18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. 20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.
2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.
I hadn't thought much about this, but the more I read it the more unreasonable it seems. Here are various commentaries: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/1-22.htm
Firstly we can note that Gal 1:18-24 is unattested in the commentaries on Marcion. So it would seem that these verses weren't in Marcion's Gospel. I find it odd actually that no one commented on them either way, either noting that Jesus had to be of flesh because he had a brother or that Marcion had cut them away. But regardless, we don't get much help from the ancient commentaries.
But to me, v18-24 seems to interrupt Paul's narrative and contradict what he was trying to establish. It seems that he was trying to establish that his Gospel came purely from revelation prior to his meeting with the council in Jerusalem. Interrupting that by saying he met with Peter and James previously seems strange. Then we get to 21-24. What's the purpose of this and what does it mean?
As has been noted here before, versus 18-24 do appear to be attested in Acts. But why would Paul make note that he was unrecognized in Judea? Additionally, why would Paul really have such a reputation that people would be talking about him like this? How would he have known that they heard this being said? Maybe he was exaggerating? It just seems like an odd thing to say and a detour from where he was going. And are we really to believe that there were churches "in Christ", assuming that this means worshiping Jesus the human being, in Judea, who were shocked only that Paul was no longer persecuting them? The statement makes Paul out to be the prime persecutor of the first Christians, who, after Paul's conversion, would seem to have been care free. This hardly seems reasonable.
He starts off establishing the fact that his Gospel had been given to him directly by the Lord. After establishing that, he then goes off on a tangent that undermines his point. In the he seems to affirm that "churches in Christ" were well established in Judea and knew of his persecutions, presumably in Asia Minor, which stood out among what, according to the traditional understanding, would have been a backdrop of widespread persecutions by Jewish authorities.
Am I wrong here, or does the whole of v18-24 not really hold up?