Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | Dezember/2019 |
Spalte: | 1224–1235 |
Kategorie: | Neues Testament |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Mark A. Seifrid |
Titel/Untertitel: | Revisiting Antioch. Paul, Cephas, and »the Ones from James« |
Who were »the ones from James«, what did they do in Antioch, and when did they do it? Paul’s account of his confrontation of Cephas in Antioch presupposes a context that in considerable measure remains hidden to us. It thereby invites historical investigation and reflection. It invites the reconstruction of the story that lies behind the story that Paul recounts in the text. Therein lies the rub: a story may take on its own persuasive power, even when it takes leave of the text. The modern history of interpretation of the incident in Antioch, from F. C. Baur until the present, offers sufficient examples of this phenomenon.1 It is not my aim to attempt to capture the whole of that history, or even the entire range of current read-ings of Gal 2,11–21. I want instead to call attention to certain features of the Pauline narrative of the Antioch incident that in some measure have been overlooked. On the basis of that narrative and the relevant narratives in Acts, I will offer my own, tentative reconstruction of the event.2
At least since the time of Baur, priority has been given to Paul’s account of his confrontation of Cephas in Antioch. We should remember, however, that Paul recounts the event from his own theological perspective and with his own aims for the churches of Galatia. His account must be read with a view to his rhetorical and theological purpose, and not simply as a »mirror« that offers an image of what transpired. Historical reconstruction best operates with a certain reserve, taking account of the inherent uncertainty that belongs to the task. Openness to a variety of possibilities and to the potential need for revision are necessary.
It is important to see that Paul’s narrative of the incident in Antioch represents a continuation of his preceding account of his second visit to Jerusalem. Galatians 2,1–21, the conclusion of Paul’s lengthy »apostolic report« functions as a single, rhetorical unit (Gal 1,11–2,21).3 The ending of this report (with which we are concerned) corresponds to its beginning. Paul’s opening asseveration that he did not go up to Jerusalem upon God’s revelation of his Son »in« him (ἐν ἐμοί; 1,16) is connected to his closing narration of the events in Antioch, which likewise concludes with reference to the life of Christ »in« Paul (Gal 1,15–17; 2,11–21).
In contrast to his preceding precision concerning his contact with Jerusalem (1,18; 2,1),4 Paul reports the time of these bracketing, pivotal events only indefinitely (ὅτε δέ …; 1,15; 2,11). The precision with regard to the former may be understood as a response to claims of his adversaries. For Paul, the more significant, and indeed, fundamental events have taken place outside of Jerusalem. They are marked not by a definite time, but by the Gospel.
Paul makes this point by coupling his narrative of his second visit to Jerusalem to his confrontation of Cephas in Antioch. He marks his report concerning Antioch as an extension of his pre-ceding narrative with an indefinite temporal reference and a con-tinuative δέ: ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν.5 The figures and the themes of the Jerusalem visit reappear in the report concerning Antioch: Cephas/Peter (2,7.8.9) receives mention in both sections, as does Barnabas (2,1.13); Titus, the representative Greek, finds his counterpart in the Antiochian Gentiles (2,1.12). In both instances, Paul understands the Gospel to be at issue, and charac-terizes the matter as having to do with the »truth of the Gospel« (2,5.14). In both instances, he insists on the subordination of personal authority to that of the Gospel (2,2.6.9.12.15–16).
The close connection between these two dramatic narratives of Paul’s report concerning Jerusalem and Antioch bears implications for how one reads both of them. Each narrative sheds light on the other. Two elements of continuity between the narratives are sig-nificant for our purposes. The first is the primacy that Paul gives to »Peter« in his account of the recognition accorded him by the Jerusalem apostles. Paul is an apostle, not alongside the three »pillars«, but alongside Peter alone (2,7–9; cf. 1,19).6 The One who performed his work with Peter establishing his apostleship did the same with Paul: the recollection of the tradition of Peter’s confession of the Christ is apparent (2,8).7 For Paul, »the grace« that is therewith granted is not bound to the bearer of the Gospel, but remains in the Gospel alone (2,7; 1,8).
This focus on the act of divine revelation of the Gospel and the trust associated with it explains Paul’s remarkable focus on Cephas and his confrontation of him in Antioch (2,11–13). As Paul has established in the preceding narrative, Cephas bears the authority of the first among the apostles – no matter that James receives first mention among »the pillars« (Gal 2,9). From this perspective, it is understandable that Paul describes the actions of »the other Jews« and Barnabas in a rather exculpatory manner (2,13). Paul likewise has nothing to say about »the ones from James« whose arrival moved Cephas to act as he did (2,12). At the very point to which the attention of interpreters is drawn, Paul is silent. It is clear that Paul’s disinterest in the representatives of James is theologically motivated. It also may have shaped his response in Antioch itself. This observation should warn us away from too quickly attributing actions or purposes to James’ emissaries. We cannot be certain about what they said or did, if anything.
There is a second, significant element of continuity between the two narratives. Paul describes his apostolic calling and that of Peter as directed respectively to »the uncircumcision« and »the circumcision.« He identifies the persons to which their differing announcements of the Gospel are directed in terms of »the boundary-marker« of circumcision and the adherence to the Law that it implied (2,7.8.9). He deviates from this synecdochal description of persons only twice in this context, by referring to his apostolic mission to »the Gentiles« (2,8.9). In the following narrative concerning Antioch, he likewise shifts his usage from speaking of »those of the circumcision« to »Jews« in 2,12–13. Normally this shift is taken to signal a change in reference. It is arguable, however, that Paul’s reference to »those of the circumcision« in Antioch (2,12) takes up his previous reference to Jews as »the circumcision«, just as his reference to »the Gentiles« recalls his reference to »the uncircumcision«.
Generally »those of the circumcision« (2,12), whom Paul names in the Antioch narrative, are taken to represent a conservative party within the believing community8 – advocates of the circumcision of believing Gentiles9 – or, as is now often assumed, a conservative Jewish group associated with a rising nationalist movement.10 In contrast to both of these readings, however, Paul’s preceding synecdochal usage of ἡ περιτομή in 2,7–9 suggests that here, too, Paul refers to Jews as they are identified by circumcision and adherence to the Law. Admittedly, Paul connects Cephas’ fear with the arrival of »the ones from James«, who most likely are to be identified with »those of the circumcision« (2,12). He furthermore speaks immediately of »the rest of the Jews« being led into hypocrisy by Cephas’ withdrawal in fear from table-fellowship with Gentile believers (2,13). It might seem that he regards »those from the circumcision« as members of a conservative Jewish party of one sort or another. There are good reasons, however, for rejecting this reading.
According to Paul’s description of the situation in Antioch, believing Jews participated in table-fellowship with the Gentiles, as Cephas also did when he first arrived (2,13).11 While we need not suppose that the Antiochian Jews had abandoned their Jewish identity, they clearly set it aside in their table-fellowship with Gentile believers.12 In contrast, we may assume that those sent by James to the church in Antioch consistently maintained Jewish practices. It is their arrival that precipitates the crisis. This observation does not in itself establish that they represented a conservative party. They may be regarded as Jews who maintained the practice of the Law, and who now were marked out as such in a largely Gentile church. In this sense, they would have differed from the believing Jews in Antioch, who had embraced table-fellowship with Gentiles. When Paul speaks of »the ones from James« as »those of the circumcision«, he is not identifying them as a party, but as Jews marked out by their observance of the Law (2,12).
What, then, should one make of the contrast Paul draws between »the rest of the Jews« and these others? (2,13). Doesn’t this juxtaposition suggest that »those from the circumcision« represent a conservative Jewish party of one kind or another? The problem with this reading is twofold. On the one hand, the synecdochal usage of ἡ περιτομή that we have just considered stands against it. On the other hand, it is not clear in context that Paul is drawing this contrast. Paul’s concentration on Cephas as the central figure in the drama suggests that he is drawing a contrast between Cephas and »the rest of the Jews«, not between these and »those of the circumcision«. »The rest of the Jews« engage in hypocrisy along with Cephas (συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ), just as Barnabas is carried along together by them in hypocrisy (συναπήχθη αὐτῶν). Just as Cephas is the point of comparison in the first part of the verse, he is likely so in the second.
We also may recall Paul’s synecdochal usage of ἡ περιτομή and ἡ ἀκροβυστία in 2,7–9, which concludes with reference to »the Gentiles«. Not merely the pattern of this usage, but the usage itself suggests that in shifting from speaking of »those of the circumci-sion« (2,12) to »Jews« (2,13), Paul distinguishes between Jewish identity as it is expressed in the practice of the circumcision and Jewish identity as a matter of birth, heritage, and nation (cf. 2,15; φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι). To distinguish these descriptions of identity from one another as »constructivist« as opposed to »essentialist« would be an overstatement: nature and practice were not regarded as entirely distinct from one another.13 Nevertheless, the difference between Jewish identity as it was given by heritage and its actualization in practice, was significant: the temptation to assimilate to Hellenistic society, including the neglect or removal of circumcision, had long presented a danger.14 At least two examples of this Jewish concern appear in Acts.15 It is also possible that it is reflected in Paul’s later protest in Galatians, »If I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?« (Gal 5,11a). Paul’s reference to »those of the circumcision«, then, may well be understood as identifying practicing Jews, and not as referring to a particular Jewish party (2,13).
The distinction between heritage and practice arguably deter-mines Paul’s synecdochal usage of ἀκροβυστία and περιτομή in 2,7–9. The Jerusalem apostles accepted the uncircumcised Titus as a fellow participant in God’s saving work in his Son (2,3–5). As we have noted, in his following description of his apostolic calling and that of Peter, Paul speaks of the visible marks of cultural and ethnic difference. He had been entrusted with the Gospel of »the foreskin«, while Peter had been entrusted with that of »the circumcision« (2,7).16 In anticipation of Paul’s following argument, one may suggest that Paul here employs an early Christian usage that allowed Jewish identity to be recognized in terms of practice, rather than in the more or less »essentialist« terms of heritage and birth. In this way ethnic identities of both Jews and Gentiles were not denied or reject-ed, but relativized in relation to faith and birth by the Gospel.17
Paul’s following argument in 2,14–21 offers further reasons for understanding his reference to »those of the circumcision« as a re-ference to Jews in terms of their practice of the Law. The expression appears just as Paul begins to narrate his confrontation of Cephas, a confrontation that addresses the question of Jewish identity and believing identity in relation to practice. Paul distinguishes between Jewish existence (Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων; 2,14, φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι; 2,15) and practice (ἐθνικῶς or Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς), even though it is clear that the two remain essentially connected. His point here is that living and doing arises from the life and existence that one already possesses, whether that life is the life of this world, or the new life given in Christ. This perspective is apparent at the opening of Paul’s argument, when he speaks of »walking straightforwardly with respect to the Gospel« (2,14) and reappears at its conclusion in 2,20–21, where he describes his present »living in the flesh« in terms of Christ and faith. There are thus good contextual reasons for supposing that Paul’s reference to »those of the circumcision« refers to Jews as their identity was marked out by circumcision and observance of the Law.
This judgment finds confirmation in the broader usage of περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία in the New Testament writings, especially use of the expression οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς. The synecdochal usage of the two terms in reference to persons apparently predates the New Testament (cf. Eph 2,11), but it first appears in the Pauline writings and Acts, and there in significant concentration.18 It is plausible that this relatively frequent usage arose from the develop-ment of earliest Christianity, and from the Pauline mission in particular. Here, in a new and profound way Jews and Gentiles came into close association in a common life of faith and worship, including the very table-fellowship – and with it, undoubtedly, the Lord’s Supper – that had become problematic in Antioch.19 As Paul’s analysis of this incident makes clear, he did not regard Jews and Gentiles in Antioch as having surrendered their ethnic identities in their new fellowship in Christ.20 Not even Gal 3,28 may be understood in this way. They learned – or at least Paul wanted them to learn – how to live together in common faith in Christ and in abid-ing difference in the world. The references to »those of the circumcision« that appear elsewhere in Acts and the Pauline writings may serve to acknowledge Jewish identity as it was expressed in circumcision and adherence to the Law, while at the same time relativizing its significance. The genitive »of the circumcision« presupposes the larger body of the church »of which« the circumcised constitute only a part.21 This recognition of »the circumcision« within the church presupposes likewise the recognition of »the uncircumci-sion«. This semantic assumption likely lies behind Paul’s reference to »those of the circumcision« in 2,12. We do not find a corresponding expression » οἱ ἐκ τῆς ἀκροβυστίας« in the New Testament. This phenomenon is entirely understandable: unlike ἡ περιτομή, ἡ ἁκροβυστία was not an honorific (cf. Eph 2,11). Gentile believers, furthermore, constituted a majority in virtually all of the churches of the Pauline mission, so that a corresponding designation of them by the Jewish minority was unnecessary.22
The parallel references to »those of the circumcision« in Acts 10,45 and 11,2 are especially significant, since they also have to do with the controversy over table-fellowship with Gentiles. In their Lukan context they refer to Jewish believers, first those who accompanied Peter, and then, later, those who challenged him for engag-ing in table-fellowship with Cornelius.23 The expression »those of the circumcision« represents Luke’s own, later perspective of a church of Jews and Gentiles, which he subtly presents as being an-ticipated by the conversion of Cornelius.
Finally, it is important to see that in their synecdochal usage the opposing terms περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία constitute a merism (as is also the case, of course, with the pairing »Jew« and »Gentile«). To refer to »the circumcision« is to presuppose that the other – whether it be the individual, the human race or the church – constitutes »the uncircumcision«, and vice versa. In most instances in the New Testament, this meristic pairing is explicit, with the term τὰ ἔθνη sometimes substituting for ἡ ἀκροβυστία.24 Elsewhere it is presupposed.25 The expression »those of the circumcision« thus may be anticipated to have »those of the uncircumcised« or »the Gentiles« as its implicit counterpart. When, therefore, Paul speaks of »those of the circumcision« in Gal 2,12, it is likely that he presupposes an implicit contrast with the Gentiles in Antioch, to whom he has referred in the same verse.26
This interpretation of Paul’s reference to »those of the circumcision« raises the question as what it was that Cephas might have »feared«. The supposition that »those from the circumcision« might have done violence to him or at least might have betrayed him to Jewish zealots would seem at first sight to make sense of Cephas’ fear. But given Paul’s usage, the meaning of »fear« need not be limit-ed to concern about harm to body and life. Paul uses the language of »fear« elsewhere in reference to possible rejection or loss of face, and also with respect to awe. He urges the Corinthians that if Timothy should come to Corinth, they should take care that he is with them without fear ( ἀφόβως): no one is to despise him (1Cor 16,10–11).27 According to Paul, they later received Titus »with fear and trembling« (2Cor 7,11.15; cf. Phil 2,12). Some in Corinth suppose that Paul wants to frighten them with his letters (2Cor 10,9). The idea of fear of losing respect or standing is well within the range of Paul’s vocabulary of »fear«.
What, however, of a possible fear of physical harm or danger from »those of the circumcision«? It is not impossible to conceive of a conservative group of Jewish believers doing harm to another Jewish believer – and apostle – Cephas. But is it likely? Should we imagine that »those of the circumcision« might have betrayed Cephas to unbelieving Jews aligned with the Zealots? Again, it is not impossible. But on the face of it is unlikely. Paul does not characterize »the ones from James« as false brothers, from whom there might be such a danger (Gal 2,4; cf. 2Cor 11,26). Furthermore, this construal of the situation hardly makes sense of Cephas’ conduct: it was already known that he had been eating together with the Gentiles. If word of this table-fellowship had gotten out, his withdrawal from it was not in itself enough to protect him.28
Should we in any case understand that Cephas felt himself threatened by conservative Jews within the church or without? The prospect of Jewish persecution admittedly lies in the background of Galatians. Paul, after all, identifies himself as having persecuted the church in his zeal for Judaism (1,13–14). He announces to the Galatians that persecution will come from unbelieving Jews: »the one born according to the flesh« persecutes »the one born according to the Spirit« (4,29). If he were still preaching circumcision, he would not still be persecuted (5,11). Those who »compel« the Galatians to be circumcised do so only to avoid persecution (6,12). This background is plausible.
But the context of Paul’s description of the confrontation in Antioch suggests that he has in view Cephas’ fear of a loss of authority or recognition. Paul’s own resolute stance for the Gospel in Jerusalem provides the background for his narrative of Cephas’ failure. His repeated characterization of the Jerusalem apostles as »those who appeared (to be something)« indicates that he understands divine authority to rest in the Gospel that he had received, not in human beings.29 As he puts the matter: »What they were then made no difference to me. God does not accept the outward appearance of a person« (πρόσωπον θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει; 2,6).30 Consequently, when Cephas – whom Paul recognized as having been entrusted with »the Gospel of the circumcision« – came to Antioch, Paul »opposed him to his face« (κατὰ πρόσωπον). He confronted him directly in the presence of all of those present (2,14). His actions in Jerusalem and Antioch stand in contrast to Cephas’ failure. There are good reasons, therefore, for understanding Cephas’ fear as having to do with his standing and authority: his fear was likely a fear of shame before others. As we have seen, when Paul refers to Cephas’ fear of »those of the circumcision« (namely, »the ones from James«) he most likely characterizes them as (practicing) Jews and not a distinct group within early Judaism or the early church. It is the appearance of these conservative Jews that causes Cephas to withdraw from common meals with the Gentiles (2,12). According to Paul’s narrative, Cephas’ »fear« is attached to their presence.
We now may describe the scene in Antioch rather simply. The Jews in Antioch had surrendered the observance of the Law that distinguished them from Gentiles in their common meals with them. When Cephas arrived, he joined them. In contrast, »the ones from James« who also appeared in Antioch maintained the common Jewish observance of the Law that required abstinence from table-fellowship with Gentiles. When they appeared, Cephas, ap-parently fearing reproach, shame, or loss of standing, withdrew and separated himself from the Gentiles. »The rest of the Jews« followed his example.
What, then, are we to make of these »ones from James«? We may assume that they were his representatives. What was his purpose in sending them? As we have seen, Paul’s report of the incident in Antioch offers little reason for supposing that they represented a conservative Jewish party. But how does this conclusion fit into the picture of James that we gain from the book of Acts? How is Paul’s account of the confrontation in Antioch to be related to the Lukan account of an »apostolic council« (Acts 15,1–29)?
We may regard James’ sending of representatives as a parallel to the earlier sending of Barnabas by the church.31 It is fairly clear that James had assumed a leading role in the Jerusalem church by this time.32 »The ones from James« therefore very likely represented not only James, but the Jerusalem church. Were they sent in order to impose restrictions on contact between believing Jews and Gen-tiles, or perhaps to demand that the Gentile believers should be circumcised or at least observe Jewish food-laws? These theories presuppose that »the ones from James« must have done something to provoke Cephas’ »fear,« »fear« here understood as the apprehension of danger. They must have come with demands, perhaps even threats. We have considered the difficulties with this reading of Gal 2,11–21 already. It likewise overruns the evidence we find in Acts. Even if one correlates the Jerusalem visit with the Lukan account of a Jerusalem council in Acts 15 – a correlation that may be questioned – one runs into difficulties. If we suppose that this council or a meeting took place prior to the confrontation in Antioch, it is difficult to understand why Paul singles out Cephas alone for public rebuke. Admittedly, Paul recognizes him as the first of the apostles. But if the demand for Gentile circumcision came from James, it would be passing strange if Paul did not address his representatives in Antioch. Furthermore, Paul presents the problem in Antioch as consisting in Cephas’ withdrawal from table-fellowship with Gentiles, not in any demand that had been presented by the representatives of James. Does Paul, then, cover over what actually transpired in Antioch, or has he misrepresented the agreement that he and Barnabas reached with the Jerusalem apostles, creating his own harmonious picture of the meeting? Luke is often suspected of doing so.33 Are both Luke and Paul misrepresenting the Jerusalem meeting for their own reasons? Did James’ representatives arrive in Antioch with a demand that the Gentiles be circumcised? Or did they at least come with a demand for stricter standards for table-fellowship, drawn from the Jerusalem accord? How, then, could it be that Cephas forgot or ignored what had been agreed upon? One must suppose that one or the other of them broke with the Jerusalem agreement. In either instance, one ends up constructing a background out of Paul’s silence: he has nothing to say about a demand from James.34
At least some of the difficulty of reconstructing what took place in Antioch can be overcome if we regard it as taking place in an earlier period, correlating Paul’s account of his Jerusalem visit in Gal 2,1–10 with the »famine relief visit« of Acts 11,27–30 and not with the »Jerusalem council« of Acts 15,1–29. A number of factors speak in favor of this correlation.35 For my purposes at the moment, it is sufficient to point to the Lukan narrative in Acts 10–15 concerning the unsettled question of the Gentiles within the earliest church. Luke presents the acceptance of the Gentiles in the conversion of Cornelius and the subsequent (yet independent) proclamation of the Gospel in Antioch as a divine fait accompli. His narrative indicates, however, that there was considerable resistance to the idea that God might save Gentiles or that they should be accepted as members of the church (Acts 11,2–3.18; 15,1–5). At both the beginning and end of this lengthy account, table-fellowship with Gentiles appears at the forefront of Jewish concerns: it was for engaging in table-fellowship with Cornelius that Peter was criticized, and it was James’ resolution of this question that emerged from the debate in Jerusalem (Acts 11,3; 15,19–20). The demand that Gentiles be circumcised and keep the Law was the radical solution to this problem (Acts 15,5). Between the two bookends of the Lukan account, the conversion of Cornelius and the Jerusalem council, the place of the Gentiles within the church remains unresolved. One may plausibly suggest that the uncertainty that was present in this narrative and the period it reflects is also found in Paul’s account of Cephas’ actions in Antioch. We need not imagine that the question of table-fellowship was resolved in the Jerusalem meeting that Paul reports in Gal 2,1–10. Indeed, it may have precipitated the controversy. Paul represents that meeting as resulting in the Jerusalem apostles coming to recognize his Gospel and apostolic calling (Gal 2,2.7–10). They also accepted the uncircumcised Titus. The question of table-fellowship nevertheless need not have arisen in this context. The table at which they shared in Jerusalem would have been a Jewish table, not a Gentile one. It is possible that both sides maintained a tactical silence regarding Gentile table-fellowship, giving priority to their common recognition of the two differing articulations of the (one) Gospel and the two apostolic callings. It is also possible and, in my judgment, more likely that there was a lack of reflection on the part of the Jerusalem apostles as to what the recognition of »the Gospel of the uncircumcision« would finally entail. Jerusalem was a long way from Antioch. Questions arose there that would never arise in Jerusalem. Perhaps they simply failed to realize what form the life of the church would take in Antioch, where Gentile believers had become the overwhelming majority. It turned out to be not at all like Jerusalem, where the common table was under Jewish control. For his part, Paul might well have assumed that the Jerusalem apostles would accept a common Gentile table in Antioch, since they accepted Titus, the representative Gentile convert. Or perhaps he thought it unnecessary or unwise to raise the issue.
Whether there was a tactical silence, or unrealistic assumptions and a lack of reflection, or both in Jerusalem, Cephas’ conduct in Antioch becomes comprehensible in this light. Cephas might well have been uncertain of the right course in the new setting. Having joined the believing Gentiles in table-fellowship with the Gentiles in Antioch, he then was confronted with the group from James. Everything that we know of James indicates that he maintained a consistent practice of Judaism.36 The same would have been true of his representatives. Table-fellowship with Gentiles in Antioch almost certainly would have been unacceptable for them. According to Acts, Cephas already had been called into question for engaging in table-fellowship with Gentiles in connection with the conver-sion of Cornelius (Acts 11,1–18). The remarkable length that Luke gives to the report of this controversy – Peter rehearses the entire story of Cornelius for his critics – suggests that it was of consider- able importance for the earliest church. If we may connect the Lukan and Pauline narratives, he faced the same issue again in Antioch: again he would be vulnerable to criticism – a criticism that called into question his standing in the earliest Jewish church.
This possible criticism would have come from a significant source. James’ relatively quick rise to a position of influence is evident not only in the book of Acts, but also in Paul’s account of their meeting in Jerusalem.37 It took place at a time in which Cephas’ influence in Jerusalem obviously had diminished: it is James, not Cephas, who has primacy in the Jerusalem church. James, the brother of the Lord, whose lineage would have given him standing in the earliest Jewish church, supplanted Peter, the primus inter pares. According to the Lukan narrative, Peter first was engaged in travelling mission, and then was forced to leave Jerusalem on account of the threat of imprisonment and execution.38 It is understandable that Cephas would have been afraid of a confrontation with the representatives of James, who both wielded greater author-ity than he did in Jerusalem, and who represented a conservative position with respect to the Law.
Did »the ones from James« present demands when they arrived?39 As I have indicated above, it is highly unlikely, in my judgment, that they insisted that the believing Gentiles be circumcised. An open breach with the agreement reached in Jerusalem would surely have brought a vigorous response from Paul, which he would not have obscured from his Galatian readers. Did they demand that Cephas and other Jewish believers withdraw from table-fellowship with the Gentiles, at least until certain conditions for that fellowship might be established? It is entirely possible, but not entirely certain. We simply cannot know. Paul focuses his attention on Cephas in his account of the event – the only account we possess. We have to reckon with the possibility that whatever the representatives of James might have planned to say or do, they were preempted by Cephas’ abrupt withdrawal from table-fellowship with the Gentiles. If they had come with this demand, they no longer would have needed to announce it. Their mere presence might have brought about Cephas’ precipitous withdrawal from table-fellowship with the Gentiles. In the end, we cannot know which of these two scenarios played out in Antioch. Paul’s silence concerning the ones from James calls in the end for our own silence. This silence obviously does not mean that we can say nothing at all about what happened in Antioch. It does, however, call us to shift the weight of our reconstruction away from imagining what »the ones from James« might have done, and to concentrate on what Paul himself reports.
Zusammenfassung
Wer waren die »einige von Jakobus«? Was haben sie in Antiochien getan? Wann haben sie es getan? Wenn man Paulus’ Erzählung seiner Konfrontation mit Kephas in Antiochien in Verbindung mit der dazu gehörenden Erzählung von seinem zweiten Besuch in Jerusalem liest (Gal 2,1–10.11–21), wird klar, dass diese »einige von Jakobus« nicht als Repräsentanten einer konservativen, jüdischen Partei, sondern einfach als gesetzestreue Juden zu verstehen sind. Vor allem ist der Sprachgebrauch von »Beschneidung« und »Unbeschnittensein« sprechend. Er konstituiert einen Merismus, der nicht zwischen strengeren und laxeren Juden unterscheidet, sondern die Welt in Juden und Heiden teilt. Gegenüber den »einigen von Jakobus« hatten die gläubigen Juden in Antiochien in ihrer Tischgemeinschaft mit den Heiden die Praxis des Gesetzes und damit ein Zeichen ihrer jüdischen Identität aufgegeben. Die Ankunft der von Jakobus Gesandten hat dadurch Kephas in eine Krise gestürzt. In Verbindung mit der Apostelgeschichte kann man daraus eine plausible Schilderung der Ereignisse in Antiochien rekonstruieren.
Fussnoten:
1) For a history of interpretation from F. C. Baur until the later 20th century, see Andreas Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit. Eine forschungsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie über den antiochenischen Zwischenfall (Gal 2,11–14) (BZNW 62; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991), 30–295.
2) No matter how one assesses the historical reliability of the Lukan accounts of Paul’s contacts with the Jerusalem apostles, they provide the nearest account of the development of earliest Christianity to that of Paul, and offer an alternative perspective.
3) This report apparently serves both as a response to his adversaries’ claims concerning him and a pattern for the Galatian believers to follow in resisting the adversaries’ insistence that they judaize (Gal 1,13.20).
4) As is widely assumed, Paul seems to have in view claims of his adversaries that he was dependent on the Jerusalem apostles.
5) Paul’s shift to speaking of »Cephas« (2,9) – his usual naming of the apostle – rather than »Peter« (2,7–8) probably anticipates the shift to the Antioch account, where he refers to him as »Cephas«.
6) In all likelihood, James was recognized as an apostle (cf. 1Cor 15,7).
7) Paul’s description of the calling as apostle that he shared with Peter, toge-ther with his unusual use of the name Πέτρος, recalls for his readers the Jesus-tradition that established Peter’s apostleship (Mt 16,17–19). He presupposes their awareness of this tradition, which presupposes, of course, that it was current in Greek and not merely Aramaic. The Fourth Gospel provides a later witness to the impulse to communicate the meaning of the name Κηφᾶς to a Greek-speaking audience (Jn 1,42).
8) Cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11–18), in: The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (ed. Mark D. Nanos; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 199–234 = The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2.11–18), in: Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London/Louisville: SPCK/Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 133–36.
9) Cf. Mark D. Nanos, What was at Stake in Peter’s »Eating with Gentiles« at Antioch? in: The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and His-torical Interpretation (ed. Mark D. Nanos; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 285–88, who overlooks the pattern of Paul’s usage and fails to see that the evidence we have indicates that »those of the circumcision« refers to a group within the believing community.
10) Robert Jewett, The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation, in: The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (ed. Mark D. Nanos; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 334–47 = The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation, NTS, 17 (1970–1971): 198–212.
11) At this juncture, Dunn allows the general background of Jewish observance of food-laws to overrun Paul’s narrative of the situation. Cf. Dunn, The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2.11–18), 137–48.152–53.
12) It is not to be forgotten that according to the Lukan account, it was pre-cisely in this period in Antioch that the earliest believing community was given the etic description, »Christians«. They were recognized as a social entity distinct from the Jewish community (Acts 11,26).
13) Cf. the story of the circumcision of Achior in Jdt 14,10. See, in contrast, 2Makk 6,6, where Jewish practice is distinguished from identity, and likewise Ign. Phld. 6,1, where an uncircumcised person might explain Judaism, and conversely a circumcised person might interpret Christianity.
14) As is well-known, this danger became acute under Antiochus IV, who supported the practice of Hellenization with programmatic persecution (1Makk 1,11–15; 44–64).
15) Acts 16,1–3; 21,21.
16) In shifting from speaking of the »ἀκροβυστία« to »τὰ ἔθνη« in 2,8–9, Paul brings into view the scope of his apostolate »to the nations«. He does not, however, alter his reference here to the Jewish people as »ἡ περιτομή« (2,10). He breaks with this usage only in 2,13, where he speaks of »the rest of the Jews« immediately after referring to »those of the circumcision« (2,12).
17) Cf. Gal 1,13.16; 3,28; 4,21–31.
18) Acts 10,45; 11,2; Rom 2,27; 4,7; 15,8; Eph 2,11; Phil 3,11; Kol 3,11; 4,11; Tit 1,10. Cf. Rom 4,14.16 (οἱ ἐκ νόμου): Paul here separates adherence to the Law from circumcision for theological reasons.
19) Ruth Schäfer, Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil: ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in den Galaterbrief, zur Geschichte der Jesusbewegung und zur Pauluschronologie (WUNT/2 179; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 225–26.
20) It is not clear that Paul expected all Jewish believers to abandon all their »boundary markers«. His instruction to the »weak in faith« and »strong« in Rome suggests that he would have been willing to accept the compromise that Luke presents as the outcome of the Jerusalem council (Rom 14,1–15,6; Acts 15,21.29). Against James D. G. Dunn, Paul and »Those of the Circumcision«, in: Paulus und das antike Judentum. Tübingen-Durham-Symposium im Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters (19. Mai 1938) (ed. Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel; WUNT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 295–317.
21) Acts 10,45; 11,2; Kol 4,11; Tit 1,10. Cf. Rom 16,10: »ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστοβούλου«; Phil 4,22: οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας; 1Cor 1,11: (οἱ) Χλόης.
22) See Acts 15,23 in which the letter of the Jerusalem council is addressed from the perspective of Jerusalem to τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν ἀδελφοῖς τοῖς ἐξ ἐθνῶν. In the larger society the simple synecdochal usage was already present: ἡ ἁκροβυστία (Eph 2,11; Kol 3,11). Usage of both of the synecdochal expressions seems to have diminished as the church became largely Gentile in nature. Ignatius, at least, appears to be unaware of it (Ign. Phld. 6,1).
23) Rightly, Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5/1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 174–75.
24) Rom 2,26–27; 4,9; 15,8–9; Eph 2,1; Kol 3,11.
25) Acts 10,45; 11,2; Phil 3,3; Kol 4,11; Tit 1,10.
26) As we have seen, it is likely that Paul subsequently contrasts »the rest of the Jews« (2,13) with Cephas, not with »those of the circumcision«.
27) Cf. 1Cor 2,3, where Paul speaks of his being among them »in weakness, fear, and much trembling«. In this case, if he is thinking of his initial evangelization of Corinth, he might well have in mind bodily harm (cf. Acts 18,1–17).
28) Cf. Schäfer, Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil: ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in den Galaterbrief, zur Geschichte der Jesusbewegung und zur Pauluschronologie, 230–33.234–36.
29) Gal 2,2.6.
30) This interjection takes up Paul’s opening pronouncement of a curse on anyone who proclaimed a contrary Gospel, even if he himself or an »angel from heaven« should do so (1,8–9). It likewise anticipates his call for the ultimate troublemaker in Galatia to bear his judgment, »whoever he might be« (5,10).
31) It differed from the active communication that had come to exist between Antioch and Jerusalem (Acts 11,27–30).
32) Gal 2,9; Acts 12,17; 15,13–21; 21,18–26. He was both recognized as an apostle and as the brother of the Lord (Gal 1,19; 1Cor 15,7). It is not unlikely that his rise to prominence in Jerusalem was aided by his kinship with Jesus. Cf. Martin Hengel, Paulus und Jakobus, in: Kleine Schriften III (WUNT 141; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 576–82.
33) James appears in Acts 15 not as Paul’s antagonist, but as the author of the artful compromise that secured the acceptance of Gentiles apart from circumcision (or obligation to the Law), while at the same time guarding Jewish concerns about contact with immorality and idolatry (Acts 15,13–21.29; cf. 21,25). Jas 2,14–26 does not represent an anti-Pauline polemic. It appears instead to offer a corrective to a later one-sided »Pauline« theology. Cf. Hengel, Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III, 511–48; and in correction of Hengel, Matthias Konradt, Antipauliner oder Zeugen eines nichtpaulinischen Christentums? Kritische Überlegungen zum Verhältnis des Jakobusbriefes und des Matthäusevangeliums zur paulinischen Tradition, in: Receptions of Paul in Early Christianity: The Person of Paul and His Writings Through the Eyes of His Early Interpreters (ed. Jens Schröter, Simon Butticaz, and Andreas Dettwiler; BZNW 234; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2018), 675–728.
34) Cf. Wilhelm Pratscher, Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition (FRLANT 139; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 78–89; Roland Deines, Jakobus. Im Schatten des Größeren (Biblische Gestalten 30; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017), 162–63.
35) Paul’s claim that he went up »according to revelation« clearly serves his rhetorical purpose of distancing himself from Jerusalem. Yet it also corresponds to the Lukan report of prophets from Jerusalem having arrived in Antioch at the time of the famine relief mission (Acts 11,27). The relief mission itself resulted from a prophetic sign given by Agabus (Acts 11,28–30). Paul’s concluding statement concerning the request of the Jerusalem apostles that he and Barnabas »remember the poor« in more than one way suggests that this concern was related to the revelation given to Paul: »Which very thing I also was eager to do«. Paul here shifts from the »we« addressed by the Jerusalem apostles to an »I« in his response. His eagerness to fulfill this request was already present. One need not suppose that the revelation given to Paul is expressed in the prophetic sign given by Agabus. It would seem, however, to anticipate the collection for Jerusalem that Paul regarded as the culmination of his Gentile mission.
36) Cf. Acts 21,18–25. It is ironic that he was executed as a transgressor the Law, according to Josephus’ report (Ant. Jud. 20,199–203).
37) Acts 12,17; 15,13–21; 21,21; Gal 1,19; 2,9.
38) Acts 8,14–25; 9,32–43; 10,1–11,18; 12,1–17.
39) The simultaneous presence of Cephas and the representatives from James in Antioch suggests that their proximate visits were not accidental. It is possible, but not certain, that they reciprocated the visit of Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem where they had given them »the right-hand of fellowship«, and requested aid for the poor.