Talk:Gal 1:1-6:18

Gal 2:11-5: On Paul rebuking Peter

mjberkey, great question here. Reminds me of Captain Moroni's rather scathing letter to Pahoran in Alma 60. Here's a note from Richard Longenecker's Word Biblical Commentary volume which sketches some various explanations that have been proposed historically:

Within the mainstream of Gentile Christendom, Tertullian, arguing against the Marcionites, took the rebuke of Peter to be an overreaction on Paul’s part (Adv. Marc. 1.20; 5.3; De Praesc. Haer. 23); Clement of Alexandria asserted that “Cephas” here was not Cephas the apostle, the one called by Jesus “Peter,” but one of the seventy apostles bearing the same name (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 1.12, referring to Clement’s Hypotyposes 5); while Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome saw it as a staged event concocted between Peter and Paul in order to bring the issues out into the open and so to condemn the Judaizers more effectively (Origen, Stromateis 10 [though not in his later Contra Celsum 2.l]; Chrysostom, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians on 2:11–12; idem, In illud, in faciem Petro restiti [Latin title of PG 51:371ff.]; Jerome, Epistulam ad Galatas on 2:11 [though abandoned in his later Adv. Pelagium. 1.22]). Augustine, however, in direct opposition to Jerome, interpreted it as a case of the higher claims of truth over rank and office—of Peter’s error despite his primacy, of Paul’s rightful rebuke and defense of the gospel, and of Peter’s humility in accepting correction from an inferior in both age and standing (Epistulam ad Galatas on 2:11ff.; for the relevant correspondence between Augustine and Jerome, see Augustine, Epp. 28.3; 40.3f.; 82.4ff.; Jerome, Ep. 112.4ff.). And many of these views continue in one form or another today. [Longenecker, R. N. (2002). Vol. 41: Word Biblical Commentary  : Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary (64). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

Longenecker seems to support Augustine's view that Paul was right to rebuke Peter, regardless of Peter's higher rank. Hopefully I'll have time to study this more, a truly intriguing episode! --RobertC 12:07, 16 July 2007 (CEST)

Verses 6:1-5

Eric, if we think of corporate as pertaining to the body then here it might mean something like pertaining to the church--as we are one body. Still I changed it to collective because I thought it better to avoid the strong business overtones that the word corporate has today. --Matthew Faulconer 14:43, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. --08:54, 12 Oct 2005 (CEST)