It is often believed by many that liberal biblical scholars do not cut the text any slack, and if there is an apparent contradiction, they never engage in harmonization. This is true for many, but not all. As one example, note the following from James G. Crossley who does not believe that Acts 15 is in conflict with the teachings of Paul in Galatians:
It is widely believed that Acts 15
(especially vv. 20, 29) contradicts Gal. 2.1-10 and Paul’s letters in general
over the role of the Torah. It this entirely fair? To begin, there are important
similarities. Circumcision was certainly not required of gentiles and nor it
would seem much of the Torah (15.6-11, 19-21). While there appears to be
certain restrictions in Acts 15.20, 29 none of these ever mentions the food
laws concerning prohibited animals. It seems likely that Acts 15.20, 29 include
a prohibition of food not properly slaughtered but does this automatically mean
a prohibition of eating animals forbidden in the Torah? Not necessarily. Sanders
has argued that meat drained of food was common in the gentile world and that
it is possible that there was meat available that had not been sacrificed to
idols, although he raises the possibility that some Jews may have eaten food
offered to idols, rationalising in much the same way as Paul (1 Cor. 8, 10)
just as some were prepared to go to theatres, baths and the gymnasium (Sanders,
Jewish Law, pp. 277-82). If this were the case then it would be possible
to eat bloodless pork, perhaps not offered to idols. It is known that blood was
abhorrent to certain Jews (e.g. Gen. 9.4-14; CD 12; cf. Jos. and Asen.
8.5), so it is quite plausible that it could have been prohibited by the
Jerusalem council even if they accepted the gentiles could continue to eat
pork, not dissimilar to the Noachide laws (cf. Gen. 9.3ff.) There may have been
gentile Christian butchers who would have continued to eat pork and we even get
stories in rabbinical literature of Jews being in places where people sold pork
usually to gentiles (with some disastrous exceptions: b. Hul. 106a; Num.
Rab. 20.21). In fact a case could now be made for Acts 15 complementing
Gal. 2.1-10 on the issue of accepting a mission which conceded that the prohibited
animals of the Torah could now be eaten, so long as blood is drained (96). The
major stumbling block to the historicity of Acts 15.20, 29 in its context in
Acts is the prohibition of food offered to idols, because Paul accepts this in
acts 15 yet clearly does not in 1 Cor. 8, 10. Yet even this is not
irreconcilable. Paul may have initially accepted the so-called ‘decree’ because
he did not think it was problematic but when the problems arose in Corinth Paul
simply rejected it because it would have seriously harmed the gentile mission
so crucial to Paul’s thought (of course, as often noted, it could be the case that
the reference to blood implies bloodshed. If so this would, perhaps, make the
connections with Gal. 2.1-10 even less problematic). This does not of course
who that Acts 15.20, 29 was a part of the Jerusalem council but it is not as
problematic as so often thought (For useful arguments in favour of Acts 15 as a
relatively accurate portrayal of the Jerusalem conference in relation to Gal.
2.1-10, Paul’s thought in general, and the Noachide laws see Bockmeuhl, Jewish
Law in Gentile Churches, pp. 167-72). It therefore remains an intriguing possibility
that the Jerusalem council accepted gentiles eating forbidden food according to
Acts 15 and is bolstered by the fact that Peter refers back to his vision
(15.7ff.). Note also that the reference to Peter’s vision may imply the non-observance
of certain laws by certain Jewish Christians. (James G. Crossley, The Date
of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity [Journal
for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 266; London: T&T Clark
International, 2004], 154-55)
