The Incident at Antioch and the Making of Paulinism

Here's a segment from the conclusion of my "Antioch" article:

In the incident at Antioch we confront the first public expression of Paulinism understood as the antithesis between Christ and Torah. This paradigmatic shift from Torah to Christ as the locus of God’s saving actions was impregnated in Paul’s Damascus road experience, publicly debuted in Antioch, unleashed with the fury of a scorned woman in Galatia, clinically applied in 2 Corinthians 3, given its mature and prudent form in Romans, and eventually lent itself towards the genesis of two competing theologies of proto-orthodoxy and Marcionism in the second century that both claimed ancestry from Paul. This Paulinism is aptly captured by Martin Hengel:

For him, the encounter with the Resurrected One near Damascus set before him the question of the law or Christ in the form of a soteriological alternative. For Judaism of that time the Torah was in manifold expression the essence of salvation, and could be identified with the fundamental religious metaphor, “life”. Since the opposition between Torah and Jesus of Nazareth had made him into a persecutor, now the relationship between Christ and Torah had to become a fundamental issue, in which the inversion of the opposition immediately because apparent: he, the Resurrected One is zwh& for those who believe (2 Cor 4:11-12; cf. 2:16).[1]

While I demur from Hengel’s treatment of the incident at Antioch for the reasons given above, I remain convinced that Hengel has tapped into the nerve of Paul’s thought and demonstrated the radical stance of Paul and the Torah that made him the controversial figure that he was. Yet this Christ-Torah antithesis needs some qualifications as I suspect that it does not mean what many Protestant commentators think it means. It does not mean that Jewish Christians should cease observing the law, nor does it mean that the Torah has nothing binding on the ethical life of Gentile Christians. Rather, the advent of Christ means that his death and resurrection has effected the end of ages and broken the link between law, sin, and death. Christ turns the condemnation of the law into justification. Christ made the curse of the law into redemption. Faith in Christ is the testimony of the law and yet faith in Christ places believers beyond the jurisdiction of the law. Christ terminates the Mosaic dispensation in order to fulfil the Abrahamic hopes. Christ serves the circumcision by making Gentiles heirs of the Patriarchs.

---

[1] Martin Hengel, “The Stance of the Apostle Paul Toward the Law in the Unknown Years Between Damascus and Antioch,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volumes 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien, and M.A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 84.

The road to Antioch

I'm currently writing an essay for a volume in honour of Martin Hengel. The subject I've chosen is "The Incident in Antioch: The Making of Paulinism". What I take to be the formative factors and decisive events leading up to the incident in Antioch (Gal. 2.11-14) are as follows:

• Due to its devotion to a crucified messianic claimant, the Jerusalem church was under scrutiny and opposition from their Jewish compatriots. The two pogroms resulting in the martyrdoms of Stephen and James son of Zebedee show just how incendiary the church’s praxis, preaching, and proselytism proved to be.

• The period between the late 30s and late 40s CE was a tumultuous time in Palestine with Herod Antipas exiled to Gaul for stockpiling weapons, Caligula’s attempt to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple prompted outrage among Jews throughout the empire, a rise in anti-Gentile sentiment and anti-Romanism, an increase in banditry in the countryside, and a series of incompetent and heavy-handed Roman governors (including the Jewish apostate Tiberius Alexander (ca. 46-48 CE).

• The acceptance of Gentile believers without the obligation of circumcision as advocated by the Jewish Christian Hellenists and then Peter.

• Peter’s ministry and movements alternated between Jewish, Samaritan, and Gentile settings and his actions in these spheres left a question mark for some hanging over Peter’s fidelity to the Torah.

• Paul’s arrival in Antioch infused further theological depth into the church of Antioch. Paul also emerged as the leader of the Antiochene mission to Jews and Gentiles and constituted the foremost defender of the Antiochene church’s stance concerning Gentiles and the Torah.

• The increase in the number Gentile believers in Antioch and in Antioch’s daughter churches in Cyprus, Cilicia, and Pamphylia.

• Active opposition from the pharisaic wing of the Jerusalem church to Jewish Christians eating with Gentiles and foregoing the necessity of Gentile circumcision for conversion. At one point they even took the initiative to try to intervene in the Antiochene church.

• Mediation between the Antiochene and Jerusalem churches by Barnabas (Greek-speaker) and by James (Aramaic-speaker) on the subject of Gentile inclusion.

• The Jerusalem council achieved a via media by finding in Scripture a justification for the inclusion of Gentiles within the church without requiring circumcision and placing upon Gentiles only the obligation to avoid idol food and sexual immorality. Yet the Jerusalem council also permitted the existence of two parallel theologies: one theology where the Gentiles were uncircumcised equals in a renewed Israel with holiness constituted by the Spirit and another theology where uncircumcised Gentiles were guests in an Israelite remnant that still defined holiness through Torah observance. The Jerusalem council’s decisions seem optimized in a setting where Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians remain in parallel rather than integrated, especially in relation to shared meals. The council did not stipulate the standard of law observance to be upheld for Eucharistic fellowship to ensue.

• The accession of James as the senior authority among the “elders” in Jerusalem. James stood in between Paul and Barnabas on the one hand and the conservative Jewish Christian members one the other hand. James sought to permit the freedom of the Antiochene churches while staving off criticism from nationalistic Jews in Jerusalem for being insufficiently loyal to Israel, the temple, and Torah.

My Proposal for the Antioch Incident, Part Two: What role does James play in the circumstances; and who are “those of the circumcision”?

I assume few readers even remember that I am working on a series of posts on Jewish Christianity and the study of the Antioch Incident was a complementary aspect of a study of James and his role in the incident. This investigation seemed necessary given the long standing view that Galatians 2:11-14 represented the point when Peter (and James) and Paul’s ministry “parted ways” with the two pillars of early Christianity never again being reconciled. This division was seen as a figure of speech for the two opposing streams of early Christianity: Jewish and Gentile Christianities.

After thinking about the Antioch incident, I have come to the conclusion that the two questions of (1) James’ role and (2) the identity of the circumcision party are in all events less crucial for the interpretation of the incident than many have admitted. I have come to this view for two reasons.

.

First, the two entities “people from James” and “those of the circumcision” are enigmatic references which allow for multiple interpretations as the secondary literature bears out. It appears at least that while these entities are unknown to modern readers they were nevertheless evident to those who first heard the letter since Paul feels no need to define them for his reader. While it is useful to attempt to reconstruct both the identity and the role played in the incident, perhaps the wisest approach is one that is not dependent on a definitive interpretation of these characters in the story.

.

Second, the focus of the plot is not on either of the two parties and their role in this brief vignette is within the framework of the story’s setting. While it appears quite clear that Paul characterizes the circumcision group with negative shades, given their relationship to Peter’s behavior, the “men from James” are neutral and flat. It is possible that the reader is to group them with the circumcision party, but the connection is not made for the reader by Paul and their function in the narrative can be construed diversely.

In the end, I don’t think the Antioch Incident provides much useful information for our understanding of James. The story does not emit a quantity or quality of evidence needed to develop an understanding of James’ role in the event and I think this fact needs to be more readily acknowledge by interpreters. There is no reason to assume James was apprehensive about the Gentile mission in Antioch such that he sent a delegation to investigate. The text says neither that the “men from James” actively pressured Peter “to draw back” from associating with Gentiles, nor that James sent them for this purpose.

.

What’s more, it seems best to leave open the question of the identity of the “circumcision party” without overly specifying the referent historically. They are no doubt a group of circumcised males—perhaps Christ believers, perhaps not, perhaps Judeans, but perhaps Antiochean Jews—who disagreed with the practice of associating with Gentiles in their social space. Their disagreement with the intimate association influenced Peter to behave in a way contrary to the truth of the Gospel.

My Proposal for the Antioch Incident, Part One: What is Paul’s issue with Peter?

I had intended to continue surveying important voices on the question of the Antioch incident. However, as with so many good intentions, I must now revise the breadth of the study. While it would have been productive and important to survey Esler (although it should be said that I did read him), Tomson and Bockmuehl (although he is much like Tomson with the added geographical insight that Antioch was the “gateway” to the ideal Land of Israel), I must move on to other things. So in conclusion of this rather protracted rabbit trail I will offer my proposal for the three questions: (1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter; (2) What role does James play in the circumstances; and (3) Who are “those of the circumcision”? Here I will address the first question.

As I have already on more than one occasion suggested in earlier posts, I wish to propose that the issue here is not what was eaten (traditional view), or how (the manner in which) it was eaten (Nanos’ view), but where it was eaten. The contextual marker for this is the verb “withdrew”: Peter and the other Jews who followed his lead “withdrew” from eating with the non-Jewish believers in Jesus. It is possible that the description is meant to be a figure of speech, but it is not obviously so. What if we take it to be a concrete depiction of the event: Peter left the meals. In this way, Peter’s action of which Paul so vehemently opposed was a departure from a place where the shared meals were eaten. If the space was Jewish space to where would they have withdrawn? Would not they have had to force the non-Jews to depart? This may appear to some to be an overly literal reading of the text, but I am growing persuaded that the verb “to withdraw” is more than simply a figure of speech in this context and becomes something of a key that better explains the other elements. Furthermore, the idea of a concrete withdraw can be substantiated by an appeal to Luke’s account in Acts, however controversial that may be. If one allows Luke’s narrative to have an influence here then it makes good sense of Paul’s strong rebuke of Peter.

Acts 10—11 make clear the issue at stake in Peter’s ministry to Cornelius’ household was association: the right for a Jew to enter the home of a non-Jew, even one who is a god-fearer (see 10:28). Peter’s vision corrected an apparently longstanding view that it was against law to enter the home of a non-Jew. God makes clear that this is to be no concern of Peter and he subsequently visits Cornelius at his home. This raises the concern of the Jerusalem church so a meeting is called and Peter is called to account. After his testimony the church agrees that God does not make distinctions between Jew and non-Jew and in essence a halakic principle of association is set forth that makes it appropriate for Christ-believing Jews to fellowship in the homes of non-Jewish god-fearing believers in Jesus.

On this reading, Peter and the other Jewish believers in Jesus by withdrawing from fellowship with Gentiles, presumably from fellowship in the Gentile’s own social space, were not only implying that these Gentiles needed to be judaized (2:14)—and I take this to mean not only to become circumcised but more importantly for this context to live in such a way as to create a conducive Jewish social space for intimate social intercourse—but disregarding the direct revelation from the Lord.

I think then when the context of Gal 2:11-14 is carefully considered and allowed to rightfully define the clause “living like a Gentile” (2:14), it seems to me that the clause connotes association—or lack of. In another context the description may mean something very different since “living like a Gentile” is ambiguous when disconnected from a particular context, as is “living like a Jew”. I agree that our source materials suggest that it was possible for one to live Jewishly and eat with Gentiles but it appears that the “eating with” was acceptable under certain conditions at least for some more scrupulous Jews; that is: in a controlled Jewish social space. While I am well aware that there was not one view on levels of association in the first century, clearly there were strong views of separation by some groups at least in Judea. Luke's evidence suggests there were such views among even the common folk such that Peter states it is "unlawful for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him" (10:28). Cornelius was a god-fearer so he must have had social intercourse with Jews, but it seems as if the issue rested on the place of that intercourse. E.P. Sanders voices this perspective on the situation in the Second Temple period:

Jewish food laws permitted them [Jews] to entertain Gentiles, but not to accept Gentile hospitality (unless the Gentiles could provide Jewish food and wine). The new result of this one-sided possibility would be very little entertaining of the one by the other. Social intercourse among equals involved reciprocity (1990:181; cf. Dunn 2002:209, emphasis added).

So the issue appears to be not whether Jews ate with Gentiles, but where Jews ate with Gentiles—on Gentile terms on Gentile turf or on Jewish terms on Jewish turf? The Jewish believers in Jesus followed a halakic principle revealed first to Peter (Acts 10) that allowed them to freely associate with god-fearing Gentiles in their social space without question and this openness seems to have been in conflict with some other approaches which is the point of Acts 10.

While this view is perhaps closest to Nanos’ reading, I remain unconvinced of his assertion that the issue was “how” these meals were conducted since it is unclear to me how an outsider could tell in Jewish social space that Jews were treating god-fearing Gentiles with a higher respect than was appropriate to their position. He did not provide evidence that showed concretely how this would be observed. In an earlier post Isuggested the possibility in jest of a bouncer at the door of the house who said “Drop’um!” I think the verb “withdraw” has real traction when taken concretely. Peter was eating with Gentiles in Gentile social space (as he did with Cornelius), but then withdrew from those situations. I agree with Nanos' point, however, that Paul's answer to the problem is an affirmation of the Gentile identity as equal members of the eschatological age. Interestingly, Paul's central idea in Galatians 2:15-21 is reminiscent of that of Acts 11:17-18.

Nanos on “Living like a Gentile” in Galatians 2:14

One more post on the issue of "living like a Gentile" in Galatians 2:14.

Mark Nanos has a novel interpretation of the clause which deserves attention. He proposes that the traditional reading of the phrase “living like a Gentile” should not be understood as a critique of Peter’s behavior—be it related to dietary laws (e.g. Longenecher) or Noachide commands (Dunn), but rather a statement of identity. Paul, therefore, asserts that Peter continues to recognize the fact that both Jews and Gentiles are made righteous before God in the same way. Nanos’ offers this equation: “living” = justification/legitimation; he states: “Paul’s challenge assumes that Peter still understands his righteous standing (“living” = justification/legitimation) to be based in Christ” (2002:314). His proposal is based primarily on two interrelated observations: (1) the present tense of the verb “living” needs to have its temporal force and (2) the point of the argument in 2:15-21 should be read back into 2:14 such that the issue for which Paul was concerned was not one of practice, but of identity.

With respect to the former, Nanos thinks that interpreters have not noticed the temporal force of the tense of zoā (“to live”). According to Nanos, with the present tense-form Paul is not addressing Peter’s past actions, but how he is presently acting. Paul would have known that at the time of his confrontation, Peter was no longer acting in the way that characterized “Gentiles”, but Paul nevertheless regards Peter as in some sense continuing to live as a Gentile: “Peter is no longer living like a Gentile in the sense of his dietary practice: he is surely eating Jewishly at this point” (2002:313). Nanos thinks this underappreciated observation is the key to understanding Paul’s accusation. Taking the point of the tense-form temporally Paul is asserting that Peter continues to live Gentilely and Nanos attempts to explain how is can be and what is its force. Nanos interprets the verb “to live” as not expressing a manner of conduct of life, but as a figure of speech to express a state-of-being, that is a justified life before God:

The only sense in which Peter is still living in the same way as or like a Gentile when living separate from this Gentile table is in the sense of identity in Christ, which is, as Paul so clearly puts the case in vv. 15-16, but being justified in the same way as are these Gentiles, by faith in/of Christ” (2002:314).

Thus, his interpretation of “to live” is inextricably linked to his view that the theme of 2:15-21 continues what was here the issue: identity in Christ. He comments: “although Paul’s theme of how Jew and Gentile are justified—live before God and with each other in Christ—is often noted by interpreters as the theme of vv. 16-21, I am simply suggesting that this same theme is present in v. 14 when Paul writes of how Peter ‘lives’” (2002:315). In 2:15-21 Nanos observes that Paul employs the language of living to challenge the implication that arises for these Gentiles from the discriminatory behavior of Peter and the other Jews who join him.

Nanos’ interpretation of Galatians 2:14 is not only fresh but more fully to integrates the narrative of the incident (2:11-14) with Paul’s discourse of 2:15-21 than perhaps previous attempts have been able to do. I am convinced by the assertion that Paul’s point in both sections is related to identity and not simply to practice. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced by two aspects of his interpretation.

(1) Given that tense-form primarily communicates aspect and not time, one would have to have solid pointers in the context to suggest that the time of action and not kind of action is in view when the present tense-form is used. In other words, noticing that a verb form is in the present tense does not, in Greek at least, mean that one should introduce the issue of time. While it is true that an author will most often use the present-tense form in a present temporal context, these are not one and the same. New Testament authors can and do use a present-tense form in a past temporal setting to communicate a continuous action. One might suggest that the imperfect tense-from would have been then the better choice if Paul was wishing to express Peter’s continuous action in the past. Yet, given the rhetorical nature of the conditional statement in the context of a past remembrance, it is just as likely if not more so that Paul’s used of the present-tense form is for emphasis: “Peter you continuously lived like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you continuously compel Gentiles to live like Jews?” What’s more, Paul’s point in the statement comes in the apodosis and the present tense of the protasis creates rhetorical symmetry. Even if this does not convince, I don’t think the present-tense form can bear the weight of the argument itself since I don’t see compelling contextual markers that highlight the temporal sense of the tense-form.

It is difficult then for me to agree with Nanos that Paul’s use of “living” in 2:14 is not primarily directed toward Peter’s practice or halakah described in the immediate context, although it is not in my view addressing dietary halakah. I do not, however, think that identity and practice here are unrelated. Thus, the issue of identity that Paul does then take up is appropriate because the identity of the Gentile, along with the Jew, has been redefined in light of Christ. Furthermore, that new identity had implications for intimate association between Jews and Gentiles which Peter because of fear of the circumcised stopped living out.

(2) Taking the verb “to live” as a figure of speech expressing state-of-being does make sense as Nanos argues, but the problem I have is that “living like a Gentile” is parallel with “living like a Jew”. And in view of this, his interpretation seems less useful. If we take Nanos’ reading of the former, what do we make of the latter? What is the state-of-being that is Jewishly that is in contrast? I don’t think that taking the “living as a Gentile” defined as “right standing before God” makes sense of the meaning of its parallel, but opposite partner, “living Jewishly”. For me, it just makes more sense that Paul is focusing on a manner of conduct characteristic of these two groups, namely the kind of associations characteristic of them.

Galatians 2:14 and "Living Like a Gentile"

A good deal of the interpretation of the Antioch Incident rests, it seems to me, squarely on the interpretation of Gal 2:14: “If you being a Ioudaios live like a gentile and not like a Ioudaios, how can you compel the gentiles to become Ioudaios?” What does it mean that Peter is acting as a “gentile” at one time and as a Ioudaios at another? How does his behavior “compel” the gentiles to become Ioudaioi? This is a question that I didn’t factor into earliler investigations of viewpoints on the interpretation of the Incident.

In reading Philip Esler’s position (1998:138-39) in preparation for a future post, he seems understand the idea of “living as a gentile” as dining with gentiles. I think this is correct at least from the context. Yet, this idea is untethered from the oft associated assumption that Peter in eating with was eating the same food. The latter as we have suggested previously is not self-evident from a reading of the text. Thus, the lifestyle of living like a gentile is singularly focused on the issue of association. Gentiles evidently did not have formal barriers which prohibited their associations with others. In contrast, from both the evidence of the New Testament and Second Temple literature it is clear that while there was a wide-ranging perspective on association with Gentiles especially the Diaspora, nonetheless there were boundaries drawn by Israelites—some more conservatively than others—prohibiting intimate association with Gentiles (cf. Acts 10 which suggests that at least some Judeans believed the Law forbade entering Gentile social space). In view of this, Paul's claim that Peter while not living like a Ioudaios--although being a Ioudaios--seems then also to be related to association.

Paul's statement implies that it was widely believed that Ioudaioi (perhaps primarily those from Judea) did not as a general rule associate with gentiles when among the Diaspora and this distinctive characteristic was formulated as a generic trait of Ioudaios.

Perhaps a modern analogy would illustrate the point. Amish folk predominately, if not exclusively, reside in the eastern part of the US primarily in Pennsylvania. The have a clear and pronounced identity rooted in a geographical region. Furthermore, it is rare for them to travel outside of the safe confines of their social-cultural space geographically speaking (Remember the old Harrison Ford movie “Witness”). However, it is obvious that on certain occasions they might be required to do so. In these situations it would be clear that they are Amish and they are acting Amishly or living like an Amish person would. Thus the distinctive of the Amish becomes a generic trait. If Paul and Peter were Amish, Paul would be saying to Peter, although you are Amish, you were living like an American, and not like the Amish. Now it is true that the meaning of this charge is not specific and could relate to a number of issues. In our context, as we have established, the focus is on some element of intimate association.

The assertion that Peter is compelling the gentiles to become Ioudaios (Gal 2:14), relates to the consequence of his withdrawal from association and thus implies, as others have noted, the need for circumcision. Still I don't think only circumcision is in view here, but rather the creation of a Ioudaios social space where Ioudaios and gentiles could more freely associate. Thus, I wish to propose that the issue in the Antioch Incident is not what was eaten (traditional view), or how (the manner in which) it was eaten (Nanos’ view), but where it was eaten. I hope to develop this more in a future post.

The Antioch Incident: Mark Nanos’ View, Part Three

Mark Nanos has provided a very interesting proposal of the Antioch incident that deserves careful attention both in the overall reconstruction and in the details, although in this brief post I will not be able to address much more than a few points which are relevant to my own interests.

I begin by commending his evaluation of the traditional as well as the more recent interpretative trends. I find myself in hearty agreement with much of his analysis here and his critique of the scholarly assumptions that the “ones from James” are identical to the “circumcision party” and that Jewish dietary practices were the central issue. With respect to the latter, the oft stated idea that Peter did not eat according to prevailing Jewish dietary norms prior to the arrival of the one’s from James and shortly thereafter withdrew from this practice and again followed a stricter halakah cannot be substantiated by details in the passage itself. Among other things Mark observes that “in this text Paul never mentions the food itself, and he does not identify those with whom Peter fears as ‘the ones for Jewish diet’ or ‘for a more rigorous diet’ . . . [furthermore] “food is never the topic of concern in this letter” (2002:303,04, emphasis added). More emphatically Mark avers:

There is simply no explicit statement in this narrative or the whole letter that the meals at which Peter and the other Jewish believers in Jesus—including Paul(!)—had been “eating with Gentiles” included food that was objectionable on Jewish dietary terms (2002:304).

In addition to his analysis of previous approaches I would also find sympathy with his claim that identity and the issue of the status of Gentiles within the inaugurated eschatological community were an aspect of if not the central concern of all parties involved. I agree with Mark that in the subsequent discussion (Gal 2:15-21)—whether a summary of Paul’s continued reprimand of Peter in the moment or a later explanation added on for the letter—the issue it seems as Paul understood it was what Peter’s association or disassociation meant for the identity of the Gentiles as Gentiles in the inaugurated eschatoloical community. The issue of food laws is wholly absent. The focus is not on halakah related to food laws, but halakah related to association with perhaps a caveat that the two are not altogether disconnected of course, but can be distinguished. Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:15-21 makes the point that both Jews and non-Jews are justified by Jesus Christ’s faithfulness [Ok I admit it: I take this as a subjective Gen.] and by their trust in (eis) that work of redemption just as the Gentiles are. Furthermore, I would add that the observation that this idea is reminiscent of Luke’s characterization of the Jerusalem perspective on the reception of the Spirit by non-Jews in Acts 10—11 and 15 is to me no coincidence. I will say more about this later.

The previous affirmation notwithstanding, there are still a couple of points that I would raise that still linger in my mind which leave me not fully convinced by Mark’s fresh explanation of the incident. The first relates to his interpretation of the collocation “the ones of/from circumcision”. First I am not yet convinced that the preposition ek implies the idea of “for” here. At the very least it would be an unusual use of the preposition. Had Paul wished to stress that the group in question “advocated” circumcision a more appropriate preposition was close at hand. While it is possible to interpret the group as those advocating circumcision—and on this point Mark is perhaps not far from the traditional view—it must be based on clear contextual clues and the preposition should not be forced into an inappropriate mold. Thus, Mark can assert that the group from out of the circumcision [i.e. Israelites] advocated proselyte circumcision thereby upholding the communal norms, but it cannot be sufficiently supported by the preposition.

Second, I am not so sure the preposition can bear the weight of the argument as Mark makes it. Once Mark establishes his reading of the ek early in the piece he then bases much of his reading of the incident on that point. Often he refers to the phrase “the ones for (or advocating) circumcision” to support a further step in his argument. For example, Mark states, “In fact, they are labeled by Paul according to their interest in the traditional way to negotiate the inclusion—not exclusion—of Gentiles seeking full membership among Jewish communities: ‘the ones for circumcision’” (2002:303, emphasis added). This strikes me as rather circular because it seems to me that the question of the identity of the group is precisely what needs to be argued for based on Paul’s reflection on the incident.

Finally, Mark thinks it obvious that Paul does not use the term “circumcision” to distinguish between believers and non-believers in Jesus since Paul, Barnabas and the rest of the Jews who are referenced in the passage would have themselves also been circumcised although believers. In this way they would be similar to all Israelites. He claims “the labels ‘the circumcision’ or ‘the ones from/out of circumcision’ by themselves do not sufficiently distinguish between Jews who believe in Christ and those who do not, but only between Jews and Gentiles” (Nanos 2002:288). However, he does further claim that the phrase can be employed “to distinguish among Jewish people” and in this way it would suggest an intra- or inter-Jewish group distinction. Mark thinks Paul here is distinguishing himself and the rest of the Jewish believers in Jesus in Antioch from this other Jewish entity. That being the case, one is naturally prone to ask, why couldn’t Paul refer to Jewish non-believers in Jesus with this term? This would fit the context where the previous use of the term in Galatians 2:7-8 is suggestive of this kind of distinction. The phrase ek peritomēs then would be employed to simply denote a group out of non-believing Israelites, the target of Peter’s mission (2:7-8). While this group may be advocates of proselyte circumcision as Mark thinks, this would have to be shown from the context and not from either the use of the term or the adverbial logic of the preposition. Having established the scope of Peter’s mission in the early context, we might then be able to assume that the fulfillment of his mission was the occasion for his presence in Antioch.

In sum, my own sense is that a more generic and general interpretation of the phrase is better. This view, however, does not necessarily undermine Mark’s thesis, although I do think he has over specified the referent given the limitations of the details in the text.

The second lingering question that leaves me not yet convinced by his reading is his assertion that the central issue in the Antioch incident was the manner in which the meals were conducted. It is not clear to me how Peter would have acted differently if he treated these Gentiles as mere “guests” in accordance with the presumed social norms. Mark does not develop this in any detail although he assumes that there would be a significant enough practice to reveal how Peter and the rest of the Jewish believers in Jesus regarded the Gentiles with whom they ate. This seems to be quite fundamental to Mark’s argument. And I would have wished that he developed this more beyond some vague educated guesses about how the conduct might have been different [he refers to possible seating arrangements and distribution of food and drink as potentially observable conduct (2002:316)]. It appears that there are no ancient sources upon which to draw for this part of his argument. How would these advocates of proselyte circumcision observe that the believers in Jesus regarded their Gentile associates as more than guests? What would their posture be? If these meals were conducted in Jewish social space as Mark seems to think, then what would be observable? I wonder rather crassly if there was something like a bouncer at the door of these meals who said not “Let me see your ID” but “Please drop your trousers.” Isn’t it true that from an outward appearance there would be little to distinguish a Diaspora Jew from a God-fearing Gentile?

In the end, there is much in Mark’s fresh reading that bears careful consideration and it has usefully advanced my own thinking on the subject. In a future post, I will suggest my own working hypothesis for the issue central to the Antioch incident, but before that I will look next at Philip Esler's view.

The Antioch Incident: Mark Nanos’ View, Part Two

We continue analyzing Mark’s answers to questions related to the Antioch incident. Having sketched the first two questions in the last post we address the third here:
.
What is Paul’s issue with Peter?
.
Mark clearly summarizes Paul’s issue with Peter:

The issue in Antioch—from Paul’s point of view—concerned the eating of Peter and the rest of the Jews with Gentiles, and then their withdrawal and separation—because of the fear of the ones advocating circumcision of these Gentiles (2002:300, emphasis his).

What then was the issue the “circumcision party” had with Peter and the rest of the Jews that influenced him to withdraw? After evaluating the prevailing views of the issues at stake at the mixed meals from which Peter withdrew wherein Mark exposes the weaknesses of both the traditional view (of the likes of Burton and Betz) and more recent trends (the likes of Sanders, Dunn, Esler) that largely focus on Jewish dietary regulations and on the question of what was eaten, he offers his own novel interpretation of Paul’s beef with Peter in which he claims that the issue was not what, but in what manner or how Peter and the other Jews ate with Gentiles.

Based on the Jewish sources of the time he asserts the normalcy of mixed meals between Jews and Gentiles in the Diaspora—especially in Antioch. Furthermore, Mark claims that there is no reason to suppose otherwise then the food eaten at these mixed meals was in conformity with prevailing Jewish norms for eating with non-Jewish guests. With respect to the Jewish norms, while there no doubt were expectations, Mark agrees with Sanders that these mixed meals would be conducted most often in Jewish social space where the conditions could be completely controlled by the hosts. He writes, “In Jewish social space, the meals would be conducted according to prevailing norms, and the Gentiles would be expected to behave like guests, respectful of the conventions of the host’s meal” (2002:296).

Mark describes his approach to the issue in Antioch with the statement:

I propose to account for what was considered compromised while I maintain that the food conformed to the Jewish dietary norms of these advocates [i.e. the circumcision party] and that their objection was not to the inclusion of Gentiles at the meals per se (2002:300).

In his view the issue centers on the way the Jewish Christ believers ate with the Gentiles; that is as “full and equal members of this Jewish subgroup” and not as either non-Jewish guests or proselyte candidates (2002:300-01). Mark sees the problem to be that according to the circumcision advocates, the Jewish Christ believing subgroup did not follow the prevailing norms for mixed meals by treating the Gentiles like full and equal members. What they objected to then is not what was being eaten but that the Christ-believing Jews were not treating the Gentiles as guests or as those on the way to becoming proselytes. To put it another way, the issue that caused the rub was not one of behavior per se, but what the behavior meant for the identity and status of the Gentiles with whom they ate. Peter and the rest of the Jews in the way they ate with the Gentiles were granting them a status inappropriate for the present age. Those advocating circumcision by definition, according Mark, believed that only Gentiles who were proselytes (i.e. circumcised) should have the status of full and equal members. So in fear of these Peter and the rest of the Jews withdrew from table fellowship to avoid persecution.

According to Mark then Paul’s problem with Peter was that while continuing to maintain the view, with Paul, that Gentiles have equal status with Jews as members of God’s inaugurated eschatological community in light of the work of Christ on behalf of both, he nevertheless masked this view and acted in contradiction to his conviction. Peter’s conduct in Paul’s view was the result of his fear of the prevailing Jewish opinion on the question of identity formation and the role of proselyte circumcision in that formation. Peter and the rest of the Jews who followed him by their withdrawal undermined the identity of the Gentiles in Christ in the present age and their behavior was in effect a silent but loud assertion that Gentiles need to be proselytes.

Works Cited

Nanos, Mark D. 2002. What was at Stake in Peter's "Eating with Gentiles" at Antioch. In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos:282-318. Peabody: Hendrickson

Sanders, E. P. 1990. Jewish Associations with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11-14. In The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Robert Tomson Fortna and Beverly Roberts Gaventa:170-88. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

The Antioch Incident: Mark Nanos’ View, Part One

We attend ourselves again to the three questions related to the Antioch incident this time turning to Mark Nanos’ contribution in the collection of essays he edited titled The Galatians Debate. In preparing the to write the post it became clear that I needed to break up my discussion of Mark's work as it would be much too lenghty for one post. So I am dividing into three parts. Part one will discuss his view of the questions: Who are “those of the circumcision” and What role does James play in the circumstances? Part two will address what Paul’s issue was with Peter? And Part three will be my evaluation.
.
(1) Who are “those of the circumcision”? and (2) What role does James play in the circumstances?
.
Before one finishes the introduction of his essay the reader encounters Mark’s translation of the Greek phrase tous ek peritomēs (lit. “those of/from the circumcision”). Typically this phrase is translated along the lines of the NIV, “the circumcision group” or the NRSV, “the circumcision faction”. Mark, however, goes his own way by translating the ek with the preposition “for”, thus expressing the adverbial logic of “advocacy”. Hence, he translates this phrase: “the ones for [advocating] circumcision” (2002:284).

.

Later Mark in so many words avers that the interpretation of this group is an essential crux for an interpretation of the whole episode because it is on account of the “fear” of these that Peter withdraws. What’s more, he admits that the attempt to identify the group is “extremely involved”. Mark’s interpretation rests on a few observations: (1) the term peritomē means “circumcision” and is a decidedly Jewish way to designate the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish males, and by extension human communities; (2) while there is much debate about whether Paul uses this term here to refer exclusively to those who believe in Jesus or those who don’t, Mark argues that it is simply not possible or logical to limit the usage in either of these directions on “lexical grounds” since Jewish believers in Jesus and those who aren’t would nonetheless still be without their foreskin; and (3) the phrase can be employed as an intra or inter-Jewish distinction: to distinguish among circumcised [so Jewish] people—Mark appeals to the immediate context where Peter and “the rest of the Jews” are circumcised but distinct from those called “those of the circumcision”. With these observations Mark concludes,

It is not just any Jewish group in view—and thus the members circumcised and advocating circumcision as a nor for Jewish people—but an interest group specifically distinguished from other groups of circumcised Jews as advocates of circumcision(2002:288; emphasis his).

This is surely not an overly controversial point [I will take some issue with it later], but Mark doesn’t stop here. He believes the type of advocacy can be delimited further: the circumcision party advocates “proselyte conversion” in conjunction with the prevailing view of the day. This view would be in direct conflict with the “coalition of Jewish believers-in-Jesus”. In sum, Mark claims that “the ones for circumcision” are likely the “representatives of the dominant Jewish communal norms” (2002:289).
.
One final comment related to the connection between the advocates of circumcision and the “ones from James” is in order. And we can perhaps dispense with the question of the identity of the latter here as well [question two for those keeping score]. Mark sees no compelling reason to regard these entities as one and the same as is often thought. Moreover, while not shutting the door completely to this idea, he largely disregards it as the most likely interpretation with the result that he sees James playing little to no role in the episode. An extended quote will sufficiently bear this out:

Paul does tell us not [sic] what the ones from James were advocating, or even precisely who they were or how they were or were not related to “the ones for circumcision,” but only the part the played in the timing of this incident: Peter began to withdraw and separate himself from eating with these Gentiles in the way that he had been doing so because he feared the ones advocating circumcision, and this occurred after the arrival of certain ones from James. Thus, when I refer to the ones for/advocating circumcision, or the ones that Peter fears, it should be understood that I am not referring to the certain ones who came from James (2002:292; emphasis added).

Works Cited

Dunn, James D.G. 2002. The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-18). In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos:199-234. Peabody: Hendrickson
.
Nanos, Mark D. 2002. What was at Stake in Peter's "Eating with Gentiles" at Antioch. In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos:282-318. Peabody: Hendrickson

.

Sanders, E. P. 1990. Jewish Associations with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11-14. In The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Robert Tomson Fortna and Beverly Roberts Gaventa:170-88. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

The Antioch Incident: Scot McKnight’s View

I continue with my analysis of various proposals for understanding the Antioch incident. I turn to someone of whom I have great respect and am a fan, my colleague Scot McKnight, who is also the contributor to the blog Jesus Creed.

As a reminder I am pursuing three questions in my study of the incident which have significant import for understanding Jewish Christianity and Paul’s relationship to it. Those questions are (1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter? (2) What role does James play in the circumstances? and (3) Who are “those of the circumcision” ?
.
So to Scot's views:

(1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter?

The incident concerns Peter, the first apostle (Matt. 10:2). In its essentials, the event concerns Peter who, in the normal course of affairs, was willing to shed the identifying markers of Judaism (food and table restrictions), perhaps even circumcision and Sabbath observance, to enjoy a new-found fellowship with Gentile Christians, but who also abandoned such a stance when ‘certain men came from James’ (1995:99).

Scot assumes Peter ignored Jewish food laws prior to the arrival of the visitors from James—he quips: “Peter was probably eating ‘baby back” spare ribs or shrimp scampi”(1995:103)—but after the coming of the “more conservative Jews” he not only reverted to adherence of a strict Jewish kashrut, but he even began forcing Gentiles to be circumcised. He suggests that Peter’s conduct led to “two churches: a kosher church and a Gentile church” Scot concludes,

So what was Peter doing? He had previously enjoyed unrestricted social fellowship with the Gentiles, speaking their language, eating their food, drinking their wine, touching their children, and sitting in their homes. When the Jewish nationalists arrived, Peter, perhaps remembering his narrow escape in Jerusalem, reversed his behavior and withdrew from the Gentiles . . . in addition he then began to force Gentile Christians to be circumcised (and to follow Jewish social laws), to reduce the threat of persecution he was beginning to free from these ardent Jewish nationalists (1995:107).

As an aside it is interesting to note Scot’s explicit view of Paul and his practice vis á vis Jewish halakah. Here is an extended quote:

Paul was more than concerned with the ‘contradictory behavior’ of Peter. True, he changed his color, like a chameleon, but changing colors may be necessary at times (see 1 Cor 9:19-23). It is proper, when with Jews, to live like a Jew in order to reach such people. But, when with Gentiles, living like a Jew is wrong (1995:100, emphasis added).
.

(2) What role does James play in the circumstances?

.

Scot seems to think that James had very little if any influence in the circumstances that took place in Antioch. While he does think, as we will see, that the “men from James” are from Judea—perhaps identical to the “circumcision party—and represent a Jewish nationalistic faction within the early church, he, nevertheless, thinks it unlikely that they represented James’ true interests. He does think, however, that they have been in fact sent by James. He states,

The ‘men from James,’ may have been either Jewish Christians from Jerusalem who were either honestly or falsely representing the position of James, or they may be identical to the circumcision party, in which case they were not Christians. I suspect they were truly from James, though they may not have been representing James with full integrity (1995:104).

(3) Who are “those of the circumcision”?

.

Scot leaves open the possibility that the enigmatic group “the circumcision party” could be either believing or non-believing Jews, although he is quite sure that they are not Jewish Christians in Antioch. What he does see as clearly evident is that these folk are “a group of law-abiding Jewish zealots bent on ‘forcing’ Gentile converts, to either Christianity or Judaism, to convert fully if such converts wished to be under the umbrella of Judaism. They are a “group of ardent Jewish nationalists, based in Jerusalem, who urged all groups in Jerusalem and Judaism to live faithfully according to the law”(1995:104). Furthermore, he seems to closely associate, if not equate, the “men from James” with this group: “The presence of the ‘men from James’ and their words that the nationalists were upset were enough for Peter to change directions” (1995:105).

.

.

Evaluation

Scot’s interpretation, while I think is an evenhanded treatment as well as a good representation of traditional interpretations of the passage, is grounded on a certain type of metanarrative of the New Testament story—and especially of Paul—that, while can be convincing at one level because of its appearance of coherence, has significant weaknesses—weaknesses which I think are exposed in this context. . With respect to the first question on the nature of the conflict between Paul and Peter, Scot’s reading assumes two significant points: (1) the verb “eating with” (sunesthio) means eating the same thing, and (2) that Gentiles were not accommodating their lifestyle when eating with Jews. In regard to the first issue, that is “eating with” means eating the same food, Scot assumes this to be the case, but cannot support it in the text beyond noting that the activity of eating something took place with the Gentiles. Nowhere however in this context does it state explicitly that Peter and the Jewish believers in Jesus when eating with the Gentiles were breaking kosher law. I don’t believe an appeal to Acts 10—11 provides a foundation for this view either since the issue in the Cornelius story is not what Peter ate, but with whom he associated himself over a meal as here. In Peter’s own interpretation of the vision in both Acts ten and eleven, Peter explicitly interprets the vision as relating to table fellowship and not food: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate or to visit with anyone of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28; cf. 11:3-12 [esp. 11:12: “making no distinction”]). Thus the clean and unclean food on the sheet in his vision was an analogy for people and the Lord was teaching Peter that God does not make distinctions so neither should he.

.

Second, his assumption that the Gentiles were not accommodating their own lifestyles for their Jewish brothers overlooks the historical reality of Diaspora Judaism generally and Antioch’s situation particularly. Given the large Jewish population in Antioch, there would have undoubtedly been regular contact between Jews and God-fearing Gentiles in the Synagogue. This contact would have spilled no doubt outside the Sabbath meetings and into homes. It was not entirely uncommon for Gentile God-fearers to respect the Torah and accommodate their lifestyles when fellowshipping over meals with Jews. Practically this would simply mean serving foods that were kosher and idolatry free. Of the latter they were on the whole probably already accommodating their lifestyle if we assume that something along the lines of the Noachide commandments were recognized in the first century which is very likely. Hays and others [see comments from earlier post] agrees when he states, “It seems unlikely that such flagrant violations of Jewish norms would have been practiced at Antioch, particularly if the Gentile converts were primarily from the ranks of the “godfearers”, who presumable would have already assimilated to Jewish dietary practices.”

.

It is possible to take the last two questions together and reflect on McKnight analysis. McKnight is compelled for some reason to assert that while the “certain ones” were in fact sent from James, the supposed influence they exerted to cause the incident was not sanctioned by him. I don’t find this explanation very convincing. If for the sake of argument one assumes (1) that these were sent by James and (2) that they were the reason Peter “drew back” from table fellowship then it seems to me to be a much more consistent and convincing case to say, as many do, that James was ultimately the force behind situation. Both of these points are gap fill and are arguable. Yet if one brings them into the text then I can’t see how James is acquitted of some or all responsibility. As for the circumcision party, I am yet to be convinced of this hypothesis that Jewish nationalists were on the loose around the Diaspora causing trouble. The context strongly favors a view of “the circumcised” whom Peter is in fear to be either the Jerusalem-based circumcised church—this is consistent with the role James may have played in the above reconstruction—or non-believing circumcised folk to whom previously Peter was said to have been sent (2:7), whether they be circumcised by family or by conversion. I personally find the latter to be more likely since it is not explicit that either James or those who arrived from James were the motivation for Peter’s withdraw.

.

I will attend to Mark Nanos' view in the next post.

.

Works Cited

McKnight, Scot. 1995. Galatians. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

The Antioch Incident: Richard Hays' View

In preparing to write a post on the issue of James and the Antiochean incident in Galatians 2:11-14, I have decided to address the issue by surveying and critically assessing interpretations of Galatians 2:11-14. I will in each case attend to three questions, although another is no less important and certainly interesting but not relevant for my interests here. The three questions are (1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter? (2) What role does James play in the circumstances? And (3) Who are “those of the circumcision” [lit.] or as in the NIV, “the circumcision group” or in the NRSV, “the circumcision faction”? The question that is not relevant for our interest here is the question of when the incident took place. While the consensus remains that it happened after the Jerusalem council in the early 50’s C.E.—so Acts 15=Gal 2:1-11—no argument is without its problems and I remain persuaded by the view that Gal 2:1-11 is a reference to Luke’s famine visit by Paul and Barnabas in Acts 11. The incident in this scheme took place in 48 A.D. and Paul wrote his missive to churches in southern Galatia in 49 C.E. while on his way to the Jerusalem council.[1]

.

I begin with Richard Hays interpretation.[2]

(1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter?
Peter’s hypocrisy (hypokrisei) according to Hays was not that he disregarded “basic Jewish dietary laws by eating meat with blood in it, or pork and shellfish”, because he reasons, “it seems unlikely that such flagrant violations of Jewish norms would have been practiced in Antioch, particularly if the Gentile converts were drawn primarily from the ranks of the ‘godfearers’, who presumably would have already assimilated to Jewish dietary practices”. Instead, Hays suggests that the issue was Peter’s disassociation from the Gentiles at the table. The likelihood of this interpretation is strengthened by Gal 2:12 which speaks not of food per se, but “eating with” the Gentiles. Hays goes on to observe that eating with Gentiles is not forbidden by the Torah, but scrupulous Torah-observant Judeans thought of this as equivalent to eating Gentile food, since their presumption was that all Gentiles were idolaters.

(2) What role does James play in the circumstances?
Hays believes James is the force in the story. This is borne out in various remarks: Hays says that the “men from James” pressured Peter to “stop eating with Gentile believers”; that “James [was] worried that too much fraternization with Gentiles would have bad results”; and that “the response of this fraction at Jerusalem [judean Jewish Christians] was to urge Peter, with the blessing of James, to avoid contact with Gentiles”.

(3) Who are “those of the circumcision”?
Hays while acknowledging the ambiguity of the phrase “those from the circumcision” he appeals to other contexts, namely Rom 4:12, to support the view that this designation denotes Jewish Christians. With no substantial support, Hays hesitantly concludes “it appears that Paul is accusing Peter of fearing other Jewish Christians in Antioch”.

Evaluation
While I find Hays answer to the first question convincing and correct, his answer to the second is lacking textual support. The text says neither that the “men from James” actively pressured Peter “to draw back” from associating with Gentiles, nor that James sent them for this purpose. The text simply states that before the “men from James” arrived Peter associated with Gentiles at the table, but after they arrived he stopped. Thus, the reason for his action could be as much his own fault as that of the guests from Jerusalem. Furthermore, the passage suggests the former (Peter’s own issue) since Paul’s confrontation is solely directed at Peter and those who joined him. One would expect that if Paul’s issue was with those from James his invective would be aimed at not only Peter, but also James and the Jerusalem church who, according to the standard view, were the real cause of the incident. As for his answer to the third question, it seems more reasonable to take ones cue from the immediate context where Paul uses the term to refer to the group that comprises Peter’s missionary scope in 2:7. In this case, clearly the group in view is non-believing Israelites and not Jewish believers in Jesus.

I will address my colleague Scot McKnight’s view in the next post.

.

----------------------
[1] For a similar chronology see Witherington 2004:275.
[2] Hays 2000.

.

Works Cited

Hays, Richard B. 2000. The Letter to the Galatians. In NIB, 11:183-348. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Witherington, Ben. 2004. The New Testament Story. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

The Antioch Incident

One of the most important texts in Galatians (and for understanding earliest Christianity) is the confrontation in Antioch between Peter and Paul as narrated in Gal. 2.11-14. This is what David Garland has to say about this text:

"If there had been a church bus at Antioch, the Gentiles would always have had to move to the back. In the church building, one might find a Gentile water fountain and a Jewish water fountain and the Gentiles would have had to sit in a special Gentile balcony section. Signs in various areas of the church might warn, "Jews Only, No Gentiles Allowed," and the bulletin logo might announce "Separate but Equal in Christ". In practice, however, the Gentile Christians were considered to be unfit for full equality. The compulsion was subtle but real. If Gentiles wanted to eat the Lord's Supper with Cephas and the other Jewish Christians, they would have to do something to make themselves fit. They would have to become Jews, submit to circumcision and abide by the Jewish dietary regulations. The truth of the gospel, as far as Paul was concerned, does not mix with this kind of compulsion."

David Garland, "Paul's Defense of the Truth of the Gospel Regarding Gentiles (Galatians 2:15-3:22)," RevExp 91 (1994): 170-71.