Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

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