¹ Dibelius, M., ‘The Apostolic Council’, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London, 1956), pp. 93–101Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., ‘Quellenanalyse and Kompositionsanalyse in Act 15’, in W. Eltester, judentum Urchristentum Kirche: Festschrift for J. Jeremias (Berlin, 1964), pp. 153–64Google Scholar, and The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1971), pp. 455–72.Google Scholar

² Studies, p. 99.Google Scholar

³ ‘Quellenanalyse’, pp. 160–2; Acts, p. 470.Google Scholar

⁴ The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church, I (London, 1894), pp. 205–14.Google Scholar

⁵ Acts, p. 471.Google Scholar

⁶ Manson, T. W., ‘The Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians’, in Black, M., ed., Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), p. 186Google Scholar; Nickle, K. F., The Collection (London, 1966), pp. 54–5.Google ScholarKümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1966), p. 287Google Scholar, with caution; Hahn, F., Mission in the New Testament (London, 1965), p. 83Google Scholar; Goppelt, L., Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (London, 1970), pp. 78–9Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G., Paul (London, 1971), p. 42Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., History of Primitive Christianity (London, 1973), pp. 89–90Google Scholar; Holtz, T., ‘Die Bedeutung des Apostelkonzils für Paulus’, Nov. T. XVI (1974), 110–48, esp. pp. 124–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ In favour of some degree of Jerusalem involvement, Bultmann, R., ‘Zur Frage nach den Quellen der Apostelgeschichte’, in Higgins, A. J. B., ed. New Testament Essays Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson (Manchester, 1959), pp. 68–80, esp. p. 72Google Scholar; Strobel, A., ‘Das Aposteldekret in Galatien: Zur Situation von Gal I and II’, N.T.S. XX (1974), 177–90, esp. pp. 182–3.Google Scholar

¹ Weizsäcker, C. von, op. cit. pp. 205–14Google Scholar; Billerbeck, P., Handkommentar, II, 729–34Google Scholar; K¨mmel, W. G., ‘Die älteste Form des Aposteldekrets’, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, ed. Gräser, E. (Marburg, 1965), pp. 278–88Google Scholar; Haenchen, , Acts, p. 468.Google Scholar

² Similarly, Schoeps, H. J., Paul (London, 1961), pp. 66–7Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte (Tübingen, 1963), pp. 84–5Google Scholar; Simon, M., ‘The Apostolic Decree and its Setting in the Ancient Church’, B.J.R.L. LII (1970), 437–60.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Billerbeck, , Handkommentar, in, 33–43Google Scholar; Encyclopaediaaica XII (1971), 1189–91.Google Scholar

⁴ Paul. p, 67.Google Scholar

⁵ Schmithals, W., Paul and james (London, 1965), p. 98.Google Scholar

⁶ Haenchen, , Acts, p. 469.Google Scholar

⁷ Billerbeck, , Handkommentar, II, 716–23Google Scholar; Kuhn, K. G., ‘προσήλυτος’, T.D.X. T. IV (1968), 740–2.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1958), p. 119Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., ‘Things Sacrificed to Idols’, N.T.S. XI (1965), 138–53, esp. pp. 146–7.Google Scholar

² Contra Nickle, K. F., Collection, p. 56.Google Scholar

³ Conzelmann, H., Apostelgeschichte p. 123Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., Acts p. 610Google Scholar; Talbert, C. H., ‘Again: Paul's Visits to Jerusalem’, Nov. T. IX (1967), 26–40, esp. pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Meyer, R., ‘περιτμνω’ T.D.N.T. VI (1968), 77–81.Google Scholar

⁵ Contra Porter, J. R., ‘The “Apostolic Decree” and Paul's second visit to Jerusalem’, J.T.S. XLVII (1946), 169–74Google Scholar, who argues that the controversy over circumcision and that over table fellow-ship are quite distinct, and that the former developed later than the latter (p. 174).

¹ Bammel, E., ‘rrcaxoç’, T.D.N.T. VI (1968), 909 n.Google Scholar, rightly notes that G. ii. 9c–10a contains the conference decree and ii. 7–96 Paul's interpretation.

² Geyser, A. S., ‘Paul, the Apostolic Decree and the Liberals in Corinth’, in Sevenster, J. N.–Unnik, W. C. van, ed., Studia Paulina, Festschrift for J. de Zwaan (Haarlem, 1953), pp. 124–38, esp. 129–30.Google Scholar

³ Geyser, , op. cit. p. 130Google Scholar; Hall, D. R., ‘St Paul and Famine Relief: a Study of Gal. 2: 10’, Exp. T. LXXXII (1971), 309–11.Google Scholar

⁴ Geyser, A. S., op. cit. p. 136Google Scholar and Schoeps, H. J., Paul, p. 69Google Scholar explain the lack of reference to the Decree in Corinth as stemming from the fact of its restricted destination in Syria and Cilicia. Not dissimilar is the argument of Davies, W. D., Paul, p. 119Google Scholar, that the churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia were ‘not strictly Pauline churches’. An alternative pattern of argument adopted by Talbert, C. H., op. cit.Google Scholar pp. 36 f. and Longenecker, R. N., Paul: Apostle of Liberty (New York, 1964), p. 235Google Scholar, is that Paul wished to avoid quoting tradition lest this gave ammunition to those who were already accusing him of acting κατά σάρκα.

¹ On this cf. Harder, G., T.D.N.T. VII (1971), 559–68.Google Scholar

² Thus Oepke, A., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Berlin, 19642), p. 52Google Scholar; Nickle, K., Collection, PP. 59–60.Google Scholar

³ A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh, 1921), pp. 99–100, 115.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, 19632), p. 16.Google Scholar

⁵ Harder, , op. cit. p. 565.Google Scholar

⁶ Op. cit. p. 117.Google Scholar

⁷ Op. cit. p. 117.Google Scholar

⁸ Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (Göttingen, 19654), p. 80Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G., Paul, pp. 40–1.Google Scholar

¹ Rightly, Burton, , Galatians, pp. 67–8, 115Google Scholar; Parker, P., ‘Once more, Acts and Galatians’, J.B.L. LXXXVI (1967), 175–82, esp. p. 179Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., ‘Galatian Problems’, B..J.R.L. LI (1969), 292–309, esp. pp. 296Google Scholar, 302.

² It is not, of course, certain that Acts xi. 30 does intend to exclude the apostles. On the possible Lukan Tendenz, cf. Talbert, , op. cit. pp. 38–9.Google Scholar

³ Galater, p. 33.Google Scholar Similarly, Munck, , Paul, p. 101Google Scholar; Bornkamm, , Paul, p. 43.Google Scholar

⁴ Schlier, H., op. cit. p. 114Google Scholar; Ogg, G., The Chronology of the Life of Paul (London, 1968), pp. 31–5.Google Scholar

⁵ See p. 432, n. 8 above. This counts decisively against all the views set out in that note. One may add against Geyser and Schoeps that the restricted destination could hardly destroy its relevance to other Gentile churches if the decree was based on general theological principle; against Davies, it is hard to see why Antioch, Syria and Cilicia did not count as Pauline churches; against Talbert and Longenecker, whatever the charges brought against Paul by the time he wrote I Cor., he certainly shows no reluctance elsewhere in that letter to cite traditions (cf. xi. 23–5, XV. 3–5)

¹ Galater, p. 115.Google Scholar

² Contra Manson, T. W., Studies, p. 176Google Scholar who uses ύμας Gal. ii. 5, as an indication that the events of E. 4–5 occurred after the conference, rather than before it. Similarly, Bruce, F. F., ‘Galatian Problems’, pp. 306–7.Google Scholar But against this, ύμας (parallel to έν τοίς εθνεσιν ii. 2) is just one of a series of features showing that Paul describes the events concerned with one eye on later happenings and broader perspectives. Other examples are: (i) the position of the comment about Titus, even before the summary of the conference as a whole, but clearly positioned where it is in the light of the correspondence between ii. 3 and vi. 12. (ii) The present tense κηρύσσω in ii. 2. (iii) The variation between the first person plural referring to Barnabas and Paul, and the first person singular reflecting an awareness of the subsequent rupture with Barnabas. (iv) The expression of indifference concerning the ‘pillars’, again couched in the present tense (ii. 6).

³ See p. 441.

⁴ It is more in line with an appreciation of Lukan technique and a recollection of the fluctuations of gospel traditions of one and the same incident to speak of approximations and general equivalences rather than equations.

¹ See p. 428, n. 7.

² ‘Zum Quellenproblem der Apostelgeschichte’, repr. in Abba (Göttingen, 1966), pp. 238–55.Google Scholar

³ Benoit, P., ‘La deuxième visite de Saint Paul à Jérusalem’, Biblica XL (1959), 778–92.Google Scholar

⁴ Hence the existence of the so-called Antiochene source is still maintained by, e.g., Hahn, F., Mission, p. 61Google Scholar; Hengel, M., ‘Die Ursprünge der Christlichen Mission’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 15–38, esp. p. 25.Google Scholar Otherwise, Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1866), pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

⁵ Similarly, Conzelmann, H., Apostelgeschichte, pp. 4–5, 87.Google Scholar Otherwise, Strecker, G., ‘Die sogenannte zweite Jerusalemreise des Paulus (Acts 11, 27’30)’, Z.N.W. LIII (1962), 67–77, esp. pp. 67–70.Google Scholar In respect of Haenchen's resistance to this point, it is worth mentioning that not everyone is convinced of the internal coherence of Acts xv. 1–33. For instance, one cannot ignore the absence of reference to the circumcision problem in the major part of the narrative in spite of its introduction in verses 1–5.

⁶ Abba, pp. 247–54.Google Scholar

⁷ Op. cit. pp. 782–6.Google Scholar

⁸ Jeremias, , op. cit. pp. 250–1Google Scholar; Benoit, , op. cit. pp. 780–6.Google Scholar

¹ That we cannot exactly demarcate sources does not disprove their existence, cf. Q!

² ‘Quellenanalyse’, pp. 160–4. On Haenchen's general point of principle that just as we could not reconstruct Mark if we only had Luke, so too we cannot usefully expect to find from Acts alone its sources, it is worth mentioning that even without Mark we could deduce from evidence of stylistic variation, dislocations, doublets and the like that Luke did use sources, and precisely the same phenomena in Acts open up precisely the same conclusions.

³ Haenchen is followed by Conzelmann, , Apostelgeschichte, p. 86.Google Scholar

¹ Benoit, , op. cit. pp. 781, 788Google Scholar argues that the journey of Acts xiii-xiv must be placed before the Council on other grounds: (i) On any other showing there is too much activity to fit between the Council (dated A.D. 49) and the beginning of the mission in Corinth (dated autumn A.D. 50). (ii) This journey is needed to provide a setting for the raising of the issue which the Council had to discuss. But against this: (i) Chronology is too uncertain to provide a firm foundation and in any case there is no reason to regard the Acts xiii-xiv journey as taking an inordinately long time. (ii) Not even Acts sees the events of Acts xiii-xiv as the sole cause of the Council. Indeed, it was possible for the issue to arise anywhere where the Gentile outreach had been successful; cf. Acts xi. 19–26, Gal. i. 21.

² See p. 434.

³ Thus Ogg, G., Chronology, pp. 36–8, 43Google Scholar, 57.

⁴ Thus, Hengel, M., ‘Ursprünge’, p. 18Google Scholar; Holtz, T., ‘Bedeutung’, pp. 110–15, 130–2.Google Scholar Both Hengel and Holtz take as a close-knit whole the positive result of the apostolic Council, the separation from Barnabas and the move away from Antioch. But against this: (i) There is no suggestion in the text that the Gal. ii. 11–14 events followed immediately in time upon the events of Gal. ii. 1–10. Indeed the fact of a second intervention by James makes it more likely that a sufficient, even if not pro-longed, interval must be allowed to make possible intermediate developments. (ii) Syria and Cilicia can hardly cover the geographical region, both on the mainland and including Cyprus, envisaged by Acts xiii-xiv.

¹ This position is not jeopardized by the ύμας of Gal. ii. 5 (on which see p. 435, n. 2), nor by the reference to Arabia in Gal. i. 17. The absence of any further reference to Arabia in Pauline material suggests either that he was not evangelizing Gentiles there – had he done so, it is likely that the circumcision issue would have arisen before fourteen years had elapsed – or that if he was, he was un-successful. Cf. Bornkamm, , Paul, p. 27.Google Scholar

² Similarly, Hahn, F., Mission, p. 82Google Scholar; Haenchen, , Acts p. 439.Google Scholar

³ Gal. ii. 7–9 indicates that at the time of the conference there was no Gentile mission other than that involving Paul.

⁴ The parallelism of of οί δοκουντες είναı τı (ii. 6) and οί δοκουντες στυλοι είναι(ii. 9), the latter representing a favourable evaluation by others, even if less so by Paul, rules out the suggestion of Foerster, W., ‘Die δοκουντες in Gal. 2’, Z.N.W. XXXVI (1937), 286–92Google Scholar that Paul is alluding to criticism inside the Jerusalem community along the lines of John, vii. 15Google Scholar, Acts iv. 13.

⁵ This is the case in view of άπο ίακωβου (Gal, ii. 12), whether or not we follow B. Reicke in taking οί περιτομης as referring to Jews rather than Jewish Christians. ‘Der geschichtliche HintergrunddesApostelkonzils and derAntiochia-Episode, Gal. 2, 1–14’ in Studia Paulina (seep. 432Google Scholar, n. 2), pp. 172–87, esp. 177.

¹ Similarly, Gaechter, P., Petrus and Seine Zeit (Innsbruck, 1958), pp. 251–4Google Scholar; Hengel, M., ‘Ursprünge’, p. 18Google Scholar; Holtz, T., ‘Bedeutung’, p. 125Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G., Paul, p. 47.Google Scholar It is necessary to resist the argument of Ogg, G., op. cit. p. 97Google Scholar (and similarly, Munck, J., op. cit. p. 94Google Scholar) that the readers would assume that Paul achieved his purpose and therefore he felt no need to mention it. ‘It is unbelievable that he would have adduced as proof of his apostolic authority an incident in which it was set at nought.’ Against this: (i) The above-mentioned form-critical observations about the records of the three events have to be taken more seriously. (ii) The real possibility has to be allowed that this incident is known and being used by the anti-Pauline forces in Galatia and, no doubt, elsewhere. So, rightly, Weizsäcker, C. von, op. cit. pp. 189–90, 197.Google Scholar

² So, Oepke, , op. cit. p. 57Google ScholarSchlier, , op. cit. p. 83Google Scholar; Bornkamm, , Paul, p. 45Google Scholar; Schmithals, W., Paul and James (London, 1965), p. 64.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Billerbeck, , 1v, 374–8.Google Scholar

⁴ We cannot, therefore, follow W. Schmithals' view that Peter had been doing nothing against the law, op. cit. p. 64.Google Scholar

¹ Note here the text-critical problem relating to τινας…ηλθον/τινά…ηλθεν (Gal. ii. 12) Manson, T. W., Studies, pp.,78–9Google Scholar (followed by Bruce, F. F., ‘Galatian Problems’, pp. 308–9Google Scholar) prefers the singular readings on the grounds that (i) manuscript support is strong, (ii) the plural readings can be explained as a confused reminiscence of Acts xv. 1, and (iii) the fact that Paul apparently tackles only Peter tells against the view that either James or a deputation of right-wing Jewish Christians arrived in Antioch. However, while the phrase (ii. 12) certainly precludes the presence of James himself in Antioch, one must note that the plural readings are also strongly attested. Moreover, Peter was probably the prime target for the Pauline counter-attack because he, unlike the delegation, had actually changed his position in the presence of the Antiochene church, and he, unlike the delegation, was in the strict sense an apostle.

² The attempt of Schoeps, Paul, pp. 102, 106–7Google Scholar to divide the delegation froml James is unconvincing.

³ Schlier, H., op. cit. p. 70Google Scholar, sees in Gal. ii. 3 a ‘Befehl’ but in E. 14 only a ‘Beispie’. Eckert, J., Die. urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus and seinen Gegnern nach dm Galaterbrief (Regensburg, 1971), pp. 198–9Google Scholar, also weakens the text when he declares that Paul's description is misleadingly partisan: ‘Denn daB Kephas in der Regel heidnisch lebte ist ebensowenig wahrscheinlich wie, daB er auf die Heiden einen Zwang ausübte, jüdisch zu leben.’ But if Peter condones and endorses in Antioch a demand which is rooted in Judaism, Paul's language is not so exaggerated as Eckert claims. More correctly, Donfried, K. P.–Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Peter in the Pauline Letters’, in R. E. Brown-K. P. Donfried-J. Reumann, Peter in the New Testament (London, 1974), p. 26Google Scholar: ‘the imposition on Gentile converts of aspects of the Mosaic Law, especially the food regulations’ (my italics).

⁴ Cf. Gutbrod, W., ‘ίσραήλ’, T.D.N.T. III (1965), 370–83.Google Scholar

⁵ Gutbrod, W., op. cit. p. 381Google Scholar; Kuhn, K. G., ‘προσήλυτος’ T.D.N.T. VI (1968), 732Google Scholar; Arndt, W. F.–Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1957), p. 380.Google Scholar

⁶ In Josephus, , B.J. II. 454Google Scholar the verb is probably used to describe a situation falling short of full circumcision.

⁷ ‘Bedeutung’, p. 123.

¹ This incident, rather than Acts xv. 37–9, indicates the essential cause of the break between the two men.

² See above, p. 440.

³ A similar conclusion, but one based on substantially different argumentation, was reached by Bacon, B. W., ‘Peter's Triumph at Antioch’, J.R. IX (1929), 204–23, esp. pp. 215–16Google Scholar, and by Porter, J. R., op. cit. (p. 431Google Scholar n. 5), pp. 172–4.

¹ Cf. Käsemann, E., ‘Die Legitimität des Apostels’, Z.X.W. XLI (1942), 33–71Google Scholar and Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corithians (London, 1973), pp. 30–2.Google Scholar