Having established in chapters one and two Maccabean martyrdom as a frame of reference for the analysis of Galatians 1–2 as a whole, here I consider the available external evidence in providing a related but more Antioch-specific framework for the ensuing detailed discussion of the Antioch incident in Galatians 2.11–21. The primary aim is to indicate how there would have been much tension and conflict between the Jewish and Christian communities in Antioch, especially insofar as this involved competing claims as to what it meant to be the faithful people of God. Whereas the Jewish community could readily have invoked the Torah-obedient Maccabeans as their ideal in this respect, the Christians would have laid claim to the martyred and exalted Messiah Jesus as their exemplar.

In what follows I shall examine in turn two different but complementary sources and observe the portraits which emerge therefrom. First, I offer a reconstruction of the history and self-identity of the Antiochene Jewish community as (largely) suggested by Josephus. This will be followed by an outline of the emerging Antiochene Christian community according to the narrative in Acts, with particular reference to its leadership and common life. From this broad standpoint I shall then be in a position to undertake the final stage of this enterprise: a detailed consideration of Paul's account of the Antioch incident, with its radical reworking of Maccabean themes and issues in service of a thoroughly Messiah Jesus understanding of God and his people.

This monograph is an abbreviated version of a doctoral dissertation accepted by the University of Oxford in 1995, further revised in various respects while interacting with more recent significant studies. At every stage of this project I have benefited greatly from the wisdom and support of many scholars, colleagues, friends and institutions, and with appreciation here acknowledge their considerable contribution.

Above all I am indebted to my supervisor, Canon Revd Dr N. T. Wright, whose exemplary commitment to both church and academia continues to evoke fidelity to the task at hand. The Revd Dr Andrew Goddard, a soul mate in matters Pauline, was a constant and enduring source of insight and inspiration. Others who contributed in ways they may not know include Professor Christopher Rowland, the Revd Robert Morgan, Dr Jan Willem van Henten, and the examiners, Dr John Barclay and Dr William Horbury. Additionally, aspects of my research in progress were presented in the form of papers read at the annual meetings of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, the Society of Biblical Literature and the British New Testament Conference; and I learned much from the responses of various participants.

Concurrent with writing the dissertation I enjoyed the empathetic environment provided by students and colleagues in the Department of Religious Studies, Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education, and at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.

By common critical consent Paul's account of, and theological reflection upon, the so-called ‘Antioch incident’ (Galatians 2.11–21) remains a crux interpretum in New Testament studies. The various interrelated problems which it presents are complicated and wide-ranging, not least concerning the reconstruction of both Pauline theology and the development of the early church. Given that this monograph proposes a markedly new approach to this much debated subject, certain preliminary considerations are necessary and will be addressed in this introduction. First, by way of an orientation to the current scholarly state of play, I shall offer a brief outline of certain prominent antecedent evaluations of the Antioch incident, with particular reference to recent developments arising out of the so-called ‘new perspective’ upon Paul as exemplified in the analysis of James D. G. Dunn. In observing various deficiencies and lacunae in these estimations, I also begin to set forth the nature of this enterprise and the manner of its undertaking.

This leads to a second introductory consideration, that of method. Here an attempt is made to explicate and justify what will prove to be a range of new angles on this long-standing issue, some of which are themselves a departure from the current consensus. Foremost among these is the intention to view the Antioch incident within the framework of Maccabean martyrdom.

Paul's account of his confrontation with Peter in Antioch (Gal. 2.11–21) climaxes a select autobiographical narrative (Gal. 1.13–2.21) which is itself precipitated by the present crisis amongst his converts in Galatia. Thus, in order to reconstruct an illuminating frame of reference for the later detailed analysis of the Antioch incident, I shall provide here a tripartite examination of its wider context(s). First, I review and then go beyond the consensus position concerning the main features of the Galatian crisis, considering the much neglected but important role of conflict and persecution in Paul's past and present relations with his converts in Galatia. Particular attention is paid to the manner in which the Galatian situation, both in broad outline and in certain of its details, evinces aspects of the Maccabean crisis – though now as redrawn from Paul's standpoint as a zealous Jew who has become a follower of Jesus Christ.

Second, this leads to a consideration of the conceptual framework governing Paul's response to the Galatian crisis. At its most fundamental, it consists of a radical reworking of a Jewish apocalyptic schema – as exemplified by Daniel 7–12 and related texts – in the light of Christ and the Spirit. That is, Messiah Jesus is the long-awaited (but unexpected) Jewish eschatological redeemer, and the Spirit is the sign of the now inaugurated reign of God.

Paul's autobiography climaxes with an account of, and theological reflection upon, his dramatic confrontation with Peter in Antioch (Gal. 2.11–14, 15–21). It has already been contended that the apostle's autobiographical remarks to date (chapter three), and the external evidence on Jewish and Christian relations in Antioch (chapter four) are both greatly illuminated when seen as a christological reworking of the Maccabean martyr model of Judaism (chapters one and two). The same claim will now be advanced concerning the Antioch incident (chapters five and six). Here, Paul again emerges as one standing in ironic relation to the Maccabean tradition as he now responds to Peter's movement in the direction of a rigorous Judaism by faithfully defending the truth of the gospel, namely, the outworking of God's grace in the martyred and exalted Jesus, Messiah and Son of God, and in the eschatological people of God together conformed to him.

At the outset I provide a brief introductory overview of the story-line of Galatians 2.11–21 as a whole, illustrating how this represents a christological reworking of the Maccabean narrative as, for example, exemplified in the story of the martyr Eleazar. The chapter then focuses specifically upon the account of the Antioch confrontation itself (Gal. 2.11–14). Our point of departure is the much debated question of the precise nature of the Antiochene table-fellowship, which also considers the related (but often overlooked) matter of the Lord's Supper.

Given the traumatic nature of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' assault upon the Jewish way of life, and the dramatic deliverance brought about by the Maccabean revolt, it should occasion little surprise that such events lived on in the memories of later generations. Indeed, the analysis in chapter one has already intimated as much. However, the significance of this fact has not always received the consideration it deserves. Thus, while recognizing the multifarious nature of Second Temple Judaism, the intent of this chapter is to establish that the Maccabean period – and not least the pivotal role of its martyr figures – was current as an inspirational living tradition readily at hand to a first-century Jew such as Paul.

This task will be undertaken by summoning three complementary classes of evidence. First, by reference to the work of Farmer, Hengel and Wright, it will be argued that there is a discernible religio-political continuity between the Maccabean movement and first-century Jewish nationalist aspirations, and that at least some members of the Pharisaic movement (including Paul) may be located in close proximity thereto. A sharp focus upon this wider context will also be provided by means of an examination of the Jewish response to the Caligula Temple edict. This incident evoked painful memories of the Maccabean crisis and its impact may also be traceable in the early Jewish Christian community.

The Maccabean revolt was an epic event in Jewish history and was to loom large in the nation's collective memory as a central symbol of God's rescue and restoration of his afflicted people. In reconstructing something of the substance and significance of this event, I shall focus upon two salient and interrelated features which will also provide the fundamental frame of reference for the later examination of Galatians 1–2. First, after an introductory historical overview of both the revolt and the emerging Hasmonean dynasty, I consider certain key texts which reflect the broadly based Jewish theological perspective upon this period in terms of the suffering and vindication of the people of God. Here particular attention is paid to the crucial role of Israel's faithful representatives as portrayed by the Danielic heroes, the military leaders of the revolt and the Maccabean martyrs.

The second consideration is the more contentious claim that arising out of the wider context of the nation's longing for vindication, there emerged speculation concerning an eschatological redeemer figure who would rescue and vindicate beleaguered Israel. Specifically, it will be argued that there are certain indications that Daniel's ‘one like a son of man’ (Dan. 7.13–14) became an important backward reference point for ongoing and widespread expectations that God would act through his Messiah to redeem, restore and rule the nation.

Irenaeus presents an immediate, infinite God whose presence streams through his creation in goodness and beauty. This immediacy comes because unity and universality are ruled by transcendent love. While transcendence commonly implies separation, transcendent love implies immediacy. The unknowable God has become knowable as universal Intellect in his good economy for all creation. Irenaeus describes himself (3.6.3, 4) as standing like Elijah before the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:36) to pray to the God of all creation, the father of Jesus Christ and the God of the patriarchs:

The Mount Carmel prayer is the motif of Irenaeus' theology. It is part of God's economy and is anticipatory of Christ. Irenaeus' account of God is rich because it rejects diverse errors and draws on diverse strands of intellectual tradition; yet, whatever the complexity, God remains one and universal.

God is the intimate, ultimate, personal and transcendent first cause of all things. ‘His greatness lacks nothing but contains all things, comes close to us and is with us’ (4.19.3).

Irenaeus begins with a robust ethic of self-determination, an athletic contest for the eternal crown, with prolonged negative provision for losers. Freedom, he knows, is less straightforward because man's range of choices is limited by many factors. Adam fell captive to sin and only after many divine moves did he become free in Christ. Love unites with a passion for truth, affirms the values of natural law and rejects the lusts of the flesh which have no place in God's kingdom. Within a martyr church, Irenaeus finds perfection in the martyr who reproduces the perfect action of Christ. A long-standing objection to Irenaeus (that perfection in Christ removes ethics) is examined. Finally, the highest good is known as truth in the love of enemies.

FREE WILL AND FREEDOM

Irenaeus insists upon the self-determining choice of every human person. All are free to choose or to reject. The same insistence is found earlier in Justin and Theophilus. Irenaeus, like Clement, joins Plato on the responsibility of the individual, and moves from free will to that perfect free obedience where God's goodness is possessed and preserved (4.12–16; 4.37–9).

Irenaeus' account of freedom is expressed most succinctly in four chapters (4.37–40). He begins from ‘the ancient law of liberty’ which God granted to man, that man from the beginning should have his own power of choice. He is able to follow God's good counsel without compulsion. God does not use violence.

Recapitulation, summing up, does four things. It corrects and perfects mankind; it inaugurates and consummates a new humanity. This chapter looks at correction and perfection as the work of Christ and at the consequence for the person of Christ. The work of Christ corrects and perfects being, truth and goodness. The person of Christ as corrector and perfecter is described as new Adam, divine word, only mediator, son of the father and bearer of the name above all other names.

RECAPITULATION, A COMPLEX CONCEPT

The idea of recapitulation dominates the theology of the second century. Adumbrated by Justin, it is expounded endlessly by Irenaeus and given decisive place in Tertullian. Clement of Alexandria later takes the important step of uniting it to the Platonic Intellect so that Christian theology becomes biblical and Platonic without a break (str. 4.25.156–7): a move which begins from the cosmic theology of Irenaeus in Book 2 of Adversus haereses is modified by recapitulation so that the son is divine Intellect and the father is the ineffable One.

The complexity of the concept is formidable. At least eleven ideas – unification, repetition, redemption, perfection, inauguration and consummation, totality, the triumph of Christus Victor, ontology, epistemology and ethics (or being, truth and goodness) – are combined in different permutations. Are all these ideas necessary to the concept? Even together they are an understatement, because everything that God does is part of his economy and every part of his economy is defined in relation to its recapitulation.

This chapter examines the way recapitulation runs from the inauguration of new life in the church to the consummation of all things. Irenaeus had learnt from Paul of correction and from John of perfection. Ephesians told him of a new order of being in Christ, of the body, which grew from and into the head, displaying the eschatological miracle of the cross which brought restoration and perfection. This salvation radiates through the church, in which life, truth and goodness descend from Christ through the apostles and spread throughout the world. Life or being is the note of the church for those who have been raised with Christ to be united with him in heavenly places. The church is guided by the economy of apostolic truth and its members display a new pattern of life. Ordered by ministry and mission, the church lives by baptism and eucharist until the final consummation when God alone will reign. Christ will come again and the dead will be raised. Recapitulation continues to the end, uniting the faithful and rejecting apostates, defeating Antichrist and restoring humanity to God.

INAUGURATION OF NEW LIFE

Those who were dead in trespasses and sins, ruled by the prince of the power of the air, have, together with Christ, been made alive, raised and seated in heavenly places (Eph. 2:5, 6: συνεζωοποíησεν, συνήγειρεν, συνεκάθισεν). Newness is shown in a new spirit, a new order, a new worship of one God (3.10.2).

In Irenaeus, Athens and Jerusalem meet at Patmos. The visions of the prophets, which point to Christ, take the place of Plato's forms and from them he proves the truth of the apostolic preaching. Here Irenaeus follows Justin but with wider vision, for he is the first writer to have a Christian bible before him. To this text he applies the classical criteria of logic (what is true) and aesthetics (what is fitting) to draw out his four concepts of divine Intellect, economy, recapitulation and participation. His two criteria, along with his exuberant images, present his reader first with a jungle and then with a clear synthesis. From one central point he moves through the universe of biblical imagery, rubbing argument and image together because each is necessary to the other.

Irenaeus is a difficult author because of conflict within a clear general structure. Loofs identified multiple sources and wished to prove incoherence. His analysis was reasonably rejected by Hitchcock and others. His general claim for multiple sources stands, but his procedure is regressive rather than progressive. An interpreter may note what a source meant in an earlier context, but his chief interest is what the author or compiler makes of anything he includes. A second objection to Irenaeus was more to the point: Koch alleged conceptual bankruptcy or a general lack of coherent ideas.

The first step out of the genuine despair, which every interpreter of Irenaeus knows, is a recognition of Irenaeus' criteria.

Participation is the fourth of Irenaeus' key concepts. Because it is the human response to the divine Intellect, economy and recapitulation, it takes many forms. However complex the first three concepts are, they are unitive and point to one God, one saving economy, one Christ. Participation is distributive, God's sharing out of his truth, beauty, life and goodness to humans in many ways. We begin with participation in truth as it comes through the rule of truth and logic.

The canon and criterion of truth was central to Hellenistic philosophy. Christians designated the central elements of their faith, gospel or kerygma with the same term. The rule had been handed down from God through the apostles. Human conversion marked a turning to divine truth from inadequate or false conceptions. Heresy issued a challenge for it claimed a source which was above argument; yet heretics showed all the weaknesses of sophists. Against them Irenaeus used the weapons of parody and pastiche, not for personal ridicule but to show that their opinions were inappropriate. His final test of truth was consonantia, a harmony which was both logical and aesthetic.

CANON AND CRITERION

The authority of the rule or canon in Irenaeus reflects a philosophical use. Kanon and kriterion dominated Hellenistic philosophy, as the tests for Stoics and Epicureans of objective truth. Epicurus devoted a work to the theory of criteria, and in a fragment On Nature insisted that no valid inquiry is possible without a canon which tests opinions.