Talk:Council of Jerusalem/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: opening comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  3o 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Eisenman, Robert, 1997. ''James the Brother of Jesus''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Western Version of Acts