galatians and acts

Michael Bird commented on my previous post, asking about my take on the relationship between the Jerusalem visits described in Acts and Galatians. Since I ended up producing an extended response, I thought I might as well put it into a separate post. These are very much in the category of "thoughts in process" at this point (okay, they've been "in process" for a few years now and are unlikely to get out of that stage!). Also, these points are fairly extemporaneous, as I don't have time right now to consult other works. Perhaps at a later date I'll be able to produce a more extensive, well-researched description of these things.

I am intrigued by the idea that Acts 9:26-29 = Acts 11:27-30; 12:25, given that Luke seems not to be concerned with precise chronology at least in the earlier chapters of Acts and that those sections are described in rather vague chronological terms. However, at this point I still see the best explanation of those Acts passages as describing separate Jerusalem visits by Paul.

I see Acts 11:27-30; 12:25 = Gal 2:1-10, for a few key reasons:

1. Gal 2:1-10 describes what was intended to be a private meeting with a few, not a large meeting with many, unlike Acts 15; the "spies" that infiltrated the meeting were not supposed to be there.
2. Paul says he went to Jerusalem "in response to a revelation," there's no indication that the revelation was directly related to Paul's agenda for the private meeting with the pillars (the rhetorical point in the broader context of Gal 1-2 is simply that Paul acts in response to divine, not merely human, motivation), and Acts 11 describes the revelation of Agabus as motivating the Jerusalem journey.
   
3. The pillars ask Paul to "(continue to?) remember the poor," a statement that makes sense in the context of the famine visit of Acts 11 but not with the council of Acts 15. Even the other conclusions of this private meeting don't fit really well with the conclusions of Acts 15: e.g. recognition of Jewish and Gentile spheres of ministry.
   

Some other relevant points:

1. There's no reason why Paul should not have an additional personal agenda for the famine visit (to press the matter of circumcision and his gospel privately with the Jerusalem pillars).
2. The Galatians 2:12 description of people from James in Jerusalem pressing the Gentile issue coheres with the narrative introduction to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.
3. There is much in Paul's rhetoric in Gal 1-2 that makes sense if Paul is actually writing this just before leaving for the Jerusalem council, being unsure of how it will all turn out and whether or not the Jerusalem apostles will renege on their former confirmation of Paul's gospel just as Peter had effectively done in his Antioch actions: e.g. Paul's insistence that even if an angel from heaven (let alone another "apostle") should preach a different gospel they are anathema, and Paul's wary description of the Jerusalem leaders.
   
4. If the Council had already taken place, it seems to me that Paul would be less reluctant to identify himself with the Jerusalem apostles and he would surely have stated the basic conclusion (that Gentiles don't need to become Jews) in his letter.

Update (09/18): Stephen Carlson has a summary of the various options for connecting Acts and Galatians on Paul's Jerusalem visits here.

Update (09/26): Mark Goodacre has offered a good defence of Acts 15 = Gal 1-2, with the idea that Acts 9:26-29 = Acts 11:27-30; 12:25: The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15. Any attempt to fit Acts and Galatians together is going to reveal some rough edges that don't neatly fit. Although Acts 11:27-30; 12:25 = Gal 2:1-10 is not an easy fit, I still feel it is the best explanation of what one finds both in Acts and in Galatians.

Update (09/28): Mark Goodacre has a "response to critics" here.