Gal 2, the controversy between Paul and Peter according to Marcion

  The reconstruction

11 Πέτρον[1] κατὰ πρόσωπον ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν,[2]

11 Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.

---

[1] With Tertullian who uses the accusative (Petrum). I am grateful to Mark Bilby who has drawn my attention to this phenomenon and the reliability of the short and attested text for the precanonical version (Email from 23.8.23). The unattested parts are products of the canonical redaction. Πέτρος can be found in 06, 010, 012, 018, 020, 630, 1505, 2464, M, it, vg^mss, sy^h, MVict, Ambst, and in the latin tradition in 61, 64, 75, 76, 77, 78, 89. The difficulty, the Christian tradition had with the controversy between Paul and Peter, can be seen already in Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Clement, for example, does not identify Kephas with Peter, but takes him as one of the 70 disciples of Jesus, see Euseb. Caes., Hist. eccl. I 12,2. In contrast, Tertullian claims that the dispute was one of Peter's behaviour, not something substantial or doctrinal. Origen claims that there was not really any controversy at all between Paul and Peter, see H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (1951), 48.

[2] Tert., Adv. Marc. V 3,7: Sed reprehendit Petrum non recto pede incedentem ad evangelii veritatem. Plane reprehendit, non ob aliud tamen quam ob inconstantiam victus, quem pro personarum qualitate variabat. See the attestation for Πέτρος and κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, so according to Harnack, Schmid and BeDuhn, and ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν, indicated by Tertullian's ad evangelii veritatem. Plane reprehendit, non ob aliud tamen quam ob inconstantiam victus, quem pro personarum qualitate variabat.

The lexic:

ὅτε, 112 times in the NT , Lk 2,21. 22. 42; 4,25; 13,35; 15,30; 22,35, in verses that are missing in *Ev, precanonically only attested for *Gal 4,3. 4. Ἀντιόχεια, 19 times in the NT, only here in a letter by Paul that is recognized today to be by Paul, yet here as elsewhere in the NT only at the canonical level (Acts 11,19. 20. 22. 26. 27; 13,1. 14; 14,19. 21. 26; 15,22. 23. 30. 35; 18,22; Gal 2,11; 2 Tim 3,11). πρόσωπον, 84 times in the NT, Lk 1,76; 2,31; 9,51, in verses that are missing in *Ev fehlen, then Lk 9,53; 10,1, where those parts of the verses with the term are absent from *Ev, precanonically attested for *Ev 7,27; 12,56; *Gal 2,11; *2 Cor 3,18; 4,6; *2 Thes 1,9. αὐτῷ, 780 times in the NT, Lk 1,5. 11. 19. 32. 74; 2,5. 26; 4,3. 5. 6. 8. 9. 12. 16. 17. 20. 22; 5,9; 7,43; 8,1. 19. 28. 38. 39; 9,32; 10,37; 13,1. 8. 31; 15,1. 16. 18. 21. 27. 30. 31; 18,43; 19,25; 20,10. 38; 22,43. 63; 23,43. 55; 24,19, in verses or part of verses that are missing in *Ev, precanonically attested for *Ev 4,35; 5,11; 6,29 (? Adamantius); 8,3. 18. 25; 9,30. 60; 11,11/12; 12,8. 10. 20; 16,29 (? Adamantius); 18,7. 37 (? Adamantius); 20,5; 22,14; 23,9 (?). 32; 24,42 (? Eznik); *Gal 2,11; *1 Cor 12,9; *2 Cor 1,20; *Rom 1,17; 11,35; *Laod 2,16; *Col 1,19; 2,13. ἀνθίστημι, 16 times in the NT, precanonically attested for *Ev 21,15 (at the canonical level in Mt 5,39; Lk 21,15; Acts 6,10; 13,8; Rom 9,19; 13,2; Gal 2,11; Eph 6,13; 2 Tim 3,8; 4,15; Ja 4,7; 1 Pet 5,9). καταγιγνώσκω, 3 times in the NT (at the canonical level in Gal 2,11; 1 John 3,20. 21. The form ἦν, 301 times in the NT, Lk 1,7. 10. 21. 22. 66. 80; 2,7. 25. 26. 33. 36. 40. 51; 3,23; 4,16. 17. 38; 5,15. 17; 7,37; 9,31. 45. 53; 15,9. 24. 32; 18,34; 19,47; 23,51. 53, in verses that are missing in *Ev fehlen, precanonically rare in *Ev and in *Paul, attested for *Ev 16,19 (? Adamantius); 20,4; *1 Cor 10,4; *Phil 3,7. 

Hence, in *Gal of Marcion's collection, the confrontation between Paul and Peter was one that took place immediately at their encounter in Jerusalem, not much later and not in Antioch, and it was not only Paul's rejection of Peter, but also of the other two, James and John, and of the church of Jerusalem. That is why we find the Letters of Peter, James and John together with Acts in the Praxapostolos and that the Jerusalem collect has been placed into the revised letters of Paul and indicated in Acts. So, Gal is even more a step between *Gal and Acts.

Of course, one could interject (as a dear friend and colleague did): Isn't it possible that T is changing the text as he is not because of *Gal but because the text as he has it is an embarrassment? IN other words, Gal 2.11-14 is such a disaster for his position of a picture of the early church as imagined by Acts that he has abbreviated it altogether? And further that it plays into Marcion's hand? I agree that Praxapostolos is a way of massaging this away. But perhaps I am not following your line of reasoning. I am not sure how creating the Antioch incident helps in an anti-Marcionite rendition since the dispute assumes Peter and "those from James" (I would include in that number John) shows the apostles at odds with Paul. Tertullian would have liked it if he could have ignored this altogether, But how would inventing Antioch have made things any better. I think I am missing something basic in your argument.

To this I replied:

Of course, you could be right that Tertullian gives us his abbreviation that does not reflect *Gal - this is very much the position of Schmid, Roth, Becker and others who approach *Gal from the canonical perspective. Throughout the work on the reconstruction, and particularly with the additional help of the very different lexic between *Paul and Paul (just as with *Ev and Lk), it has become clear that though Tertullian in places abbreviates the text, such abbreviations are more seldom than previously thought of. If one leaves the canonical perspective (and with it not only the idea that Marcion has abbreviated Lk and Paul - interestingly those who have given up this apologetic perspective are still inclined to approach *Paul and *Ev from the canonical text), methodologically you first have to think through the possibility that what Tertullian gives us is all that he read. Only if this does not make sense and there is need for the assumption of missing text and Tertullian abbreviating something, then I do recur to the canonical text.

On this case: You are right too, Gal 2 is an embarrassment for Tertullian and for his idea of the ideal church. That he does not mention Antioch at all - given the methodological approach, set out above - first needs to make one question, how would the text of Gal 2 read without it? The first thing one encounters is that the construction in which Tertullian gives us the report is Peter in the accusative. This could be chance, of course, but if the methodological approach is right, then it is rather an indication that what he attests to is the wording that I had sent you, and in this case, the resistance is not one in Antioch, but an immediate one in Jerusalem and a confrontation, as you rightly point out, with Peter, James and John - and the Jerusalem church in its entirety.

If this were so, what is the reason, I then ask, that the canonical redactor would alter the scenario? He moves the face to face controversy away from Jerusalem and further away from James and John with "those from James" no longer being the three themselves as the instigators of the controversy (and note the long discussion amongst scholars who try to remove "those from James" even further away from James). Antioch, of course, is the better place to stage the controversy, as a) it was not the centre of the Christian Church and the three pillars, b) it was the church where Paul lived - so the controversy takes place in his church, a community not more reliable than Paul himself, c) the community shows its support to Jerusalem by raising money and organising the collect, hence, proves the centrality and position of the church of Jerusalem.

Still, the controversy between Paul and Peter was embarrassing, as one can see from the counter-arguments in Tertullian, Tertullian reads the canonical text not as a doctrinal dispute, but a moral one and about Peters turncoat behaviour (still embarrassing enough, but explicable, given the other information the gospels give about Peter's behaviours). The redaction preserves James and John and the Jerusalem church, and I think, this is what is shown by adding letters that are attributed to these two or rather three apostles to the Praxapostolos that underpins Acts' narrative. There are still tensions between Acts and Gal, as it now stands - the redaction had to deal with *Gal, could alter it, but could not simply erase it or do away with everything. Yet, read from the perspective of Acts, Gal is even more tamed down then read as a stand alone text.