Now to begin, who is this Harrington fellow? He's not a scholar, certainly; and his works are not inclined towards scholarship of any sort. I find on the entirety of his page not a single footnote, and only one reference to a source of any kind, by a fellow named Wheless who is of that Ingersoll/Paine/McCabe/Cutner school that thinks that being a "freethinker" qualifies a person to say practically anything he wants to authoritatively, and that we ought to throw aside qualified Biblical scholarship and listen to them instead. Most of Harrington's writings are in the form of an extended diatribe against the "priesthood" that has allegedly "fabricated" core beliefs of modern Christianity. (It is never specified, that I can see, who composes this priesthood, how many members it has, and so on, although there are hints that the original Roman church and Constantine are the originators; you'll have to make your best guess for the rest. You might even be part of the conspiracy yourself.)

What does Harrington believe in? It's a mixed bag. He isn't an atheist like most of our profile subjects. Perhaps we can best figure out this bag of Planters by sampling some quotes:

• "...(T)he Bible is composed of a Spiritual duality and contradiction is its rule!...the Bible is composed of the inspired words of God, with the greater portion being composed of the words of those who were not inspired by God." (How can we tell the difference? It's not specified, but as we proceed it becomes clear that the line of demarcation is, Anything that Wayne Harrington accepts is inspired; that which he disagrees with is not. You think I'm being sarcastic? Check the comment at the end.)
• "All the self-called can offer in trying to rationalize these other flaws in Acts away is more priestly mumbo-jumbo." (This sounds an awful lot like someone who would find the Acts commentary by Ben Witherington and most of the articles on this page way overhead!)
• "To forbid the questioning of Biblical doctrines does not serve to uphold truth, but serves to protect the fabrications of a self-called priesthood. Whose self-serving doctrines have sown self-hatred, passive ignorance, and an unrighteous fear of God." (Yes, I'm practically trembling in my boots at the authority of an all-powerful priesthood that has trampled all over me. Someone pass a hanky and unlock these shackles, would you...)
• "...(I)t is not by the ritual religions of the priesthood that the righteous fruit of faith in God is sown; but by the righteous desires of the Spiritual heart." (Signs of a New-Agey sort of philosophy? I'm still not sure who this "priesthood" is.)
• "...(T)he Creator of all things has made the material universe subject to the laws of evolution...man's knowledge of God is an evolving knowledge." (This sounds like a mix of Lloyd Graham's Deceptions and Myths of the Bible and Nikos Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ...come to think of it, Harrington seems to be subject to the same kind of mania we find in those guys.)
• "An unrighteous fear of God is sown in one's childhood, when perverse things that are said of God have their greatest effect..." (I think here we have a hint about this fellow's background. This sort of cheap "now I'm grown up and you're not" psychologization and temper tantrums a la Robert Price is rampant in his materials. Too bad he has no explanation for folks like me who were brought up in homes where the only vision of God was that of a New Age namby-pamby who wouldn't sentence anyone to hell except maybe Hitler, Stalin and Mao.)
• "Biblical scholars and many of the clergy are most certainly aware of Biblical contradictions and flaws. Yet, being preoccupied with a vain desire to dazzle one another with lofty Tech-speak, the scholars have been ineffectual in communicating their scholarly findings in an understandable language to the common masses. While those of the clergy...have chosen to remain silent for their own vain reasons." (Hey, yeah, there's that coverup again; and why can't those arrogant scholars talk like us yokels who don't want to bother learning more for ourselves? Why can't Ben Witherington write his Acts commentary in comic-book format so that Mr. Harrington can understand it?)
• "How is it that in this nation there are more than a thousand Christian denominations? Each with its own rituals and each claiming that their particular interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. How can that be? Is God so incompetent as to inspire something as important as the Bible, that could and would be misunderstood by so many?" (We've answered this sort of thing with Skeptic X before; it's our fault, not God's. Can anyone tell me that the fact that the "Who Killed Saul" problem, cited as it is by so many allegedly intelligent people, is NOT an example of either cognitive dissonance or else a sinful wish to not read the text and accept the implications? And let me just add that I'm no supporter of the institutions of men, but it's not as though each of those denominations has an entirely different view about every issue!)
• "Long ago, in a vision in the clouds, I stood before a heavenly multitude. And the two greatest of the heavenly witnesses pointed to a dark cloud, and in that purplish cloud Satan was revealed wearing an uncountable number of the masks of men. There are no earthly words to describe the awesome and unspeakable power that Satan symbolized. Yet, he held no power over the heavenly multitude, for God's power is greater than Satan's. In that vision, the sun became Christ, bejeweled and wearing royal robes, and he sought my death that day; but God would not allow it." (This is the entry I referred to earlier -- and it's the one that assures me, more than any, that we are dealing here with a bona fide fruitcake, one far worse than Ken Smith even dares to think Ezekiel is. And if you disagree, Satan has a mask in the likeness of your face. We will also be told that this robed Christ was actually a false one; that Satan had a part in inspiring the Bible, and that God himself revealed the meaning of parts of the vision to Harrington. Which leads to this early conclusion: Any attempt to argue with this fellow will probably result ultimately in reference to this vision and other alleged revelations as a source superior to scholarship, logic, or whatever else you can dish out. You may as well debate with your garden hose.)

That's the personality profile. Now let's deal with a few practical matters.

One of my recent projects focused on the matter of Paul, and the alleged differences in his portrayal in Acts and his presentation of himself in his epistles. It happens also that this is a specialty attention-area of Harrington's, although he has plainly not studied the matter any farther than his personal collection of Spiderman comics.

Of central focus for Harrington, predictably, is the alleged conflict between the events recounted in Acts on the one hand, and in Galatians on the other: This is the standard starting point for anyone critical on this subject, although no one else supposes, as our subject here does, that Acts was the product of (hold on to your hats) the "so-called Jerusalem church" that actually disliked Paul intently. Did you catch that? The general scholarly trend, even among liberals, is that Acts was designed to make Paul look good; our friend here says the opposite. If this isn't as exemplary of insanity as purple clouds, what else is? But let's get down to specifics.

The first verses cited as being in conflict are Gal. 1:15-17 and Acts 9:1-26. We shall quote only the first and assume familiarity with the second:

But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

The problem, as Harrington sees it? There are two of them.

1. The first verses are alleged to be contradicted by Acts 9, in that the latter says "immediately after the revelation, rather than going to Arabia and not conferring with flesh and blood, Paul was told he must enter Damascus, for there he would be told what to do. Not only must the Paul of Acts (Saul) confer with flesh and blood to find out what he is to do; but even receives the Holy Spirit from one of flesh and blood! According to Acts, Paul doesn't go to Arabia at all, but remained in Damascus until he was forced to flee to Jerusalem."

   We have elsewhere discussed the matter of the Arabian mission; what of the rest of this? Quite frankly, it is simply a case of very bad reading on Harrington's part, combined with a complete lack of comprehension of the purpose of Galatians and a lack of knowledge of the grammar of the verse in question. Paul in this epistle is concerned to defend himself against charges that his gospel message is made up or borrowed rather than from God. He is not defending himself against charges that his Gentile mission was not from God, and he is not defending himself against charges that his receipt of the Holy Spirit was not from God. On the other hand, we recall from our discussion on 1 Cor. 15 that "flesh and blood" refers to human weakness. Ananias speaks as a prophet of God in Acts 9; therefore his message is not from "flesh and blood" anyway. Harrington is wrong about this matter from both directions. The Galatians defense does not exclude Paul from having had hands laid on him at the time of receiving the Holy Spirit (the laying on of hands being a typical gesture used to symbolize a divine commissioning anyway); nor does it exclude his commission to preach to the Gentiles revealed to him by Ananias, who at any rate, again, is depicted as a prophet offering God's message. (This, in spite of what Harrington might suppose about verse 16: Paul speaks only of his gospel not having come from men [vv. 11-12]; he specifies no source whatsoever as excluded for the commission to the Gentiles, which means that having the commission given through a prophetic tradent is hardly excluded.)

   In terms of linguistics, there are some additional considerations. The word "consult" in this verse has technical overtones related to the consultation of one who is authoritative and able to interpret and advise. This would fit in with Paul denying contact with the Apostles, but it would not exclude contact with a low-level servant like Ananias who only gave a few words of confirmation on a practical (versus and interpretive) matter. Also, the construction of 1:17 is awkward in the original Greek; the word "immediately" is exactly where the KJV puts it...

   ...immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood...

   ...which is, in front of the two negative clauses. This is rather an odd placement: It is akin to saying, "Immediately I didn't cook dinner." To solve this, some versions put the word "immediately" (eutheos) in an entirely different place which lets the verse read that Paul went immediately into Arabia (a very large area which actually includes Damascus!). But it is more likely that it applies to those things where Paul placed it closest: Not consulting flesh and blood; not seeing the Jerusalem gang. And thus it serves as a qualifier to these negative statements, allowing that Paul DID do these two things later, as he goes on to explain, but not immediately. In any event, the reading required for Harrington's desire for contradiction with Acts is totally unjustified.

2. It is also argued that in saying in Galatians that he was to preach "among" the Gentiles, Acts is shown to be perpetrating a fabrication, in that it shows that Paul also preached to the Jews, and indeed first to them. Harrington says: "...Acts says that it wasn't a revelation of God that sent Paul to among the Gentiles, but he was caused to go among the Gentiles because his message was rejected in the synagogues."

   Not for the only time, I wonder whether Harrington is aware that Paul wrote more letters than just Galatians. We have already seen that that letter says no such thing about the Gentile mission per se as being because of a revelation. (It was, again, Paul's gospel that was revealed to him -- and even then, as we have noted elsewhere, even that statement does not exclude any previous knowledge by Paul of Christian belief, since in persecuting the church he had to have some previous idea of what they believed!) But Acts is far from alone in noting that Paul preached in the synagogues before he preached to the Gentiles. Really -- what does Harrington make of Paul's statements in Romans that the gospel is "first for the Jew, and then for the Gentile", which corresponds exactly with the practice of Paul depicted in Acts? (Rom. 1:16, etc.) How does he explain Paul's statement that "to the Jews (he) become(s) a Jew", unless Paul was actively preaching to Jews? What does he think was the cause for Paul receiving the 39 stripes five different times (2 Cor. 11:24) -- an internal synagogual disciplinary procedure? Was Paul being flogged for littering? The problem here is that Harrington somehow presumes 1) that preaching "among" Gentiles means that Paul always and exclusively preached to Gentiles from the moment of his conversion -- which is an absurdly literalistic reading that does no justice to the realities of language; and 2) that Acts depicts Paul's trips from Jew to Gentile as the result of a direct cause-and-effect relationship (get kicked out of the synagogue ---> go to the Gentiles) that is neither specified nor justified in the text. There is not a single reputable scholar who believes this sort of nonsense that Harrington proposes. Paul thought himself the Apostle to the Gentiles, and does indeed indicate that it was God's will that he be the one to do it, but both his letters and Acts indicate that his mission to Jews was far from cast aside because of that commission. (Nor does Paul say in Gal. 2:7-9, as Harrington supposes, that "the Gentile proselytes of the synagogues were under the law, and thereby, had placed themselves under the authority of James, Peter, and John..." The text says no such thing at all, although perhaps this is the mirror image of Harrington's literalistic misreading of Paul's "Gentile only" mission. So, then, what did Paul do when he was preaching to a crowd of Gentiles, and Jews showed up? Did he shut up until the Jews left?)

   At the same time, being "among" the Gentiles simply means to be in a Gentile land (as opposed to Judaea). The preposition here denotes a fixed position in place, time or state. It does not carry the sense of Paul preaching only to Gentiles.

   Harrington's exegesis of Galatians, then, is just plain off the wall and unsupported by any social, historical, or theological evidence. He has consulted with no relevant scholarship whatsoever, and this is made plain by the fact that the only explanation he knows for Acts omitting the Arabian mission is that it is "because Paul went (to Arabia) spiritually without anyone being aware of it." I haven't seen this one in any of the Acts commentaries!

Other than this, we have all of the usual old saws rounded up and polished off, ones we have already handled elsewhere:

• The alleged contradiction within Acts over Paul's conversion;
• Described as "utterly absurd" is Paul's persecution of the church: "After all, did the Roman authorities consider it to be a criminal offense if the Jewish religion was not being properly observed in Damascus, Syria?" No...and where do the "Roman authorities" come in? They're not in Acts or in Paul's letters, both of which aver that Paul once persecuted the church because they did not observe or violated the precepts of Judaism. The Romans are totally in Harrington's imagination.
• The usual claim of contradiction between Paul's itinerary and visits to Jerusalem. Of particular amusement is Harrington claim concerning alleged contradiction between these verses in Acts:

  9:28 So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.

  22:17-18 "When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking. 'Quick!' he said to me. 'Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.'

  It is said that 9:28, opposed to 22:4-21, "says that rather than going in and out among them in Jerusalem...Paul is told to leave Jerusalem 'immediately'!" Acts 22 only tells us that Paul was in Jerusalem when the message to leave immediately came to him; it does not say it was given to him as soon as he got there!

• The usual bit alleging contradiction between Acts and Gal. 1:22 regarding the "churches of Judea", which we have looked at here and here.
• The usual complaint about Paul having Timothy circumcised -- Harrington wonders why Titus was not circumcised when brought among the Jews (Gal. 2:3). He obviously does not appreciate the point that Timothy's mother, and not Titus', was a Jew, and that that was the whole point in the offense Timothy would have caused to other Jews!
• The usual about Paul following the suggestion of James, where Harrington naturally displays a total lack of cognizance of the social and personal forces at work in the situation, as well as wondering why Paul had to be "reminded" of the contents of the decree;
• Finally, a large article is written by Harrington alleging conspiracy and malfeasance by those naughty self-callers, as evidenced by discrepancy between Gal. 2 and Acts 15, the account of the Council of Jerusalem. (Hint to Wayne: Gal. 2 = Acts 11. Look here and find out! And while you're at it, let's see if you can refute the entire article I've written! It's pretty clear that you aren't perceiving well on the purpose of the decree either -- those are NOT "the requirements of a synagogue" at all!)

Well now! Didn't I tell you that this would get repetitive? You have to wonder whether these guys will ever come up with any new objections...but we're not through with the reruns yet!

And now, let's close this small profile with a list of the items our subject covers that we have already covered elsewhere. As will be seen, there is practically nothing original to be offered in this quarter:

One of Harrington's essays closes with these lines:

It is better to suffer the appearance of being a fool than to believe foolish things. For the essence of the things, which I have communicated to you, have not come through human effort, nor by accident; but by revelation!

Who shall stand before God and boast of righteousness? Certainly not I! Nevertheless, there is wisdom in God's choice of this despised drunkard and worldly failure to be caused to pass through "The Test of Fire!" For if this imperfect fool is beloved of God, surely the hope of the downtrodden shall be justified!

In the likes of Wayne Harrington, the bills of the excesses of the charismatic sector of Christianity have come due. With feverish abandon has he manipulated texts and ignored scholarship to his own ends. Our challenge is as usual -- for him to either get with the program or else darken our doors no more -- but don't count on any sort of measured response from his quarter; in all likelihood his fantastic dreams of purple clouds and visions of Satan doffing masks shall be sufficient to condemn me. Our advice to the reader is to lose no sleep over the tortured ravings of Harrington's slipshod mind. He is neither scholar nor messenger, but a false prophet.

At the same time, we have shown that there is little new that the critical and skeptical camp can offer in response to the Christian faith. Time and time again the same objections crop up; time and time again they are answered; each time the answers are ignored and bounce off of the skulls of the critics as a rubber ball bouncing off of obsidian. For this reason now shall the Rogue's Gallery become a more select venture, one which will focus on the uniqueness (if any!) of its subjects, and assume familiarity with any objections already covered.

And now, an update. Mr. Purple Clouds and I have recently had it out on, of all places, a Mormon-oriented discussion forum, and Wayne attempted an answer to the matter of Acts 11 = Gal. 2. Here is my response to his arguments.

As previously noted, one of Harrington's premier arguments is that Acts is presenting a false view of Paul which is contradicted by Paul's true account of himself in Gal. 2. Several of Harrington's objections come about by equating Acts 15 with Gal. 2, whereas we argued that Gal. 2 is describing what happened in Acts 11, with Acts 15 still in the future. Harrington calls this an "illogical argument," "an absurd claim," made by we and others because it "serves [our] agenda, which is to uphold dishonest claims of Biblical inerrancy." So what can Wayne bring to the fore in terms of actual proof?

The answer is, generally, a mass of confused statements and guesswork, based on his own clumsy reading of the text, along with a suitable mix of calling everyone who disagrees with him stupid and dishonest. Wayne begins by claiming that in Galatians, "Paul says he has made but two trips to Jerusalem; whereas, Acts is claiming that he has made three, which is an obvious contradiction of what Paul is saying in Galatians." Well, of course: When Paul had written Galatians, he had yet to make trip number three described in Acts; there were only two trips at the time. Wayne seems to be completely oblivious to how Acts 11 = Gal. 2 pieces the chronology together; we will see how he addresses points regarding the earliness of Galatians later on.

Next, in terms of trying to disequate Gal. 2 and Acts 11, the Purple-Cloudmeister writes:

(Note: I've had here to edit some of Wayne's cruder language, which probably wouldn't pass my server's filtering program.)

The simple answer to this is that Wayne's complaint is meaningless. As noted in articles linked above, Luke has placed all matters concerning circumcision in Acts 15 according to a topical scheme. This is a normal historiographical practice for the period, for historians like Josephus, Tacitus, and others; but don't expect Wayne to understand this, because he knows no better than reading the Bible like it was a newspaper delivered to his door (and all he does do to this point is dismiss it as fantasy, never mind doing the needed legwork). Now we of course equate the "revelation" Paul refers to in Gal. 2:2 with the famine prophecy of Agabus. About all Wayne can do here is complain implicitly that Paul says nothing in Gal. 2 about the famine in the Roman Empire (which is what the word "world" in Acts 11:28 refers to -- Wayne is clearly also unaware of this usage of the word in a Greco-Roman context), and that Paul "does suggest that the revelation that caused him to go to Jerusalem had something to do with what he did." Of course it did: It caused him to travel to Jerusalem, and while he is there, is he going to fail to talk about other subjects that are relevant? Or, aren't other topics going to come up (which weren't originally on the agenda)? Keep in mind that Paul in Galatians is defending himself from charges that his commission is illicit and not from proper authority -- supposedly the Jerusalem church. In alluding to the revelation of Agabus (and an allusion is all that is needed in this context), Paul indicates that he wasn't going down to Jerusalem because he was under the control of the Jerusalem leadership; he is indicating that he came to Jerusalem of his own accord and for entirely different reasons than that his methods and message needed Jerusalem's approval (though he did get that anyway; see here. (Wayne also complains that "it makes no sense at all to make a request of one that has just arrived with relief for the suffering poor because of a 'dearth throughout ALL THE WORLD' (Acts 11: 29-30) that they should remember the poor"! It doesn't? Who does Wayne think was, and would be, in so much trouble during the famine? None other than the poor! And was a single gift [Acts 11:2-30] mean that Paul can now "forget" the poor? No wonder Wayne only dropped ten cents to the starving children and no more; he figures now that he's contributed once, he no longer needs to "remember" the poor!)

Wayne goes on to say that "in spite of claims that Galatians 2 refers to Acts 11, one can't but conclude that regardless of when the alleged 'Apostolic Decree' was reached, both Acts 11 and Acts 15 are portraying Paul as a wimpy hypocrite who does not honor the agreement made in Galatians 2:9." Why? Because "the Saul of Acts continues after both Acts 11 and Acts 15 to seek out and preach 'unto the circumcision. ' -- The Jews!" He then offers a large number of examples of this in Acts. I addressed this point already earlier in this essay -- Paul in his very own letters proclaims that he preached to the Jews. Wayne's numerous cites of places in Acts where Paul preaches to Jews are irrelevant and wasted space. (He does try to backpedal by saying that "it would be unreasonable to think that Paul, a Jew himself, would of not had any contact with Jews and the leaders of synagogues in the regions of his ministry," but, "the overt and deliberate attempts in Acts in claims of Paul's determination to preach to the Jews are a fabrication." This is, again, answered by the data above from Paul's letters, indicating a very solid determination by Paul to preach to Jews. We'll see his answer to this shortly.)

Wayne next moves to some comments I made on the discussion board. We will bypass the non-arguments, repetitions, and non-specifics offered, and the continued vain and pointless attempts to find contradiction between Gal. 2 and Acts 15, and move to what little meat is on the bones of this purple cloud. Wayne is first of all overstating his case in saying that "the Jerusalem church insisted that the laws of Moses were to be observed by all who belonged to this new sect of Judaism." Not even Paul in Galatians says that the Jerusalem church and/or their leadership insisted on such a thing, and we challenge Harrington to demonstrate that this is what Paul says. (See link just above for the real deal -- Paul does fix some blame on "false brethren" for causing problems, while noting especially that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, but you will find nowhere an indication that any of the Jerusalem apostles insisted that the Law of Moses needed to be observed. Like Acts, Galatians places the blame for this issue on unnamed instigators.)

I said on the board, "Paul describes in Galatians a meeting where circumcision was discussed, and Luke says nothing about it. Under the Gal 2 = Acts 15 equation, this is a problem and a contradiction, but if Gal. 2 = Acts 11, it is not." Wayne replies, "Absolutely false! According to Acts 15 the whole point of sending Saul to Jerusalem was to settle a dispute that arose over circumcision, and Acts most certainly has a fabricated version of that meeting. Whereas in Acts 11, Saul was sent to Jerusalem because of a coming 'dearth throughout ALL THE WORLD.' " What is the problem here? As noted, under our equation, in Gal. 2, the events of Acts 15 are yet in the future. There can't be a contradiction or discrepancy with an event that hasn't happened yet! And we have already noted that revelation = Agabus prophecy equation, and the matter of history dealt with by Luke topically in accord with the practice of the time, which Wayne has failed to refute.

I then noted that "Galatians 2 indicates a discussion of circumcision, but no solution to the issue as is found in Acts 15." Wayne bellows back, "False again! There is a solution in Galatians 2: 7-10, who should go unto the circumcision and who should go unto the Gentiles. In other words, who was to preach to whom and what was to be preached." Huh? How is laying out geographic territory for preaching a solution to whether or not Gentile converts need to be circumcised and follow the law (which is not the real issue anyway, only a background; see link above)? How is problem A solved by answer B in this case? Is Wayne seriously suggesting that the "solution" was a matter of avoidance? In other words, to leave the question unsettled and go each others' merry way? Is this the way to address matters of eternal salvation? And if that is so, then why is Peter coming up to visit Antioch, Gentile territory (Gal. 2:11ff), and why is Paul going back there to minister to the saints (Rom. 15:25)? Isn't this testing the limits on both sides? Simply put, the data does not fit Wayne's argument. The Gal. 2 territory division is of no relevance to the circumcision question.

I then made the point that there is nothing in Galatians itself to suggest that there was a decree like Acts 15 in regards to Gentile circumcision or table fellowship. Paul says that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised; the word suggests a strong sentiment, if not a compulsion. If the decree were in effect, then there would be no question of whether anyone would be "compelled" or "not compelled" one way or the other, for the matter would be settled. Wayne responds by begging the question and stating that Acts 15 must therefore be a fabrication, which is about all we can expect from his quarter. (He also accuses me, asking "why have you so conveniently omitted the reason that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised"? I don't see where I have omitted it; but we'll see what he means by this soon.) Wayne goes on: "There was no agreement between Paul and the Jerusalem church concerning the Gentiles and the works of the law, until the agreement in Galatians 2 was reached. If Galatians 2 = Acts 11 there would have been no need in Acts 15 to send Saul to Jerusalem to receive instruction concerning the Gentiles and circumcision, for that matter would have been settled." As noted, the "agreement" Wayne cites isn't an agreement on that subject at all. Acts 15 records the end of which the events in Gal. 2 were the beginning.

I then stressed my point, "What do you think was the cause for Paul receiving the 39 stripes five different times (2 Cor. 11:24) -- an internal synagogual disciplinary procedure? Was Paul being flogged for littering? I say you are presuming that preaching 'among' Gentiles means that Paul always and exclusively preached to Gentiles from the moment of his conversion -- whereas, as I point out, the phrase 'among the Gentiles' has merely a geographical connotation." Harrington's answer to this is a real oil well: "In some regions of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles the Jews were influential enough to pressure local authorities to allow them to have Paul stoned, whipped, and expelled from their cities." What's that? Where does Harrington get this ream of wild speculation from? This is completely ad hoc and contrary to the norm in the Greco-Roman world. The Jews were granted full religious rights by the Romans and did not need permission from local authorities to do their internal disciplinary procedures; but they could not, on the other hand, drag just anyone in they liked and apply the punishments, and those punishments were in response to certain violations of synagogue policy. No one said anything about "stoned, whipped, and expelled" in this context. The reference is to the 39 stripes alone, which was a procedure performed by Jews within the context of their own synagogue, for offenses within the synagogue. If Paul were preaching to Gentiles and it offended them, then indeed they might stone him, whip him, or chase him out of town (as Acts does record happened), but he could not have gotten the 39 lashes without being in some way inside the synagogue and violating one of their rules. So again, what was Paul doing, littering? No -- he was preaching what these Jews thought was blasphemy -- the gospel that equated Jesus with the divine.

Wayne adds, "Besides, Paul's statement in Galatians 2: 9 '..that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision..' is not referring to a location, but to a people." Wayne is simply wrong here -- the interconnectedness of ancient peoples with their lands makes a referral to "the heathen" the same as saying that they would go to their land and does not make any statements about exclusive rights for preaching subjects in this regard. Moreover, the meaning and the context is established by Gal. 1:16, which is the original verse referring to preaching "among" the heathen (geographically).

I next note 1 Cor. 9:20, "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law..." showing that Paul was willing to observe Jewish customs himself in order to make a gesture of conciliation. Wayne responds with another ad hoc solution, that "I'm not arguing that all that Paul has said is faultless"! He then fails to understand the "rely on" vs. "observe" dichotomy I have laid out, citing Acts 21:24 in which James tells Paul to "observe and guard the law." Acts 21 is a perfect example of what I am talking about -- it is a gesture of conciliation (as is Paul's paying for the purification and head-shaving) of the sort Paul expresses in 1 Cor. 9:20. It does not show that Paul thought that observing the law was necessary for salvation or for Gentiles to adhere to it as Wayne supposes. (As Romans shows, Paul recognizes the Jewish law as a portrait of universal moral law anyway!)

He goes on: "...unlike Paul's account in Galatians 2: 3-5 of refusing to allow the circumcision of Titus so that the truth of his gospel would be preserved..." Back up: This is what Wayne accuses me of "omitting" previously. But Gal. 2:3-5 nowhere indicates that Titus was not circumcised because Paul refused to allow it. There is no indication that Paul had (or better, had to have) a say in the matter one way or the other, but that it came down to Titus not having any encounter that brought up the question. It is also incorrect to say that Acts depicts Paul as the "wimpy Saul of Acts [who] waits silently within the assembly, while the Elders and Apostles of the Jerusalem Church huddle themselves together and debate" -- what of Acts 15:12? "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." Since we may presume that it took quite a while to recount these things, how is Acts 15 showing Paul to be a wimpy close-mouth? What has happened is that since Luke has already recounted all these things in the previous 14 chapters, he sees no need to rehash it.

Wayne then goes on to argue that Acts depicts Paul as wimpy because he goes on to circumcise Timothy. I answered this and Wayne's other objections here. This is just a 1 Cor. 9:20 episode involving Paul minimizing offense for the sake of the gospel. There is no indication that he attached soteriological significance to Timothy's circumcision.

I next brought up the reasons advocated by Witherington why Galatia was a young congregation and Galatians should be dated early. Wayne dismisses Witherington's work as "lofty babbling" (didn't I predict he'd do that?) and offers more ad hoc answers. I said:

1) There are no names of leaders in the Galatian churches given. This suggests a young congregation, as does Paul's stricter attitude. Wayne offers, "maybe they were under an assault greater than the other churches at that time." How does this relate to not addressing leaders by name? It doesn't. As before, Wayne sees problem A and offers irrelevant solution B. One supposes he reacts to a crisis at home, like a shortfall in his budget, by washing his socks.

2) There is no reminder to collect funds, or to continue to do so, as there is in the Corinthian correspondence. Wayne replies, "With just a quick skimming through some of the undisputed epistles of Paul, as far as I can tell, the same can be said of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians." What can also be said of these epistles is that there is no concern for the poor as there is in Galatians, which is the entire point. If the collection was already being started, then Galatians would have been the place to say something about it -- as opposed to the other letters, which are on other subjects.

3) Paul remarks on how quickly the Galatians have abandoned the gospel (1:6), which suggests that they haven't been with it for very long. Wayne burbles, "Other churches in the land of OZ were stumbling with it as well," but gives no example of the sort we want: Of another church quickly abandoning the gospel. His comment is again a non-answer.

4) The lack of precision regarding who the Judaizers are suggests the lack of an established social network within these churches. Wayne tries to pull an answer out of his hat by quoting Acts 15:27 ("We [James and the Jerusalem Church] have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth [what laws of Moses you must observe]." ) and comparing it with Gal 2:12 ("For before that certain came from James, he [Peter] did eat with the Gentiles: but when they [Judas and Silas] were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."), but this isn't answer to the point, which is that there is no such precision in Galatians regarding who the troublemakers are, which indicates no established social network, and therefore a young church. Identifying the "they" by whatever stretch of imagination isn't going to address the matter here. Moreover, the things Judas and Silas are told to tell of (Acts 15:28ff) don't include circumcision (and this is because what follows has nothing to do with Jewish law, but rather with avoiding idolatry at pagan festivals).

And that's the results of Wayne's latest vision, folks. See you next time the purple cloud descends.