¹ Πείθω is commonly used with the sense ‘I conciliate’ or ‘I seek the approval of’: 2 Mace 4.45; Matt 28.14; Acts 12.20. So LSJ and BAGD, s.v.; Burton, E. D. W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921) 30–1;Google ScholarSchlier, H., Der Brief an der Galater (MeyerK 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971 [1949]) 41;Google ScholarLongenecker, Richard N., Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990) 18–19.Google Scholar If we take v. 10b as repeating the first half of v. 10a for effect, as v. 9 repeats v. 8, this translation is strengthened. Furthermore, this interpretation anticipates v. 10c as Paul's answer to the preceding two rhetorical questions where he moves from self-deliberative questions to an assertion clothed in a conditional construction, as Betz, Hans Dieter observes (Galatians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 56).Google Scholar

² Other approaches flourish. Some scholars try to make sense of v. 10a by translating πείθω as ‘I persuade’: Feuillet, A., ‘“Chercher à Persuader Dieu” (Ga 1 10a)’, NovT 12 (1970) 350–60;Google ScholarBetz, , Galatians, 54–5;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1982) 84–6;Google Scholar and Dunn, James D. G., The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1993) 50.Google Scholar Feuillet reads ‘seeking to persuade God’ as a reference to Peter, , vis-à-vis Matt 16.13–23,Google Scholar where he tries to persuade Jesus to choose another course from the cross. Though this understanding has not been followed here, it is in harmony with the claim made below that Paul anticipates in 1.10 his comparison with Peter in 2.11–14. A redactional explanation is offered by J. C. O‘Neill that ⋯ τòν θεόν is ‘far easier to understand as a gloss than as part of the text’, but there is no ancient manuscript evidence in his favour, and preference for the more difficult reading weighs against his view (The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians [London: SPCK, 1972] 24).Google Scholar On a wholly different line, G. Sass points to 1 Thess 2.4 as the lens through which to read Gal 1.10 (‘Zur Bedeutung von δο⋯λος bei Paulus’, ZNW 40 [1941] 24–32 [30–1]).Google Scholar The parallel is instructive (as are 1 Cor 4.3–5; 2 Cor 1.12; 2.17; 3.4), but should not distort or override the unique rhetorical situation of the Galatian letter.

³ See Longenecker, , Galatians, 18–19.Google Scholar Dunn cites evidence of how the practice of circumcision was an object of derision, suggesting the plausibility of this view (Galatians, 49–50).

⁴ Lategan, B. C., ‘Levels of Reader Instructions in the Text of Galatians’, Semeia 48 (1989) 171–84(175).Google Scholar

⁵ See Borgen, Peder, ‘Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men’, in Paul and Paulinism (ed. Hooker, M. D. & Wilson, S. G.; London: SPCK, 1982) 37–46.Google Scholar He takes Gal 6.12–13 as further evidence of this charge against Paul, but these verses are clearly Paul's characterization of his opponents to devastate their credibility. Acts 16.3 is evidence only of Paul's missionary principle of accommodation articulated in 1 Cor 9.19–23, but does not suggest that he preached the necessity of circumcision to others.

⁶ Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm, Heidenapostel aus Israel. Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT 62; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992) 10–14, 19–43;Google ScholarGaventa, Beverly R., ‘Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm’, NovT 28 (1986) 309–26Google Scholar (314). To be sure, this rhetoric of antitheses flows from Paul's eschatological frame of reference, as Schütz, John H. points out (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority [SNTSMS 26; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975] 120–2).Google Scholar

⁷ Similarly, Vos, Johan S., ‘Die Argumentation des Paulus in Galater 1,1–2,10’, in The Truth of the Gospel (Galatians 1.1–4.11) (ed. Jan, Lambrecht; Rome: Benedictina, 1993) 11–43 (12–14).Google Scholar

⁸ Betz, Galatians, 56, n. 115. Recently the study of Galatians has provided a convenient battleground over the appropriateness of ‘mirror reading’, turning a Pauline denial into an assertion of his opponents. George Lyons, on the one hand, has made an all out frontal assault on this technique, and his contribution has been to challenge reliance upon mirror reading when its results cannot be confirmed apart from the proposed reconstruction (Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding [SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985] 75–121).Google Scholar On the other hand, Bernard H. Brinsmead believes a reconstruction of the opponents brings coherence to understanding the letter (Galatians – Dialogical Response to Opponents [SBLDS 65; Chico: Scholars, 1982]).Google Scholar John M. G. Barclay offers a devastating critique of Brinsmead and sharpens the difficulties that Lyons pinpoints (‘Mirror-reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT 31 [1987] 73–93 [79–83]).Google Scholar Though Barclay is highly controlled in his methodology, his ‘certain or virtually certain results’ differ from Lyons' only in that Barclay believes Paul's credentials as an apostle were under attack, a conclusion based on the circular reasoning that Gal 1–2 is a ‘self-defence’ (87–8). This lack of fresh results gained by this rigid methodology unwittingly may provide additional support for Lyons' position.

⁹ Longenecker, , Galatians, 18.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Schütz, , Anatomy, 114–58;Google ScholarGaventa, , ‘Autobiography’, 310,Google Scholar n. 2 (for an extensive bibliography of those who contend Galatians is self-defence); Barclay, , ‘Mirror-reading’, 73–93;Google ScholarHester, James D., ‘Placing the Blame: The Presence of Epideictic in Galatians 1 and 2’, in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (JSNTSup 50; ed. Watson, D. F.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 281–307Google Scholar (a letter of reproach; a retraction of his earlier views in ‘The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1.11–2.14’, JBL 103 [1984] 223–33);Google Scholar cf. Lategan, B. C., ‘Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians?’, NTS 34 (1988) 411–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Martyn, J. L., ‘Events in Galatia, Modified Covenantal Nomism versus God's Invasion of the Cosmos in the Singular Gospel: A Response to J. D. G. Dunn and B. R. Gaventa’, in Pauline Theology 1 (ed. Bassler, J. M.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 163.Google Scholar

¹² For a summary of scholarship see Vos, , ‘Die Argumentation’, 17–22.Google Scholar

¹³ Dunn, , Galatians, 20;Google Scholar cf. Burton, , Galatians, 33.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Dunn, , Galatians, 52;Google Scholarcontra Betz, Galatians, 56. We may draw the same conclusion if the textual variant δέ is correct (see Porter, S. E., Idioms of the Greek New Testament [Sheffield: JSOT, 1992] 207–8)Google Scholar, but see Longenecker, , Galatians, 22.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Gaventa, , ‘Autobiography’, 314.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Gaventa, , ‘Autobiography’, 314.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Vos, , ‘Die Argumentation’, 22–4.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Betz, , Galatians, 55,Google Scholar n. 111–13; Vos, , ‘Die Argumentation’, 24–5.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Vos, , ‘Die Argumentation’, 25–7.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ebeling, G., The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians (trans. Green, D.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985 [1981] 61;Google Scholar see also 66–7; cf. Betz, , Galatians, 56;Google ScholarLongenecker, , Galatians, 22;Google ScholarDunn, , Galatians, 51–2.Google Scholar

²¹ Gal 1.13, 23; 4.29; 5.11; 6.12; cf. 3.9. Baasland, E., ‘Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians’, ST 38 (1984) 135–50.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., 138–9.

²³ Cf. 2 Cor 4.7–15; 11.23–12.10; Philippians, , Güttgemanns, E., Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr. Studien zur paulinischen Christologie (FRLANT 90; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966).Google Scholar

²⁴ So Baasland, , ‘Persecution’, 139–10.Google Scholar See A. J. Goddard and S. A. Cummins who draw attention to Paul's past persecution among the Galatians and its relation to the current opposition (‘Ill or Ill-treated? Conflict and Persecution as the Context of Paul's Original Ministry in Galatia’, JSNT 52 [1993] 93–126).Google Scholar For a plausible explanation of the historical circumstances which led to this see Jewett, Robert, ‘The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation’, NTS 17 (1970–1971) 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ See further Mitchell, Margaret M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 49–60.Google Scholar

²⁶ As demonstrated by Bachmann, Michael, Sünder oder Übertreter. Studien zur Argumentation in Gal. ii. 15ff. (WUNT 59; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992) 110–51,Google Scholar and Betz, , Galatians, 114–27Google Scholar (the ‘propositio’). So also Brinsmead, , Opponents, 201Google Scholar; Bruce, , Galatians, 136–7;Google ScholarBurton, , Galatians, 117–18;Google ScholarLongenecker, , Galatians, 80–1;Google ScholarDunn, , Galatians, 132.Google Scholar

²⁷ Gal 1.10 fits Aristotle's description of a demonstrative enthymeme introduced by ‘for’ (γάρ; cf. 1 Cor 5.12; 10.29b). Whether or not the style of Gal 1.10 derives from a Hellenistic rhetorical influence stemming back to Aristotle, Paul's idiomatic usage of ‘I’ statements elsewhere gives us enough reason to examine this verse to determine if it introduces a subsequent demonstration. See Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23.Google Scholar See Aune, D. E., The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 172–4.Google Scholar

²⁸ The call to imitation in 4.12 may support this contention, if it includes Paul's exemplification in chaps. 1–2 as part of its reference (so de Boer, W. P., The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study [Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1962] 188–96;Google Scholarcontra Michaelis, W., ‘μιμέομαι, κτλ’, TDNT 4:672, n. 29;Google ScholarVos, , ‘Die Argumentation’, 35).Google Scholar However, chaps. 1–2, taken as a model of behaviour, are problematic since Paul hardly asks the Galatians to mirror his call (1.13–24) or to re-enact his confrontations with the ‘pseudo-brethren’ (2.4–5) and Peter (2.11–14). These chapters can only stand as a model in a general sense, that is, that the Galatians are to boldly stand firm against Paul's opponents in Galatia as he has exemplified in Jerusalem and Antioch. It must be added that Paul's style of a paradigmatic use of ‘I’ renders irrelevant the objection of Karl O. Sandnes that the direct appeal to imitation does not appear before Gal 4.12 (Paul – One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle's Self-Understanding [WUNT 2.43; Tübingen: Mohr, 1991] 49–50).Google Scholar Lyons, however, overstates the case when he claims this call to imitation ‘would be scarcely intelligible apart from the autobiographical narrative in Galatians 1 and 2 which precedes it’ (Autobiography, 165). He overlooks that the Galatians had personal knowledge of Paul from his visits, and Paul could be referring to his example set when present with them (cf. 4.13). See Goddard and Cummins who give 4.13–14 full weight and emphasise Paul's past dealings with the Galatians and arrive at a similar interpretation, but they overlook Paul's present exemplification in chaps. 1–2 (‘Ill or Ill-treated?’, 93–126).

²⁹ Misch, G., A History of Autobiography in Antiquity 1 (trans. Dickes, E. W.; 3rd ed.; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1949) 64;Google Scholar so also, Lyons, , Autobiography, 17–53Google Scholar; Gaventa, , ‘Autobiography’, 324.Google Scholar

³⁰ E.g. Rom 9–11 take up the questions of 3.1–7, and Rom 6 responds to that of 3.8; so Lincoln, A. T., ‘From Wrath to Justification: Tradition, Gospel and Audience in the Theology of Romans 1.18–4.25’, SBL Seminar Papers (1993) 194–226 (210).Google Scholar

³¹ Similarly, Koptak, P. E., ‘Rhetorical Identification in Paul's Autobiographical Narrative: Galatians 1.13–2.14’, JSNT 40 (1990) 97–115 (109).Google Scholar

³² I read this verse in light of Paul's idiomatic use of ‘I’, but other interpretations end up in virtually the same place; e.g. Betz, , Galatians, 55;Google Scholar and Lategan, , ‘Reader Instructions’, 175–6.Google Scholar

³³ D. M. Stanley calls this ‘the most revealing metaphor’ of Paul's relationship with Christ (‘Imitation in Paul's Letters: Its Significance for His Relationship to Jesus and His Own Christian Foundations’, in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare [ed. P. Richardson and J. Hurd; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfred Laurier University, 1984] 127–1 [131]).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Kyrtatas, D. J., ‘Christianity and the Familia Caesaris’, in The Social Structure of the Early Christian Communities (London & New York: Verso, 1987) 75–86;Google ScholarMartin, D. B., Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University, 1990) 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ Deut 34.5; Josh 1.1,13,15; 8.31, 33; 11.12; 12.6; 13.8; 14.7; 18.7; 22.2, 4, 5; 24.29; Judg 2.8; 2 Kgs 18.12; Isa 42.19; Ps 18.1; 36.1; 2 Chr 1.3; 24.6.

³⁶ Martin, , Slavery as Salvation, 50–85.Google Scholar

³⁷ 2.4; 3.28; 4.1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 22–3, 24, 25; 5.1,13; cf. also the redemption language (3.13; 4.5), the frequency of ‘free’ and ‘freedom’, and the imprisonment imagery (3.22–3).

³⁸ So Sass, , ‘δο⋯λος bei Paulus’, 31;Google ScholarHoltz, T., ‘Zum Selbstverständnis des Apostels Paulus’, TLZ 91 (1966) 321–30;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., ‘Further Thoughts on Paul's Autobiography: Galatians 1.11–2.14’, in Jesus und Paulus (ed. Ellis, E. E. & Gräβer, E.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1975) 21–9 (23–5);Google ScholarSandnes, , Paul, 59–65, 147–8;Google Scholarcontra the reductionist approach of Bligh, John, Galatians: A Discussion of St Paul's Epistle (London: St Paul, 1970) 94.Google Scholar

³⁹ W. Baird gives further parallels (‘Visions, Revelation, and Ministry: Reflections on 2 Corinthians 12.1–5 and Galatians 1.11–17’, JBL 104 [1985] 651–2 [656–7])Google Scholar, following N. Habel's analysis of the OT call stories (‘The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives’, ZAW 77 [1965] 297–323).Google Scholar Yet, in Gal 1–2 Paul omits ‘the objection’, ‘the reassurance’ and ‘the sign’, three of Habel's six indicators of this Gattung.

⁴⁰ Cf. Gal 1.10; 2.4–5; 3.23; 3.29–4.9; 4.21–5.1; 5.13; LXX Jer 2.14, 20; 3.22; 5.19; 8.2; 10.24; 11.10; 13.10; 15.14; 16.11, 13; 22.9; 25.6,11; 34.6; 41.9, 13; 42.15; 43.31; 44.2, 44.18. On the interchangeability of δο⋯λος and παῖς in Jeremiah see the parallelism of 26.27–8 and the examples below.

⁴¹ LXX Jer 7.25; 25.4; 33.5; 42.15; 51.4. That slaves were property gives support to reading these as genitives of possession. That the prophets were sent in each case supports reading these as subjective genitives, ‘the slaves who have come from me’. This same ambiguity exists for ‘slave of Christ’ in Gal 1.10.

⁴² To cite one of Habel's conclusions about the significance of the OT call narratives (‘Call Narratives’, 317).

⁴³ Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom Book of NT Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953) 166.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Transposed in each other occurrence: Rom 1.1; 14.18; 1 Cor 7.22; Phil 1.1; cf. Eph 6.5; Col 4.12.

⁴⁵ E.g., 2.3–5; 4.7, 26, 30–1; 5.1,13.

⁴⁶ Dunn, , Galatians, 51.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. Gal 4.8 with Jer 5.19 (11.10; 13.10; 16.11; 22.9).

⁴⁸ Cf. the use of related phrases of έν Χριστῷ in 2.17; 3.26; 5.6 (cf. 5.10); and είς Χριστόν in 2.16; 3.27.

⁴⁹ We also find ‘slave’ plus the genitive in Jer 26.27–8 as a characterisation of the personified people who belong to God (δο⋯λος μου Ιακωβ; παῖς μου Ιακωβ).

⁵⁰ See further Hays, Richard B., ‘Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ’, CBQ 49 (1987) 268–90 (280–7).Google Scholar

⁵¹ So Koptak, ‘Rhetorical Identification’, 104.

⁵² For a discussion of other possible reasons that Peter is mentioned, see Brown, R. E., Donfried, K. P. & Reumann, J., ed., Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis & New York: Augsburg & Paulist, 1973) 23–32.Google Scholar For the history of interpretation of this passage, see Wechsler, Andreas, Geschichtsbild und exegetische Studie ülber den antiochenischen Zwischenfall (Gal 2,11–14) (BZNW 62; Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991) 1–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵³ Janet Meyer Everts characterises this as the gospel judging Peter Testing a Literary-Critical Hermeneutic: An Exegesis of the Autobiographical Passages in Paul's Epistles (Ph.D. Diss., Duke University; Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1985] 85–9).Google Scholar She is correct in so far as Paul uses ‘the truth of the gospel’ as his measuring rod in v. 14, but she neutralises a poignant interpersonal clash for which Paul has an apparently paradigmatic purpose. Not too much should be made of this distinction, however, since he presents his person and the gospel as intertwined.

⁵⁴ See Dunn, J. D. G., ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2.11–18’, in Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990) 129–82;Google ScholarHoltz, Traugott, ‘Der antiochenische Zwischenfall (Galater 2.11–14)’, NTS 32 (1986) 344–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ Bruce, , ‘Autobiography’, 26.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Dunn, , ‘Incident’, 149–50;Google ScholarBoers, Hendrikus, ‘We Who Are by Inheritance Jews; Not from the Gentile Sinners’, JBL 111 (1992) 273–81.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Against Dunn who maintains that Paul did not ‘intend to accuse Peter of being consciously insincere’ (Galatians, 125).Google Scholar Yet, see his ‘Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in Paul's Letter to the Galatians’, JBL 112 (1993) 459–77 (460–1)Google Scholar, and Howard, George, Paul: Crisis ii Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology (SNTSMS 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990 [1979]) 22–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁸ U. Wilckens points out the almost total negative usage of this word group in Diaspori Judaism[s] (ὑποκρίνομαι, κτλ., TDNT 8.559–71), a point developed by Dunn, (‘Intra-Jewisl Polemic’, 461).Google Scholar Gal 2.12 gives clear indication that Peter did not act consistent with his principles, thus the metaphorical sense of ‘pretend’ and ‘hypocrisy’ are most justified here; so also Schütz, , Anatomy, 152.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ So also Bligh, , Galatians, 93;Google Scholar Bruce, who labels this an ‘ad hominem remonstrance’ (‘Autobiography’, 28–9); Vos, , ‘Die Argumentation’, 31–3.Google Scholar Similarly, Lyons identifies 2.11–14 as i rhetorical synkrisis, a comparison with another to highlight one's own character (Autobiography, 134–5; cf. Aristotle Rhet. 1.9.38–9). He regards it as a demonstration of how easy i is to set aside the grace of God (163), yet later he may imply an agreement with thi interpretation taken here (174).

⁶⁰ And, some of the mud sticks to Barnabas, perhaps indicative of Paul's breach with him a: Dunn suggests (Galatians, 89).

⁶¹ For the tally of scholars who believe either Paul or Peter ‘won’ the confrontation, see Holmberg, B., Paul and Power: the Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflectei in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 34, n. 117.Google Scholar

⁶² See R. G. Hall, who problematises using Gal 1 and 2 for historical reconstruction of th events at Jerusalem and Antioch (‘Historical Inference and Rhetorical Effect: Another Look a Galatians 1 and 2’, in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor o George A. Kennedy [JSNTSup 50; ed. D. F. Watson; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991] 308–20)Google Scholar, and Johannes Munck, who contends that there was no permanent discord between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders (Paul and the Salvation of Mankind [London: SCM, 1959] 87–134).Google Scholar His contention is strengthened if Acts 15 came after the incident described in Gal 2, showing that Peter learned from his confrontation with Paul, as R. P. Martin has pointed out (New Testament Foundations: Acts-Revelation 2 [Exeter: Paternoster, 1978] 151–2).Google Scholar Cf. Bligh (Galatians) followed by Dunn, (‘Incident’, 160–2;Google Scholaridem, Galatians, 132), who think the whole letter is in effect Paul's attempt to undo the damage done at Antioch, a confrontation which Paul lost. Nicholas Taylor interprets Paul's portrayal of his apostleship in Galatians as ‘egocentric and individualistic’ (227), resulting from his isolation after the Antioch incident (Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity [JSNTSup 66; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992] 155–70).Google Scholar Yet, this ‘psychological’ interpretation looks past Paul's persuasive artistry in the text to read in his ‘real’ mind and motives lying behind the text.

⁶³ Alternatively, Munck observes this confrontation is the clearest proof of Paul's independence from Jerusalem and therefore it fits in well with that part of the argument (Paul, 102). However, it seems that Paul argues from his independence from Jerusalem for the God-given nature of his gospel rather than for his independence, as argued convincingly by Schütz, , Anatomy, 140–50,Google Scholar and Howard, , Crisis, 20–45.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Gaventa, , ‘Autobiography’, 309–26.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Schütz, , Anatomy, 115–58.Google Scholar