¹ Schmithals, W., Paul and James (London, SCM, 1965), p. 57Google Scholar, claims that the view expressed in I Cor. 9. 20 ‘would have been an impossible mode of propaganda, especially as in practice it would have had to result in a separate organization for each church’; a similar scepticism is found in Knox, W. L., St. Paul and the Church of Jerusalem (Cambridge, University Press, 1925), p. 122Google Scholarn. 54.

² See Lund, Nils, Chiasmus in the N.T. (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1942), p. 147.Google Scholar

³ Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (New York, Harper, 1968)Google Scholar: ‘Paul was prepared to abandon [the law] altogether. It is impossible to understand Paul if this fact is not grasped.’ This is a more correct view than that which suggests that Paul remained at all times and in all places a Pharisaic Rabbi (so, e.g., W. L. Knox).

⁴ It is highly likely that churches contained mixtures of Christians from different backgrounds during the 40s and 50s. The evidence in Gal., I Cor., II Cor., Rom., and also Acts, leads to the conclusion that Jewish and non-Jewish Christians worshipped together, though the desirability of these mixed congregations is questionable.

⁵ In spite of the general agreement that Gal. 2. 6 ff. parallels Acts 15, I leave out of consideration in this paper the (to me) still vexed question of their relationship. Since Paul does not mention the decree of Acts 15. 19–29, we ought not to presuppose it for our understanding of Galatians 2.

⁶ One must ask to which group Gal. 2. 13 (hoi loipoi Ioudaioi) refers. In other places I have suggested with some diffidence reasons for holding that it means Jews who have not yet become Christians but with whom Christians, especially conservative Jewish Christians, have much in common. While I do not demand this view here, it is important to ask whether the word Ioudaioi carries the same force in Gal. 2. 13 as in I Cor. 9. 20. Are the Jews there inside or outside the bounds of table fellowship? If inside, what does it mean for Paul in I Cor. 9. 20 to say: to the Jews I became a Jew? Is that not precisely what Peter is doing in Gal. 2. 13?

⁷ Though Schmithals, W., Paul and James, pp. 92 f.Google Scholar, hints at a similar question he does not, however, take into full account the possible reasons for Peter's action in Antioch and the possible criticism of Paul's action in Jerusalem.

⁸ See Wiles, Maurice F., The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles in the Early Church (Cambridge, University Press, 1967), p. 71Google Scholar. Cf. also his comments on the similar views of Chrysostom (p. 22), and on Clement's and Origen's views (pp. 19 f.).

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, Athlone Press, 1956), pp. 336–61.Google Scholar

¹¹ In another paper I have attempted to demonstrate that, correct as Daube's views might be, there is another inheritance of Paul's of which he is cognizant – that which comes from the primitive church and from Jesus. See ‘Early Christian Sources of an Accommodation Ethic: From Jesus to Paul’, read at the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, Québec, 30 May 1976.

¹² N.T.S. 1(1954–1955). 261–75.Google Scholar

¹³ Op. cit. p. 275. See the comments on this view in Gooch, P., ‘The Ethics of Accommodation’, a paper read to the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, Québec, 30 05 1976.Google Scholar

¹⁴ ‘The Missionary Stance of Paul in I Corinthians 9 and in Acts’, Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Keck, Leander E. and Martyn, J. Louis (Nashville, Abingdon, 1966), pp. 194–207Google Scholar; cf. Paul (New York, Harper, 1971), pp. 99–101.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For example ‘Cephas and Corinth’ in Abraham Unser Vater, ed. Betz, O. (Leiden, Brill, 1963), pp. 1–12Google Scholar; cf. also The Signs of an Apostle (London, Epworth, 1970), especially p. 71.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Conzelmann, H., History of Primitive Christianity (Nashville, Abingdon, 1973), pp. 89–90Google Scholar, suggests this view in an attractive form, though it is not finally persuasive.

¹⁷ Foerster, , TDNT 8, 992Google Scholar, points to the use of sōzō as indicative of the goal of Paul's missionary endeavours (cf. also Schlier, , TDNT 1, 672 fGoogle Scholar. s.υ. kerdos, kerdainō) and notes that the opposite of both is apollumi (e.g. I Cor. 8. II and Matt. 18. 14). But the use of apollumi in I Cor. 8. II is in the context of church disputes: ‘through your knowledge he that is weak is destroyed…’ which reinforces the contention that I Cor. 9. 19–23 should not be restricted to the missionary situation alone.

¹⁸ Schmithals, W., Paul and James, pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar, makes too much of the question of Paul's preaching to Jews. Allowance should be made for I. Cor. 9. 20 to refer to intra-church matters.

¹⁹ In I Cor. 10. 29 ff., the conclusion to this discussion of the practical consequences of eating meat offered to idols, Paul states rather more clearly his principle: aproskopoi kai Ioudaiois ginesthe kai Hellēsin kai tē ekklēsia tou theou, kathōs kagō panta pasin areskō…hina sōthōsin. This accommodation of his own preferences or suppositions to the good of others (mē zētōn to emautou sumphoron alla to tōn pollōn) is, I think, what he is really saying in I Cor. 9. 19–23. If so, what does the phrase hina sōthōsin or hina pantōs tinas sōsō mean in a context of church life?

²⁰ C. K. Barrett, ‘Cephas and Corinth’, in Abraham Unser Vater, notes (following T. W. Manson) that I Cor. 5. 9–13 echoes the controversy at Antioch; here Paul is giving his idea of a kosher table. He sharpens up a subsequent observation of Manson's by adding ‘that the schismata and haireseis of 9. 18 f. plainly recall the fact that at Antioch Peter hupestellen kai aphōrizen heauton, carrying others with him (Gal. 2. 12 f.). It is at least possible that he had done the same thing at Corinth’ (p. 8).

²¹ Whether this is the so-called Apostolic Council of Acts 15 as the majority of commentators believe, or is an earlier meeting (perhaps Acts II. 30) is still disputed. Though I lean to the latter view I do not presuppose it.

²² This is apparent from the following: (a) Peter is willing to eat with Gentiles before ‘those from James’ arrive, and this word ethnē has an immediate antecedent in the use of the same word in verses 8 and 9; in both cases it stands as the correlative to peritomē; (b) it is paired with peritomē (hoi ek peritomēs) here in this verse as well; (c) there is a connection between hoi ek peritomēs and hoi loipoi Ioudaioi of υ. 13; (d) the contrast of υ. 14 between ethnikōs and Ioudaikōs, together with the unusual verb loudaizein, implies an issue central to traditional definitions of what it means to be a Jew.

²³ Munck, Johannes, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London, SCM, 1959), p. 94Google Scholar, and also n. 3, accepts as self-evident ‘that Peter gave way and allowed that Paul was right’. This cannot be assumed.

²⁴ Helmut Koester's analysis is attractive; see ‘Gnomai Diaphoroi’ in Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1971), pp. 114–57Google Scholar; cf. also Guignebert, C., The Christ (New York, 1968), pp. 244Google Scholarf. One's view of whether Paul suffered a defeat at Antioch will be determined by two main points: (i) the evidence from silence that Paul does not claim to have changed Peter's mind and (ii) the question of the relationship between Gal. 2 and Acts. If we should link Gal. 2 with Acts 15. then Paul has, perhaps, as a result of this incident stopped using Antioch as his centre and Barnabas as his companion. But if Gal. 2 is identified with Acts II. 30 then Paul is still centred in Antioch and travelling with Barnabas.

²⁵ The bold attempt by Munck, J. (Paul, pp. 238–42)Google Scholar, to eliminate part of the difficulty of the passage by an unsupported emendation of the text is not satisfying. It leaves a number of residual problems to which he does not refer.

²⁶ Ellison, H. L., ‘Paul and the Law – “All things to all men”’ in Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. Gasque, W. W. and Martin, R. P. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 195–202Google Scholar, totally underestimates the possibility of a conflict between Acts 21 and Paul's real practice. Lake, K., in his essay on ‘Paul's Controversies’ (Note xvii, Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 5, r.p. Grand Rapids, 1966)Google Scholar is more accurate. ‘He failed in his controversy with the Jews; probably he failed, at least partially, in his controversy with the Jewish Christians but he triumphed in this, his final controversy with Gentile Christians’ (p. 223).

²⁷ Schmithals, Walter, Paul and James, pp. 89 f.Google Scholar, goes part way towards this view; he sees no encouragement from Paul in this direction, but only an independent decision by Jews who freely attached themselves to Paul's gentile churches.

²⁸ Schmithals, op. cit. p. 66, adopts the same conclusion. See also Richardson, P., Israel in the Apostolic Church, SNTS Monograph x (Cambridge, University Press, 1970), pp. 74–97.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. Barrett's, C. K. remark, The Signs of an Apostle (London, Epworth, 1970), p. 71Google Scholar: ‘when Peter left Jerusalem he had not considered what the relations between a circumcised church and an uncircumcised church in Antioch should be…’.

³⁰ Schmithals, op. cit. p. 69, is correct when he stresses that there is no mention of encouraging or forcing Gentile Christians to accept the law.

³¹ See Lietzmann, H., supplemented by Kümmel, W. G., An Die Korinther I–II: Handbuch zum Neuen Testament⁵ (Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1969)Google Scholar, ad loc; and Hurd, J. C., The Origin of I Corinthians (London, SPCK, 1965), pp. 126 ff.Google Scholar

³² That this is a recapitulation is stressed by Hurd, I Corinthians, pp. 128 ff., where he details the parallels. He shows that the occasion of chapter 9 is to be found at least partly in a criticism of Paul's inconsistent conduct (see p. 131).

³³ On the relations between 7. 17 and 9. 23 ff. see Héring, Jean, La première épître de s. Paul aux Corinthiens (Neuchâtel, Delachaux et Niestlé, 1959), p. 75.Google Scholar

³⁴ Schmithals, W., Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville, Abingdon, 1971), pp. 176 ff.Google Scholar, stresses the relationship between these verses and questions about Paul's authority. He sees it as evidence of Gnostic opposition to Paul.

³⁵ It is not important to this issue what solution is adopted to the problem of the sequence of the Corinthian letters. The subject matter in II Corinthians presupposes reflection on Paul's practice, and that practice is described theoretically in I Cor. 9. 19–23. It is significant that the discussion of the problem of vacillation in II Corinthians relates only to Paul and not to the church.

³⁶ Dupont, Jacques, ‘Appel aux faibles et aux forts dans la communauté romaine (Rom. 14. 1–15. 13)’, in Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus; Analecta Biblica, 17 (Rome, 1963), 357–66Google Scholar, states the contrast too harshly when he speaks of Romans ‘comme une sorte de retractatio des explications de la Ière aux Corinthiens’.

³⁷ If Galatians is written after I Corinthians Paul would, in Gal. I. 10. be repudiating his approach enunciated in I Cor. 9. 33 and I Cor. 9. 19 ff. The rhetorical question with eti would be answered emphatically ‘no’! He has changed his mind. If, however, the order of events were the Antioch incident, the writing of I Corinthians, the writing of Galatians, it is difficult to account for Paul's restrained attitude towards Peter in I Corinthians, especially when eating practices are an issue in Corinth. It would also be difficult to account for the decision to use the Antioch incident as an example in Galatians, many years after the event. Further, if Peter were ever in Corinth (as I am inclined to believe) it is likely that the issue would have arisen there. An earlier date for Galatians seems to make more sense on this particular issue.

³⁸ Knox, W. L., St. Paul and the Church of Jerusalem, p. 123 nGoogle Scholar. 58 exaggerates: ‘S. Peter, as a Galilean Jew who only lived up to the popular standards of Judaism (Acts 10. 14, 28, and 15. 10…), would in normal circumstances hesitate to oppose in a question of the interpretation of Law and the O.T. a man who could from the Pharisaic standpoint accuse him of living no better than the Gentiles (Gal. 2. 14).’

³⁹ Though the Antioch church began before Paul, and though the city had a large Jewish population, nevertheless Paul seems to be the pre-eminent figure at Antioch.

⁴⁰ Knox, W. L., Jerusalem, p. 184Google Scholar and p. 191 n. 24, suggests some interesting reasons for Peter's visit and his withdrawal (cf. pp. 191–8).

⁴¹ That Paul does not raise the question of Peter's eating practices in I Corinthians suggests that when Peter was in Corinth he ate with Gentiles. Since on almost any showing the Antioch incident, though not necessarily the writing of Galatians, is earlier it is evidence that Peter's practice is adaptable. There is no hint in I Cor. 9. 19 ff. that the passage has a polemical thrust, but it is suggestive that it is found in the context of eating practices, and that right within that context (9. 5 f.) Peter and Barnabas (!) are both mentioned approvingly. The gap between them cannot be as great as is often supposed.

⁴² If our hypothesis is correct, the juxtaposition of Gal. 2. 7–10 with 2. 11 ff. is especially direct.

⁴³ Is it remotely possible, if Galatians be dated early, that Paul learned his accommodation ethic of I Cor. 9 and 10 from Peter?