially, Peter and other Jewish Christians including Barnabas were eating with Gentiles (presumably Gentile Christians) in Antioch. Then, when some people came from James and apparently criticized them for doing so, they stopped. At this point, Paul accused them of "hypocrisy" and, in his own words, "opposed Cephas (Peter) to his face because he stood condemned." In the first instance, it would appear that the point at issue was simply whether Jewish Christians were permitted to eat with Gentile Christians. According to verse 14, however, Paul accused Peter of attempting to "compel the Gentiles to live like Jews." This suggests that, as a condition for table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, Peter was now requiring that the latter obey the Jewish food laws. For Paul, though, there obviously was a lot more at stake than just the food laws. According to his understanding, submission to one part of the Law of Moses requires obedience to all of it (Gal 3:10; 5:3). Moreover, in the verses immediately following the report of his encounter with Peter (2:15-21), Paul argues that 'Justification "-presumably for both Gentiles and Jews-comes not through "works of the Law" but rather through "Christ's faith/faithfulness. "² Further, elsewhere in Galatians (2:3; 5:2-3, 6, 11), it appears that the real question under debate was whether Gentile Christians must undergo circumcision. Indeed, according to most translations, Paul even refers to his opponents in Antioch as "the circumcision party" or "the circumcision faction" (Gal 2:12), thus indicating the importance of circumcision in their thinking.³ Thus, it may well have been the case that Paul accused Peter of demanding not only submission to the dietary laws but also circumcision as a condition for table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. In any event, the underlying question, at least so far as Paul was concerned, appears to have been whether Gentile Christians were subject to the Jewish law.

The letters of Paul, then, portray the emerging Christian movement as anything but unified, harmonious, or peaceful. And it is particularly significant that Galatians 2:11-14 places Paul and Peter in opposite camps regarding the critically important question of whether Gentile Christians must follow the Jewish law.

The Portrait of Paul In Acts

What is sometimes overlooked, however, is the fact that the earliest narrative we have of Christian origins-the Book of Acts-paints a strikingly different picture .⁴ Here, the emerging Christian movement is, for the most part, remarkably unified, harmonious, and peaceful. The dominating motif is that, in "the good old days," everybody was pretty much of the same mind about the essentials of Christian faith and practice-or, to the extent that there were differences, people were able to come together as "good Christian gentlemen" and resolve the differences. Thus, for example, when the "Hellenist" Christians complained that the "Hebrew" Christians were being favored in the daily distribution of food, the issue was amicably resolved with the appointment of "the Seven" to attend to this responsibility (Acts 6:1-6). Then, when the much more serious issue of circumcision as a requirement for Gentile Christians arose, what has come to be known as "the Jerusalem Conference" arrived at a mutually agreeable resolution and thus defused the issue (Acts 15:1-21). Finally, when the leaders of the church in Jerusalem feared that Paul's presence in the city might offend Jewish Christians, who had heard that he was urging Jewish Christians in the Diaspora to abandon their allegiance to the Law of Moses and Jewish customs, Paul agreed to participate in purification ceremonies in the temple in order to demonstrate that he himself was a devout observer of the Law (Acts 21:17-26).

As is suggested in this last episode, one feature of the idealized portrayal of early Christianity in Acts is what has sometimes been termed the "domestication" of Paul. In what is at best a quite one-sided version of the Paul we encounter in his own letters, Acts depicts Paul as a faithful Law-observing Jew who maintains close ties with Peter and the other leaders in Jerusalem and who, indeed, is to some extent subordinate to them.⁵ Seminar Fellow Joseph B. Tyson has recently argued-persuasively in my judgment that this "domestication" of Paul is part of a major goal of the author of Acts: namely, to combat the menacing threat of the Marcionite movement (see the cameo essay on Marcion below, and Joseph Tyson's article on Marcion in this issue). The Marcionites viewed Paul as the only true apostle and claimed that he, like themselves, had rejected the Jewish God, the Hebrew Scriptures, the Torah, and Jewish customs. In Tyson's words, the author of Acts is attempting "to rescue Paul from the Marcionites," whom the author of Acts believed to be misinterpreting and misusing Paul's writings and legacy.⁶ Whether "rescue" is the proper term or whether "co-opt" would be more appropriate, the author of Acts wishes to refute the Marcionites' claim to Paul and his legacy and to locate Paul within the mainstream of what was eventually to become "orthodox" or "proto-catholic" Christianity. And he does this by portraying Paul as the very antithesis of a Marcionite. In the process, of course, the author of Acts makes Paul look a lot more like Peter and the other Jerusalem leaders than would appear to be the case judging from Paul's own letters. Indeed, it might even be said that this author effects something of a "Petrinization" of Paul, although we know far too little about "the historical Peter" to affirm this with any real confidence. In any case, there can be no doubt that the author of Acts wants to bring Paul and Peter into close agreement and alliancealong with James and others-as leaders in the emerging Christian movement.

MARCION

Marcion was the founder and leader of an early Christian movement known as the Marcionites. This movement flour ished during the second century and for several centuries thereafter and, for a time, posed a serious threat to what was eventually to become "orthodox" or "proto Catholic" Christianity.

Marcion asserted a radical discontinuit_y between Christianity and Judaism, insisting that the God and Father of esus was not the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and that Jesus was not the Messiah foretold in these scriptures. Mar: don's own scriptures consisted of a version of the Gospel of Luke and ten letters attributed to Paul (It(^, did not include 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, or Titus). In Marcion 's view, Paul was the only one of the apostles who really understood the message of^.Jesus, and this may have caused other Christians to be suspicious of Paul and his letters.

Paul and Peter in Jerusalem (according to Acts)

Even more interesting than the portrayal of Paul in the Book of Acts is that of Peter, especially how Peter is depicted in the account of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:1-21) and, more specifically, in the speech he gave at this conference (Acts 15:7-11). When we compare Peter's speech with Galatians 2:1-10, which appears to be Paul's account of the Jerusalem Conference,⁷ we can see quite clearly what I would term the "Paulinization" of Peter-the re-making of Peter in the image of Paul. And we see this in two respects.

      In the first place, when we move from Galatians 2:1-10 to Acts 15:7-11 , we see a significant exchange of roles between Paul and Peter: Peter replaces Paul as the premier missionary to the Gentiles. In Galatians 2:7a, Paul asserts that he, Paul, "had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised" (that is, to the Gentiles), and the wording of his statement-"when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised"-makes it clear that he saw this as none other than God's decision. Further, it would appear that Paul goes on to assert explicitly in Galatians 2:7b that Peter, on the other hand, "had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised" (that is, to the Jews).⁸ In any case, Paul cites in verse 9 the agreement that he and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles while James, Cephas (Peter), and John would go to the circumcised. In short, according to Paul, he-together with Barnabas-is the designated apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter - along with James and John - is the designated apostle to the Jews.

The picture is quite different, however, in Acts 15:7-11, which reports Peter's speech at the Jerusalem Conference. In verse 7, Peter alludes to the conversion of the Gentile centurion Cornelius (Acts 10:1-11:18) as evidence of God's decision "in the early days" that it was to be by his, Peter's, mouth that "the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." Moreover, the conversion of Cornelius is narrated in quite considerable detail in Acts 10-three chapters before Paul begins his missionary activity-and is reported again in Acts 11:1-18. It appears clear, therefore, that this episode is of crucial importance to the author of Acts and that he uses it to emphasize the fact that it was Peter, not Paul, who inaugurated the mission to the Gentiles. In other words, the role explicitly claimed by Paul in Galatians 2:7 is claimed by Peter in Acts 15:7.

In the second place, a comparison of Acts 15:7-11 and Galatians 2:1-10 reveals not only an exchange of roles but also a transfer of ideas and even vocabulary from Paul to Peter. Indeed, almost everything in Peter's speech at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:7-11) has striking parallels in Galatians 2:1-10 or elsewhere in Galatians. These parallels are the following:

1. In Acts 15:7, Peter speaks of his message to the Gentiles as "gospel" In Galatians 2:7, Paul refers to his message to the Gentiles as "gospel."

2. In Acts 15:7, Peter suggests a similar division of responsibility whereby he, Peter, is to be the missionary to the Gentiles. In Galatians 2:7, as already noted, Paul speaks of a division of responsibility whereby he, Paul, is to go to the Gentiles.

3. In Acts 15:7, Peter appeals to God's "choice" as the basis for his selection as missionary to the Gentiles. In Galatians 2:7, Paul, somewhat obliquely to be sure, attributes to divine decree his own selection as missionary to the Gentiles.

4. In Acts 15:9, Peter asserts that God "made no distinction." In Galatians 2:6, Paul insists that "God shows no partiality." It is true that Peter has in mind a distinction between Jews and Gentiles while Paul refers to a distinction between himself and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the essential point appears to be the same: God does not play favorites so far as the life and mission of the church are concerned.

5. In Acts 15:8, Peter cites the Gentiles' reception of the Holy Spirit as proof that his mission to the Gentiles was approved by God. This has no parallel in Galatians 2:1-10, but just thirteen verses later (Gal 3:2) Paul cites reception of the Holy Spirit by the Galatian Christians (presumably Gentiles) as evidence of the validity of his gospel and thus of his mission to the Gentiles.

6. In Acts 15:10, Peter refers to the Law as "a yoke upon the neck." There is no parallel to this in Galatians 2:1 10, but Paul refers to the Law as a "yoke of slavery" in Galatians 5:1.

7. Also in Acts 15:10, Peter says that "neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" this "yoke." Paul frequently refers to the inability of people to obey the Law, and, in Galatians 2:14, reports his statement to none other than Peter that he, Peter, "live [s] like a Gentile and not like a Jew" and thus violates the Law.

8. Still in Acts 15:10, Peter accuses others of attempting to impose the "yoke" of the Law upon Gentile Christians. In Galatians 2:14, Paul is critical of Peter himself because Peter would "compel the Gentiles to live like Jews."

9. In Acts 15:10-11, Peter rejects the Law as a means of salvation and declares that both Jews and Gentiles are "saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus." In Galatians 2:16, Paul asserts that "a person is not justified by works of the Law but through Christ's faithfulness⁹. . . because by works of the Law no one will be justified."

10. In Acts 15:9, Peter asserts that "God cleansed the hearts" of both Gentiles and Jews "by faith"; further, in Acts 15:11, he says, "we believe that we [Jewish Christians] will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [Gentile Christians] will. As already noted, Paul insists in Galatians 2:16 that justification"-both for Jews and for Gentiles-is based not on "works of the Law" but rather on "Christ's faithfulness. "¹⁰

11. Again, in Acts 15:11, Peter declares that salvation comes "through the grace of the Lord Jesus." It is true that the term "grace" appears only in a rather general sense in Galatians 2:1-10: "the grace that was given to me" (Gal 2:9). Earlier in the letter, though, Paul refers specifically to the "grace of Christ" (Gal 1:6) and to "his [that is, God's] grace" (Gal 1:15). In addition, "salvation through the grace of the Lord Jesus" is surely a characteristically Pauline notion. Also to be noted is the fact that the only other passage in Acts that enunciates what might be called a "Pauline" or at least "quasi-Pauline" understanding of salvation is Acts 13:38-39, where this understanding is placed on the lips of Paul. Here, Paul says, "Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man [that is, Jesus] forgiveness of sins is preached to you, and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the Law of Moses." In other words, the author of Acts has Peter and Paul articulate essentially the same understanding of the basis for salvation.

In short, virtually every idea and much of the actual wording of Peter's speech in Acts 15:7-11 have parallels either in Galatians 2:1-10 or elsewhere in the Galatian letter. In fact, the Acts passage is so remarkably similar to the material in Galatians as to indicate that the author of Acts almost certainly knew this letter and used it as a source in constructing Peter's speech at the Jerusalem Conference.¹¹

Why Peter was "Paulinized"

It appears, therefore, that, for some reason, the author of the Book of Acts wishes to have Peter, much more so than Paul, express the views and employ the vocabulary that are found in Paul's letter to the Galatians and, at the same time, to have Peter replace Paul as the pioneer missionary to the Gentiles. Why would this be? Two theoretical possibilities can immediately be ruled out: (1) given Paul's dominating role in the following chapters of Acts, it is clear that the author's goal is not a denigration of Paul; and (2) in light of the fact that Peter disappears completely from the narrative following the Jerusalem Conference, it is also clear that the goal is not to elevate the status and role of Peter.

A clue to the author's intention is perhaps to be found, however, by returning to Paul's report regarding his encounter with Peter in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14) and viewing it not as a sequel to the account of his visit to Jerusalem-that is, the Jerusalem Conference (Gal 2:1-10) - but rather, in a kind of "flashback," as a prelude to Galatians 2:1-10. Viewed in this light, Galatians 2:11-14 represents Paul's own version of the controversy in Antioch that led to his visit to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-10), which is described in Acts 15:1-21 as the Jerusalem Conference. It then becomes instructive to compare Galatians 2:11-14 with Acts 15:1-2 (see the Boxes below), where the author of Acts tells his version of the reasons for the controversy in Antioch and the resulting conference in Jerusalem. Such a comparison reveals the following significant differences:

1. In Galatians 2:12, "certain people" came to Antioch "from James" and instigated the controversy there. In Acts 15:1, "certain people" came to Antioch simply "from Judea" - there is no mention of James - and instigated the controversy there.

2. In Galatians 2:11-14, Peter became directly involved (on the "wrong" side from Paul's perspective) in the controversy. In Acts, there is no mention of Peter ever being in Antioch or of his involvement in any controversy with Paul, whether in Antioch or elsewhere.

3. In Galatians 2:13, "even Barnabas was led astray" into getting involved in the controversy (also on the

"wrong" side). In Acts, there is no reference to Barnabas' involvement in the controversy except as an ally of Paul.

Galatians 2:11-14

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; "for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. "And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. "But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel. I said to Cephas before their, all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Acts 15:1-2

Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved". ²And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders.

In other words, the author of Acts revises Paul's account in the following ways:

·  he eliminates any reference to James as playing a role in instigating the controversy in Antioch;

·  he eliminates any reference to Peter as being involved in the controversy; and

·  he transforms Barnabas from a participant (on the side chastised by Paul) in the controversy into Paul's ally and associate.

In addition, as the narrative continues, the author

·  attributes to Peter essentially the same ideas and even much of the same vocabulary as that employed by Paul in his Galatian letter;

·  attributes to James the resolution of the issue under discussion at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:13-21), and

·  attributes to "the apostles and the elders, with the whole church," the statement that the people who instigated the controversy in Antioch had acted without authorization from the Jerusalem leadership (Acts 15:22-29).

Again, the question must be raised: What was the purpose of the author of Acts in thus altering the material in Paul's letter to the Galatians? In part, it must have been simply the desire to present a unified and harmonious picture of the early Christian movement, as has already been noted. In my own judgment, however, the author had another more specific goal in mind. If his portrayal of Paul was an attempt to "rescue" - or perhaps "co-opt" - Paul from the Marcionites, his portrayal of Peter appears to be an attempt to "rehabilitate" Paul in the minds of those who might look upon him with suspicion-perhaps because of his place within the Marcionite ideology or perhaps for other reasons.

The author does this by portraying Paul's activities as missionary to the Gentiles and his views regarding salvation and the Law as neither idiosyncratic, out of the mainstream of the early Christian movement, nor dangerous. According to Acts, it was Peter's conversion of the Roman Cornelius that set the precedent for missionary activity among the Gentiles; Paul simply followed this precedent. Moreover, there is no reference in the Cornelius story to circumcision of the new Gentile converts, and this set the stage for Paul's insistence that such circumcision not be required. Finally, both the legitimacy of the Gentile mission and the rationale for the non-requirement of circumcision for Gentile Christians was articulated at the Jerusalem Conference by none other than Peter, was supported by James, and was endorsed by the assembled "apostles" and "elders" who led the early church in Jerusalem. In other words, despite his popularity among the Marcionites and perhaps other "heretics," Paul was not a maverick as some might suspect. In Acts both Paul's activities and his theology were well within the mainstream of the Christian movement as represented most significantly by Peter. Thus, the "Paulinization" of Peter in the Book of Acts contributes to the author's goal of "rehabilitating" Paul by portraying Peter as his forerunner both in the mission to the Gentiles and in the proclamation of salvation through faith apart from works of the Law. In the process, however, the author of Acts clearly paints strikingly different pictures of both Paul and Peter and of the early Christian movement generally than that which appears in the letters of Paul.

Endnotes

1. I am assuming that Paul did not write I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians, or 2 Thessalonians and that these letters are to be dated after his lifetime.

2. Traditionally, the Greek phrase pistis Christou has been translated as "faith in Christ," but increasing numbers of scholars are now opting for "Christ's faith" or "Christ's faithfulness," which is at least equally acceptable in terms of Greek grammar. See Daryl Schmidt, "translating Paul's Faith," The Fourth R 18.3 (May-June 2005), pp. 17-18. Some proponents of what is being called "the new perspective on Paul" maintain that "works of the law" refers not to the Mosaic law as a whole but only to those aspects of the law, such as circumcision and the dietary regulations, that separate Jews from Gentiles.

3. It is quite possible, however, that the Greek phrase tous ek peritomes means simply "those who were circumcised" - that is, Jews.

4. The Book of Acts was almost certainly written more than a generation after the time of Paul and probably as much as two or even three generations later.

5. Except in Acts 14:4, 14, Paul is not even honored with the title of "apostle"-the title he so insistently claims for himself (see, for example, Gal 1:1 and 1 Cor 9:1-2)

6. Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2006).

7. Scholars disagree as to whether Acts 15:1-21 and Galatians 2:1-10 do in fact refer to the same gathering in Jerusalem, but it appears clear to me that the author of Acts intends 15:1-21 as an alternative version of what Paul reports in Galatians 2:1-10.

8. This is uncertain, however, because a few scholars-and I count myself among them-regard Galatians 2:7b-8 as a later non-Pauline interpolation.

9. See note 2 above.

10. See note 2 above.

11. For evidence that the author of Acts knew and used not only Galatians but also a number of other letters in the Pauline corpus, see Richard I. Pervo, RedatingActs: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2006), 51-147.

William 0. Walker, Jr., is Jennie Farris Railey King Professor Emeritus of Religion at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas where he served as a member of the faculty and as an administrator until his retirement in 2002. He is the author of Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (2001).

The Fourth R 22-3 May-June 2009