On “Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem” by Nicholas Taylor ***

This book aims to correct a common view that Paul squared off against Peter and James and the Jerusalem church, that he had one brand of Christianity, they another, and the two were essentially enemies after Paul attempted to correct Peter in Antioch. That said, even as Taylor aims to correct this view, he seems in many ways to defend it. Mostly, what he tries to do is point out that the situation was actually much more complex than that summary affords. In the end, we get a viewpoint that is more inclined to see Paul as squaring off against certain of the Jerusalem church but coming to respectful terms with Peter and James themselves sometime after that Antioch meeting. Much is made of the two gospels, one by Paul to Gentiles and one by Peter to Jews.

The author essentially aims to show that Paul's relationship with the Jerusalem church varied over time. He did not contact Jerusalem early on and did not have a relationship with the church early on. Only when called to deal with how fellowship with Gentiles should be configured did Paul really start to deal with Jerusalem. This led eventually to the confrontation with Peter. After that, he tried to establish his own apostleship independent of Jerusalem (and Antioch, which had accepted Jerusalem's authority over his own) and created a number of independent church. In time, however, he came to some reconciliation with Jerusalem, or at least with the lead apostles, enough that he, as per agreed upon earlier, went forward with plans to collect donations for the Jerusalem church as a way of folding his own churches in with the lead church. This agreement was actually via/through Antioch, so Paul was actually doing something beyond or outside that agreement. When the timing proved to olate for Antioch's own donations, he had to go forward to Jerusalem on his own, which then led to troubles with the Jerusalem authorities and his eventual deportation to Rome and death. Or at least, that's much of what I got out of it. Taylor, as noted, seems to thread the needle a lot, showing how Jerusalem was never not in charge except that Paul was somewhat independent of it. It's a complex argument—much more difficult than simply saying Paul was on his own or Paul was not on his own.

The book itself is based on Taylor's dissertation. It doesn't appear that more than small changes have occurred between the two. The book is long on literary review and very definitely aimed at scholarly audiences, as his argument is one that would likely appeal only to those deep in the mud over what Paul's break or nonbreak with Antioch and Peter really consisted of.