[1] Cf. e.g. Lightfoot, J. B., Galatians (Macmillan, 1865, ¹⁰ 1890), pp. 103 f.Google Scholar: ‘the prima facie sense of the passage … would be so entirely alien to the spirit of the passage, so destructive of St. Paul's whole argument, and so unlikely under the circumstances, that (it) must be abandoned’.

[2] Cf. e.g. the famous comment of Burkitt, F. C., Christian Beginnings (London, 1924), p. 118Google Scholar: ‘Who can doubt that it was the knife which really did circumcise Titus that has cut the syntax of Gal. 2. 3–5 to pieces?’

[3] See especially the studies of Schütz, J. H., Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 136–50Google Scholar, and Holmberg, B., Paul and Power: the Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Lund, 1977), pp. 14–34.Google Scholar

[4] Holmberg, Paul, p. 15.

[5] Betz, H. D., ‘The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 21 (1974–1975), 353–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; also Galatians (Hermeneia, 1979), here particularly pp. 58–62, 83. Similarly Lüdemann, G., Paulus der Heidenapostel. Band I: Studien zur Chronologie (Göttingen, 1980), pp. 74–7.Google Scholar

[6] Cited in both von Arnim, J., Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 1922, II.1202 (p. 344)Google Scholar, and Wehrli, F., Klearchos (Basel, 1948), frag. 76b (p. 30).Google Scholar

[7] Jensen, C., περi κακιων i (Leipzig, 1911), XVII.25–29 (p. 31).Google Scholar

[8] For ‘flesh and blood’ = ‘mere man’, cf. Sir. 14. 18; Matt. 16. 17; 1 Cor. 15. 50; Eph. 6. 12; Sotah 8. 1; further Strack-Billerbeck I pp. 730 f.; see also Mussner, F., Galater (Herder, 1974, ³1977), p. 89 n. 58.Google Scholar

[9] This is perhaps part of the reason why Paul says ***dπoκαλψαιύψαc Éν Éμoί instead of the normal dπoκαλύπτεw + dative which he regularly uses elsewhere (1 Cor. 2. 10; 14. 30; Phil. 3. 15; also Eph. 3. 5): it was a revelation whose import was experienced as an inward compulsion he could not gainsay.

[10] Cf. Philodemus who continues: κάν πρoερωύńoη ύις (ύί) μέλλει πoιεω· ‘oιδ Éγώ’ λέγεω … (XVII.29 ff.). Also Lucian where Hermes's exhortation έάoί πρoσθoν,λςβε με σύμβoν πόνων is set in contrast to the preceding καγύόνας ρανύώ λαλεīά

[11] Cf. T. Zahn (cited in Mussner, Galater, p. 90 n. 59); P. Bonnard, Galates (CNT 1953): ‘πρOσανατíθηµαí signifie probablement prendre conseil, demander un avis autorisé et officiel’ (p. 31).

[12] Mussner, Galater: ‘Der Ton liegt auf ∈ύθÉως wie die auffällige Stellung des Adverbs beweist’ (p. 89).

[13] M. J. Lagrange, Galates (EB 1925), p. 15; and those cited by Betz, Galatians, p. 72 n. 165.

[14] ‘Die Zeitangabe ist nicht in erster Linie in chronologischen Interesse hervorgehoben, sondern um auch durch sie die Unabhängigkeit des Apostels und seines Evangeliums zu betonen’ (Schlier, H., Galater (KEK ¹³ 1965), pp. 59 f.).Google Scholar

[15] E.g., AG ‘visit for the purpose of coming to know someone’; RSV ‘visit Cephas’; NEB ‘to get to know Cephas’; JB ‘to visit Cephas’; NIV ‘to get acquainted with Peter’; ‘The sole purpose of this fortnight's visit was to “make the acquaintance” of Peter’ (Bornkamm, G., Paul, 1969,Google Scholar ET Hodder & Stoughton 1971, p. 28); Mussner follows AG; Betz ‘pay Cephas a visit’.

[16] E.g. Duncan, G. S., Galatians, Moffatt 1934:Google Scholar ‘he went to visit Peter, not to receive instruction from him’ (p. 31); Betz, Galatians: ‘though possible philologically, (it) runs counter to Paul's defence’ (p. 76).

[17] Lagrange, E. g., Galates, p. 17;Google Scholar O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (²1960, ET² SCM Press 1962), p. 40; Schlier, Galater, p. 60.

[18] OGIS 694 (Rom.) - ‘ΕρµOγέννης 'ΑµαO[∈ύ]ς [τέν] άλλας σύρωγας δών Éθαύµασα τµ∈ύελλας⋯ρινγα λδὼν;∈ύασα Theban inscription, Kaibel 1020 – Tατιαν⋯ς⋯γεμών Θηβάιδος ⋯στο[ς] ⋯θαύμαοεν τ⋯ θαύ[μα ξ] υνού τωύ σοφ⋯ν Aίγυπ[τί]ων

[19] ‘It denotes visits paid to places of interest with a view to getting information about them on the spot’ (Rendall, F., ‘Galatians’, The Expositor's Greek Testament (Hodder & Stoughton, 1917), 3 p. 155).Google Scholar

[20] AG's examples hardly bear out the sense ‘visit for the purpose of coming to know someone’, since all but one (Bell. 6.81) have impersonal objects. The revised edition (AGD 197) makes an improvement by adding ‘… someone or something’, but adds no new data to strengthen the case for taking Gal. 1. 18 in this sense.

[21] Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘Galatians 1.18 IΣTOPHΣAI KHΦAN’, New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, ed. Higgins, A. J. B. (Manchester, 1959), pp. 144–9.Google Scholar So earlier Rendall (n. 19 above).

[22] Howard, G., Paul: Crisis in Galatia (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 36 fGoogle Scholar. uses this point to argue that what Paul was denying in 1. 18 was that the visit to Peter had the purpose of Paul informing Peter about Paul's ‘revelation’.

[23] ‘Nor did he then expound “his gospel” to Peter and James, securing their approval of it (pace Ramsay). Otherwise there would have been no need for him, on the second visit, to apprise “those of repute” of “the gospel” he “preached among the Gentiles …”’ (E. Haenchen, Acts (KEK ¹⁴1965, ET Blackwell 1971), p. 464).

[24] Cf. Haenchen, E., ‘Petrus-Probleme’, NTS 7 (1960–1961), 187–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript (Lund, 1961), pp. 297–9Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (Paternoster, 1977), p. 84Google Scholar; Holmberg, Paul, p. 16. On the tension between Gal. 1. 12 and 1 Cor. 15. 3 see further Bring, R., Galater (Berlin and Hamburg, 1968), pp. 54–8Google Scholar; Dunn, J. D. G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (SCM Press 1977), pp. 66 f.Google Scholar

[25] Kilpatrick, ‘Gal. 1. 18’, p. 148.

[26] Cf. Gerhardsson, Memory: he ‘presented his gospel for the approval of the highest doctrinal court …’ (pp. 276 f.).

[27] Haenchen, Acts, p. 464. Howard argues that the ‘revelation’ of 2. 2 was Paul's initial revelation of 1. 12 (Paul, p. 38), despite the lack of the definite article with ‘revelation’ in 2. 2, in pursuit of his improbable thesis that Paul's circumcision-free gospel was news to the Jerusalem apostles, even though the gospel had been open to the Gentiles for many years, and preached by Hellenists before Paul, and evidently without requiring circumcision (we can hardly assume that all Gentile converts during that period had already been proselytes).

[28] For the different opinions as to whether ‘the pillar apostles’ = ‘those of repute’ or are an inner group within the Jerusalem leadership see Holmberg, Paul, p. 22 n. 57.

[29] See particularly Barrett, C. K., ‘Paul and the “Pillar” Apostles’, Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan (Haarlem, 1953), pp. 1–4Google Scholar; Betz, Galatians, pp. 86 f.

[30] See particularly Holmberg, Paul, p.22.

[31] See particularly the vigorous exposition of Mussner, Galater, pp. 102 f.

[32] As argued e.g. by Duncan, Galatians, p. 41; Oepke, A., Galater (THNT ² 1957), p. 45Google Scholar; Schütz, Paul, pp. 139 f. Bring states it better – ‘the unity of the church based on the truth of the gospel’ (Galater, p. 63). But it is not clear how a breach as such with Jerusalem would have nullified his whole missionary endeavour. Nor is it at all certain that Paul at this stage had a concept of ‘the (world-wide) church’ (singular) (see Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus and the Spirit (SCM Press, 1975), pp. 262 f.)Google Scholar. Schlier forces the text when he argues that thought of ‘the unity of the apostolic office’ was also involved for Paul (Galater, p. 68; see also Betz's critique of Schlier – Galatians, p. 99 n. 399). On the other hand Schütz presses too far the assertion that for Paul apostolic authority is subordinate to the authority of the gospel (Paul, particularly p. 145). J. Roloff is better: ‘Man kommt darum nicht an der Erkenntnis vorbei, dass Paulus Gal. 2.2 neben 1.1 stellt, weil sein Apostolat beide Gesichtspunkte erfordert: er ist Apostel, weil ihn der Auferstandene berufen und gesandt hat, aber er ist es nur, indem er das Evangelium gemeinsam mit den übrigen Aposteln bezeugt …’ (Apostolat-Verkündigung-Kirche, Gütersloh 1965, p. 73).

[33] So Betz, Galatians, p. 88 – ‘“To run in vain” must reflect the present concern of the Galatians’; cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 104 – ‘fear lest the Judaic Christians … might thwart his past and present endeavours to establish a Church on a liberal basis’.

[34] Cf. Holtz, T., ‘Die Bedeutung des Apostelkonzils für Paulus’, Nov. T. 16 (1974), 121–7.Google Scholar

[35] Note in this connection the theological significance of the collection for Paul (Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (1954, ET SCM Press 1959), pp. 303 f.Google Scholar ; Nickle, K. F., The Collection (SCM Press 1966), pp. 129–43)Google Scholar, which probably accounts for his readiness to embrace the pillar apostles' exhortation to remember the poor in 2. 10.

[36] Cf. particularly P. Stuhlmacher's exposition in terms of the heilsgeschichtlich character of Paul's gospel (Das paulinische Evangelium I. Vorgeschichte (Göttingen, 1968), pp. 87 f.). In Galatians Paul ‘was essentially concerned with establishing who constitute the true people of God’ (Davies, W. D., ‘Paul and the People of Israel’, NTS 24 (1977–1988), 10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[37] Dunn, , Jesus, , pp. 233–6; also ‘Prophetic “I”-Sayings and the Jesus Tradition’, NTS 24 (1977–1978), 175–98.Google Scholar

[38] Dunn, Jesus, pp. 278 f. Paul of course is as certain in Gal. 2. 2 of the truth of his gospel as he is in 1 Cor. 14. 37 f. and 1 Thess. 4. 2–8 of the rightness of his judgment.

[39] Cf. Burton, E. D., Galatians, ICC 1921, p. 90Google Scholar ; against NEB ‘prolong the consultation’. Would αύατίθημι (active) have served as well (Schlier, Galater, p. 74; Betz, Galatians, p. 95)? LSJ renders it more in the sense of ‘entrust’, and Paul is hardly saying that they ‘entrusted nothing to me’. The double prefix should be given weight.

[40] Burton, , Galatians, pp. 89–91Google Scholar; cf. LSJ ‘contribute of oneself to another’.

[41] E.g. Bonnard, ‘prescrire’ (Galates, p. 40); Holmberg, ‘impose something on someone’ (Paul, p. 23); see particularly the useful discussion in Oepke, Galater, pp. 48 f.

[42] The demand for circumcision both at Jerusalem (2. 3) and in Galatia is probably primarily in view (cf. Schlier, Galater, pp. 74 f.), but he may have had the wider obligations which the ‘men from James’ in effect laid upon the Gentile believers in Antioch (2. 11 ff.); see my forthcoming ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2.11ff.)’.

[43] So most commentators; against Burkitt (above n. 2). How Paul could have ‘preserved the truth of the gospel’ preached to the Galatians by allowing Titus to be circumcised, when it was precisely the demand for circumcision which threatened the Galatians' freedom (in Paul's view), is an unresolved mystery on Burkitt's interpretation. See also n. 58 below.

[44] 2. 7–9 hardly constitute a protest by Paul that he had not at that time recognized the authority of the Jerusalem apostles (against Betz, Galatians, p. 96); the contrast between 2. 6 and 2. 7–9 is clear - ‘they added nothing to me, but on the contrary recognized the authenticity of the gospel with which I was entrusted both as to its origin and as to its effectiveness as a word of God’.

[45] Betz, , Galatians, p. 92.Google Scholar

[46] Cf. Barrett, , ‘“Pillar” Apostles’, pp. 17 f.Google Scholar; Bligh, J., Galatians (St Paul 1969), pp. 157–9.Google Scholar

[47] On ποέ see particularly Burton, Galatians, pp. 87 f.

[48] A reference to the Jerusalem apostles' reputation as being a consequence of their relation with Christ during his pre-Easter ministry is less likely – some qualification of ⋯στορ⋯σαι Kηø⋯ν would have been probable in that case (against Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 108; Duncan, Galatians, p. 49; Barrett, ‘“Pillar” Apostles’, pp. 18 f.; Schlier, Galater, pp. 75 f.; see particularly the critique of these and other alternatives in Klein, G., ‘Galater 2.6–9 und die Geschichte der Jerusalem Urgemeinde’, ZTK 57 (1960), pp. 275–82Google Scholar, reprinted in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (München, 1969), pp. 99–105Google Scholar; Betz, , Galatians, pp. 93–5)Google Scholar. Despite Klein (p. 103) a change in Paul's own attitude to the Jerusalem apostles is most probably implied (Hay, D. M., ‘Paul's Indifference to Authority’, JBL 88 (1969)Google Scholar, 37 f. with nn. 6, 7). In its context the statement reads too much like Paul's current reaction against the authoritative status which at that time all (himself not excluded) accorded to the Jerusalem apostles (see further below). The Antioch incident in itself is sufficient explanation of his change of attitude (see my ‘Incident’).

[49] Betz, , Galatians, p. 94.Google Scholar

[50] It is probably no accident that the phrase echoes Deut. 10. 17, since it is precisely this reason which Deuteronomy gives when calling for the circumcision of the heart (10. 16).

[51] Barnabas would probably have regarded it more as an authorization by Jerusalem than Paul did; this is probably the chief reason why Paul speaks for himself in 2. 7 f. when insisting again that it was God who entrusted him with his gospel and blessed it so richly.

[52] Berger, K., ‘Almosen für Israel: zum historischen Kontext der paulinischen Kollekte’, NTS 23 (1976–1977), 180–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar, makes the plausible and valuable suggestion that the Jerusalem apostles may have regarded alms for Israel as the appropriate expression of conversion to the God of Israel for God-fearers who were not willing to be circumcised (= become full proselytes).

[53] On the striking parallels between the version of events contested by Paul in Gal. 1–2 and the account in Acts see Linton, O., ‘The Third Aspect: A Neglected Point of View: A Study in Gal. 1–2 and Acts 9 and 15’, St.Th. 3 (1949), 79–95.Google Scholar

[54] See references in Betz, , Galatians, p. 80 and n. 230.Google Scholar

[55] Holmberg, , Paul, p. 17.Google Scholar

[56] ‘Paulus geht nach Jerusalem und nicht kommen die Jerusalemer Apostel zu ihm’ (Schlier, Galater, p. 68). ‘So war Jerusalem der Ort, an dem die Identität des Evangeliums, zu dem sich Paulus berufen wusste, mit dem, zu dem er sich berufen glaubte, festgestellt werden konnte und musste’ (Holtz, ‘Bedeutung’, p. 145). Does the κατ⋯ ⋯ποκάλυψω imply that Paul would not have gone to Jerusalem unless commanded by God? If so this second revelation in effect counterbalanced the independence of his first revelation (1. 12), since it reinforced the status of the Jerusalem church in Paul's eyes.

[57] Cf. Hay, ‘Paul's Indifference’, pp. 36–44.

[58] Lightfoot's note at this point is superior to Burkitt's (above n. 2): ‘The counsels of the Apostles of the Circumcision are the hidden rock on which the grammar of the sentence is wrecked’ (Galatians, p. 106).

[59] Cf. particularly Holmberg, Paul, pp. 23 f.; Howard, Paul, pp. 28 f.

[60] See particularly Dinkler, E., ‘Der Brief an die Galater’, VuF 1–3 (1953/1955), 175–83Google Scholar, reprinted in Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen Archäologie (Tübingen, 1967), pp. 270–82Google Scholar; discussion in Klein, ‘Galater 2.6–9’, pp. 106 f., 118 f.; Betz, Galatians, pp. 96–8; Lüdemann, Heidenapostel I, pp. 86–101. The most significant features are the unusual Pauline talk of the ‘gospel of the uncircumcision’ and ‘gospel of the circumcision’, and the use of the name ‘Peter’ whereas elsewhere in Gal. 1–2 Paul consistently calls him ‘Cephas’. Note also how Barnabas is associated with Paul in what seems a formal agreement in 2. 9, whereas for the rest of the encounter Paul refers only to himself (see below pp. 473–4).

[61] See Betz, Galatians, pp. 98, 100.

[62] It is less likely that the collection was an issue between Paul and the Galatians, being misinterpreted (by some) as evidence of Paul's inferiority and subserviency to Jerusalem (so Hurtado, L., ‘The Jerusalem Collection in Galatians’, JSNT 5 (1979), 46–62)Google Scholar, in which case we would have expected something more than the almost casual mention of it in 2. 10. That does not exclude the likelihood that the pillar apostles understood their exhortation as a ‘policy recommendation’ backed by their authority; whereas Paul understood it simply as the corollary to his understanding of the gospel and of the Gentiles' participation in the inheritance of Israel (see above p. 468 and nn. 35, 36).

[63] Against Holmberg, who argues implausibly that the relation between Paul and Jerusalem in his last visit to Jerusalem (56–58 AD) was still much the same as during his second visit (Gal. 2. 1–10) (Paul, p. 56). But see my ‘Incident’.

[64] Cf. Bruce, Paul, p. 154.

[65] As Holmberg notes (Paul, p. 18 n. 37), this is a common opinion today – he cites Haenchen, Georgi, Stuhlmacher, Kasting, Holtz and Schütz.

[66] This is one of the points at which we can confidently supplement the evidence of Galatians with the information provided by Acts. Even if the relevance of Acts 15. 1 f. is disputed by those who equate Paul's second journey to Jerusalem with Acts 11. 30, the testimony of 11. 20–24 is clear enough.

[67] Note also the switch from first person plural in 1. 8 to singular in 1. 9 – see further particularly Bauckham, R., ‘Barnabas in Galatians’, JSNT 2 (1979), 61–70.Google Scholar

[68] See my ‘Incident’.