^{page 198 note 1} Cf. Schlier, Heinrich, Der Brief an die Galater (Göttingen, 1962 ¹²), pp. 18–24;Google ScholarStaehlin, G., ‘Galaterbrief’, RGG ³, 11, cols. 1187–9;Google ScholarTalbert, Charles H., ‘Again: Paul's Visits to Jerusalem’, NovT, ix (1967), 26–40;Google ScholarBronson, David B., ‘Paul, Galatians, and Jerusalem’, JAAR, xxxv (1967), 119–28.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 2} Schmithals, Walther, ‘Die Häretiker in Galatien’, ZNW, XLVII (1956), pp. 25–67.Google ScholarThis article is reprinted in Paulus und die Gnostiker. Untersuchung zu den kleinen Paulusbriefen (Hamburg, 1965), pp. 9–46.Google ScholarSee also the somewhat differing picture of the historical situation in Paul and James (London, 1965), especially pp. 103–17.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 3} Lütgert, Wilhelm, ‘Gesetz und Geist. Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes’, BFChTh, xxii (1917), 473–576;Google Scholar Foerster has supported Lütgert's thesis with the reservation, based on Gal. i. 18–19, that the Judaizers were also in conflict with James and Peter. See ‘Die δοκο⋯ντες in Gal. 2’, ZNW, xxxvi (1937), 286–92,Google Scholarand ‘Abfassungszeit und Ziel des Galaterbriefes’, Apophoreta. Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen, BZNW, xxx (Berlin, 1964), 135–41.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 4} Ropes, James H., The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians (Cambridge, Mass, 1939).Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 5} Hirsch, Emanuel, ‘Zwei Fragen zu Galater 6’, ZNW, xxix (1930), 192–7.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 6} Munck, Johannes, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (trans, by Clarke, Frank) (London, 1959), pp. 88–134;Google Scholarcf. the critical review by Davies, W. D. in Christian Origins and Judaism (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 179–98.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 1} Crownfield, Frederic R., ‘The Singular Problem of the Dual Galatians’, JBL, LXIV (1945), 491–500;Google ScholarTalbert, , art. cit., p. 29, accepts Crownfield's identification of the agitators as ‘syncretists’and suggests that their case was strengthened by the fact that Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts xvi. 1–4). For a critical appraisal of this questionable passage in Acts,Google Scholarsee Haenchen, Ernst, Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen, 1956 ¹⁰), pp. 425–8.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 2} Schmithals, ZNW (1956), pp. 25–67. In Paul and James he suggests in contrast that the intrudersat the Apostolic Conference were Jews rather than gnostic Christians. It is difficult to see howthesetwo theories can be reconciled, for it is apparent that Paul thought the intruders in Gal. ii. 4–5 were related to those entering Galatia.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 3} There is considerable scholarly doubt, for example, about the historicity of Epiphanius' account which places Cerinthus clearly back in the apostolic period and pictures him as a radical nomist. See Bauer, Walther, ‘Cerinth’, RGG ³, col. 1632.Google ScholarSome gnostic writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas (Logion 53), contain explicit polemic against physical circumcision. Cf. Gärtner, Bertil, The Theology of the Gospel according to Thomas (New York, 1961), pp. 59 f.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 4} This is the gist of the critique of Schmithals by Wilson, R. McL., ‘Gnostics—in Galatia?’, Studia Evangelica, iv (edited by Cross, F. L.; Berlin, 1968; = TU 102), 358–67.Google Scholar But he concludes with a theory which was considered and discarded in the last century: ‘in Galatia everything points to the fact that the trouble was the danger of reversion into Judaism’. In a somewhat similar vein, A. E. Harvey, in the same volume, suggests that recent Jewish proselytes from the synagogue in Galatia are putting pressure on the Galatian church for stealing synagogue members. This theory cannot account for the Judaizer's appeal to close relationship with the Jerusalem church (Gal. i. 11—ii. 21) or the probable location in North Galatia where no evidence of Jewish synagogues has been found. That the Judaizers therefore did not ‘represent a theological position’ but merely a practical one does not fit with Paul's charge that they are proclaiming ‘a different gospel’. See ‘The Opposition to Paul’, Studia Evangelica, iv, 319–32.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 1} Wegenast, Klaus, Das Verständnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen (Neukirchen,1962), pp. 36–40.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 2} Georgi, Dieter, Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem (Hamburg, 1965), pp. 35–8;Google ScholarKoester, Helmut, ‘Häretiker im Urchristentum’, RGG ³, III, cols. 18–21.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 3} Bronson, D. B., pursues a similar quest in his article ‘Paul, Galatians, and Jerusalem’, op. cit. He suggests that ‘James and his group were swept into a more active nationalism’ by the political situation in the years prior to the outbreak of the Jewish War, p. 128. It is highly unlikely, however, that the Galatian agitators were actually sponsored by James.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 4} Cf. Georgi, , Kollekte, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 5} Meyer, Rudolf, ‘περιτέμνω’, ThW, vi, 80, lines 15 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 1} Holtzmann, H. J., Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Freiburg,1886 ²), p. 243;Google ScholarHarvey, A. E. apparently misunderstands Strack-Billerbeck, iv, 558, as implying that Gentiles could not enter the ‘seed of Abraham’ through circumcision: Studia Evangelica, iv, 326.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 2} Schmithals, , ZNW (1956), pp. 25–67.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 3} Shabb. 31a; see also Daube, David, ‘Jewish Missionary Maxims in Paul’, StTh, 1 (1948), 159.Google ScholarSchürer, Emil comments: ‘Der jüdischen Bekehrungseifer hat sich eben mit dem Ereichbaren begnügt’,Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig, 1901), iii, 173.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 4} Hirsch, , ZNW (1930), PP. 193–4.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 5} Schlier, , Galater, p. 204;Google ScholarDuncan, G. S., The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (London, 1934), p. 190.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 6} Schmithals, , ZNW (1956), pp. 42–3.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 1} Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A Translation and Adaptation by W. F. Arndt and W. F. Gingrich (Chicago, 1957), p. 876.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 2} Schmithals argues that the entire discussion about works-righteousness in iii. 6—iv. 20 contains no direct reference to the Galatian situation and simply documents Paul's mistaken view of the cause of the circumcision problem: ZNW (1956), p. 60, note 108.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 3} Cf. Schlier, , Galater, on vi. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 4} Cf. Van Ness Goetchius, Eugene, The Language of the New Testament (New York, 1965), p. 104;Google ScholarRobertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (New York, 1914), pp. 808 f.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 1} Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (New York, 1896 ¹⁰), p. 222.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 2} Schlier, , Galater, ad be;Google Scholarcf. also Holtzmann, Oscar, ‘Zu Emanuel Hirsch, Zwei Fragen zu Galater 6’, ZNW, xxx (1931), 76–83.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 3} Hirsch is forced to speak of ol περιτεμνόμενοι ‘als Neujuden jungen Datums’, ZNW (1930), p. 193,Google Scholarand Harvey, also slips into the past tense in describing the ‘Gentiles who have recently become Jewish proselytes’, in Studia Euangelica, iv, 324 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 4} Lütgert, saw this clearly: ‘Wenn die Gemeinde die Beschneidung annimmt, so hat sie die Verfolgung vergeblich erlitten. Also ist sie verfolgt worden, weil sie nicht beschnitten war’, ‘Galater briefes’, p. 568. Opposing such a view are Schlier, Galater, p. 83,Google Scholar and Oepke, A., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Berlin, 1960), p. 68. Both Schlier and Oepke take πάσχειν in its neutral sense of ‘experience’. But Duncan is right in rejecting this interpretation on the grounds that πάσχειν is never used with this meaning elsewhere in the Greek Bible; when it has the positive sense of‘experience’ it is always combined with other words which make this clear: Galatians, p. 81.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 5} Cf. Ropes, , Galatians, p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 6} It is typical for Schmithal's method that such a revealing statement as this is shrugged off as ‘zunächst doch wohl nicht mehr als ein bissiger Vorwurf des Paulus’, ZNW (1956), p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 1} Cf. Oepke, , Galater, p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 2} Cf. Hengel, Martin, Die Zeloten. Untersuchung zur jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. (Leiden, 1961), pp. 351–86;Google ScholarReicke, Bo, The New Testament Era. The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to A.D. 100 (tr. Green, David E.; Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 202–23.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 1} Cf. Farmer, W. R., Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus. An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period (New York, 1957), pp. 65–8, 125–58.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 2} Old Testament support for this policy was found in such passages as Ezekiel xliv. 9, ‘Therefore says the Lord God: no foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary’.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 3} Hengel, , Zeloten, p. 231.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 4} Cf. also Bell, , iv, 169–70, 259, 263; v, 402; vii, 256–60. Hengel provides examples also from other sources in Zeloten, pp. 190–5.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 5} Furthermore, Paul's statement in I Thess. ii. 16, ‘but God's wrath has come upon them at last’, may refer to the disturbance which occurred in Jerusalem during the Passover of 49 when twenty to thirty thousand Jews were supposed to have been killed. Cf. Josephus, , Ant. xx, 112 and Bell, a, 224–7Google Scholar. Since this disturbance was instigated by Zealots (Bell, ii, 225), Paul could well have interpreted the massacre as punishment for the persecution against the Christians in Judea. Ernst Bammel provides a sketch of the discussion regarding the persecution mentioned in I Thess. in ‘Judenverfolgung und Naherwartung. Zur Eschatologie des ersten Thessalonicherbriefs’, ZThK, LVI (1959), 294–315; see especially pp. 295, 306. He favours the theory that Paul refers to the expulsion of Jews from Rome in the year 49, but this does not correspond well with Paul's clear reference in I Thess. ii. 14 to the Christians in Judea having suffered from the Jews.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} Reicke, Bo, ‘Der geschichtliche Hintergrund des Apostelkonzils und der Antiochia-Episode, Gal. 2: 1–14’, Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan (Haarlem, 1953), p. 185.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 2} Cf. the author's Tübingen Dissertation, The Pauline Anthropological Terms. Their Use in the Struggle Against Early Christian Heresy (1966), pp. 51–82. I place the agitation in Antioch in the late 40s, the Apostolic Conference in the summer of 51, the second visit to the North Galatian churches in 52 and the writing of Galatians in the winter of 52.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 3} This hypothesis offers an answer to Schmithals' central argument against the Judaizer theory. He notes that since the conservative group in the Judean church did not at an earlier time express interest in a Gentile mission, there would be no reason why they would suddenly have sent agitators to Galatia. ZNW (1956), pp. 28 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 1} Oepke, , Galater, p. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 2} Cf. Foerster, W., BZNW (1964), p. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 3} Billerbeck, P. and Strack, H. L., Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich, 1922–1928), iv, 32. Cf. especially Midr. Ps. ii, par. 13 (156); Pesik. R. 10 (35a).Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 4} Cf. Reitzenstein, R., Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (Leipzig, 1920 ²), pp. 338–9:Google Scholar ‘“Vollkommen”, d. h. geweiht ist ein fester Begriff in den meisten orientalischen Religionen und der ganzen Gnosis. Die Bildung des Begriffes geht aus von der festen sakralen Formel τελεíα μυστήρια …und sie hängt natürlich mit der Vorstellung zusammen, daß es einen festen Weg und daher auch ein ἄρχεσθαι und τελευτἄν in den Mysterien gibt, und daß der Höhepunkt, die Vollendung (τέλος), das Schauen Gottes ist.’ For a recent appraisal of these concepts see Paul Johannes du Plessis, TE∧EIOΣ. The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 5} However, there is no indication that the agitators presented circumcision as a gnostic ‘Befreiung des Pneuma-Selbst von dem Kerker dieses Leibes’, as Schmithals suggests, ZNW (1956), p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 1} Cf. Schlier, , Galater, p. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 2} Schmithals, , ZNW (1956), pp. 35 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 3} Lütgert, , ‘Galaterbriefes’, pp. 492 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 4} Linton, Olof, ‘The Third Aspect. A Neglected Point of View’, StTh, iii (1950), 79–95.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 1} For an alternative interpretation of this situation, see Robinson, D. W. B., ‘The Distinction between Jewish and Gentile Believers in Galatians’, Australian Biblical Review, xiii (1965), 29–48.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 2} Lütgert, , ‘Galaterbriefes’, p. 479.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} Lütgert in contrast views the pneumatics as ‘besonders begabten Christen’, Ibid. pp. 482 ff.

^{page 210 note 1} Oepke, , Galater, pp. 145 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 2} Schmithals, , ZNW (1956), pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 3} Schmithals wrongly asserts that τό πνε⋯μα λαβάνειν is exclusively gnostic terminology, Ibid. p. 51. Actually this expression is typical for early Christian usage. Cf. Acts ii. 33, 38; viii.15, 17, 19; x. 47; xix. 2. It is an expression which Paul in no way avoids: Rom. viii. 15; I Cor.ii. 12; II Cor. xi. 4; Gal. iii. 14. Schmithals draws another questionable conclusion in saying that opposition between living in the Spirit and walking by the Spirit would be impossible for a Pauline-oriented congregation, ibid. p. 52. He tries to substantiate this by reference to Rom. viii. 2 ff.; I Cor. iii. 1 ff.; Gal. v. 17; and vi. 7 ff.; which indicate in reality that such was a rather constant threat to the Pauline churches.

^{page 211 note 1} Paul, in contrast to this widespread notion, depicts with πνε⋯μα in Gal. vi. 8 a reality which is future rather than present.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 2} Cf. Voegtle, A., Die Tugend- und Lasterkatalogue im Neuen Testament (Münster, 1936), pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 3} Burton, E. D., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh,1921), pp. 339 ff.Google Scholar; Duncan, Galatians, pp. 185 ff.; Schlier, Galater, pp. 203 ff.

^{page 212 note 1} Lütgert, , ‘Galaterbriefes’, p. 483Google Scholar; Schmithals, , ZNW (1956), p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} Lütgert, , ‘Galaterbriefes’, p. 490.Google Scholar