Back to the point of this thread, it's amazing that nobody so far has mentioned that the New Testament contains two contradictory statements about this Council:
- In the Acts, the two factions arrange with each other about the issue and come up with a compromise: Converts need not hold all Jewish regulations, but they do have to stick to (roughly) the Laws of Noah, i.e. the minimum requirement of Pagans to be allowed contact with Jews.
- Paul himself claims that "nothing has been imposed on him" in this issue.
Moreover, his self-reported provocation of taking an uncircumcised convert there with him does not seem as fraternal as the description in the Acts.
As these are the only accounts we have of this event, a serious historian would accept the points where these reports agree:
- Because of Paul's urging, the question was discussed in Jerusalem.
- The conservative Jewish position ("Peter") was defeated.
- Basically, the baptizing of pagans was endorsed to continue, at least almost as before.
For the rest, it is impossible to tell whether Paul should really have convinced the Christians of Jerusalem, or if they just made concessions to silence him.
One likely course of events would be Paul being right in the point that no (explicit) restrictions were made, and the author of the Acts (*Luke) not describing what has happened, but showing an example how he thinks conflicts should be handled within the Church. This would be backed by the fact that we have no evidence of the Laws of Noah being taught to Hellenistic Christians.