Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Antioch Incident (Gal 2:11-15)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: Re: Antioch Incident (Gal 2:11-15)
  • Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 17:11:12


Jonathon,
On the question of whether Paul persuaded Peter at Antioch, almost all
recent works on this topic have taken Paul to have failed to convince,
which you will find by consulting recent commentaries and articles on this
passage. There are only a few among recent interpreters who question this,
e.g., Painter, Just James, pp. 71-73; E. Lohse, "St. Peter's Apostleship,"
p. 433.

For history of interpretation of this account, see e.g., Lightfoot,
Galatians, pp. 128-32; F. Mussner, Der Galaterbrief, HThK, Freiburg, 1974,
pp. 148-54; Andreas Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und exegetische Studie über
den antiochenischen Zwischenfall (Gal 2,11-14), (BZNW 62; Berlin & New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991); Dunn, Theology of Galatians, pp. 72-73,
133-45; Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, pp. 126-42.

I have taken the view in a discussion of this incident in Mystery of Romans
that Paul's retelling of this incident for argumentative purposes with the
Galatians implies that he has won the day on this point in the past even
among those of the highest rank who ought to have known better, just as the
Galatians should too. I think that Jim Hester's comment, although made to
argue differently, actually supports the point (he wrote: "And, (b) largely
irrelevant because the incident is reported for its argumentative value and
has nothing to do with the Anthiochians per se!"). Jim is surely right that
it is not to do with the Antiochenes per se in the retelling, but the
result of Paul's challenge of Peter implies Paul's victory, it seems to me,
for the case he now wishes to make for the Galatians!

I thus agree with Roy Ciampa (by the way, whose book I am currently
enjoying) and a few others (my view is briefly stated in Mystery pp. 356-58
and n 45). At least three reasons suggest the implied victory of Paul:

1) This is Paul's choice for the purpose of persuasion, and one chooses in
such cases the example that demonstrates their success, not failure. (In my
25 year experience in business-to-business advertising I have never known
of a testimonial approach which looked for examples of failure in
comparisons made for the purpose of persuading of a superiority).

2) The accusation is of hypocrisy, not heresy or apostasy, so that they
agreed in principle, but one party failed to observe the consequences;
hence, the infraction must be pointed out within a shared framework of
thought, which is precisely how Paul makes his appeal (in vv. 14-21).

3) And the lack of resistance presented on the part of Peter suggests that
he has been shamed in this honor challenge, that is, that he has lost and
must now honor the challenger with, in this case, the called for change in
behavior. His silence (unreported response) might be taken as a failure to
answer the challenge (reported failure to respond), and thus of
acquiesence.

Regards,
Mark Nanos

Kansas City and
Postgraduate student at University of St. Andrews




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page