Conflict as context for defining identity : A study of apostleship in the Galatian and Corinthian letters

This article examines ways in which Paul defined the notion of apostleship in the course of conflict with rival authority claimants in the early Church. In Galatians Paul defines and asserts his apostolic selfidentity in order to regain the oversight of the Galatian churches which he had previously exercised as an apostle of the church of Antioch. In 2 Corinthians Paul asserts his authority as church founder against rivals who recognise no territorial jurisdiction. No common agenda, theological position, or conception of apostleship can be identified. Rather, rival authority claimants based their legitimacy on different criteria in different situations.


INTRODUCTION
That apostleship of Christ was a defining aspect of Paul's self-identity is widely recognised in scholarship (cf Dunn 1998;Taylor 1993).That this apostolic consciousness, and the authority claimed on the basis thereof, were crucial to the conflicts which overshadowed much of Paul's recorded ministry, is perhaps less widely acknowledged, particularly among scholars who emphasise the theological nature of the controversies in which Paul was engaged.While early Christian history can no longer be reduced to Pauline and anti-Pauline camps, there is a lingering tendency to view the conflicts in which Paul was involved in such terms (Barrett 1985;Lüdemann 1989).Despite attempts to demonstrate

HTS 59(3) 2003 915
Conflict as context for defining identity alternative backgrounds to opposition to Paul's authority and theology (Georgi 1986;Jewett 1970;Munck 1959), the notion of a single, concerted, anti-Pauline movement of so-called Jewish-Christian origin, continues to be maintained in some scholarly circles.
I wish to argue that the parties Paul opposes in his letters must be examined individually, and not defined exclusively in terms of their opposition to Paul, but rather in terms of their own broader theological, missiological, and ecclesiastical agenda.I wish to argue also that the conflicts reflected in the Pauline literature cannot be understood simply in terms of doctrinal differences.
Rather, the central issue is one of legitimate teaching and disciplinary authority in and over the early Christian communities.Paul's letters are assertions of authority, and claims to legitimacy where his authority is contested.Apostleship was a fundamental concept in Paul's rhetoric of authority, particularly, but in very different ways, in the conflicts reflected in Galatians and 2 Corinthians.I shall argue that these letters reflect hostility between Paul on the one hand and on the other groups of Christian Jewish missionaries who cannot be identified with each other.Whatever theological and missiological principles these may have held in common, their agenda are quite disparate, but the contested notion of apostleship is central both to Paul's authority claims and to attempts to supersede his authority in the churches.A study of the construction of apostolic identity can therefore shed useful light on the struggle for power in early Christianity, and, by extension, on the theological disputes which accompanied the contest for authority.
Paul's definition of his apostolic authority derives from a specific historical context.His extant letters all date from the period after his confrontation with Peter and Barnabas at Antioch (Gl 2:11-14) which ended his association with the church there (Brown & Meier 1983;Dunn 1983;Holmberg 1980;Taylor 1992).
Galatians in particular reflects Paul's reconstruction of his apostolic identity after ceasing to be a representative and missionary of the church of Antioch.It would therefore be helpful at this stage to consider such evidence as we may have of the nature of the apostleship to which the church of Antioch commissioned Barnabas, Paul, and presumably many others.

APOSTLESHIP OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH
Ac 13:1-4 relates the church of Antioch commissioning Barnabas and Paul, described as profh= tai and dida/ skoloi for undefined work to which they had been called by the Holy Spirit.There follows the narrative of the so-called first missionary journey, and Barnabas and Paul are described as being a0 pe/ lusan by the community and, e0 kpemqe/ ntej by the Holy Spirit.While a) poste/ llw and its derivatives are not used in this pericope, Barnabas and Paul are twice described as a) po/ stoloi in the ensuing narrative (Ac 14:4, 14), the only such designation of either of them in Acts.The absence of such terminology in 13:1-3 does not in any way mean that it is illegitimate to speak of Barnabas and Paul as apostles of the church of Antioch (Barrett 1994:598-601;Taylor 1992:88-95 Taylor 1992:51-54, 95-122, 140-42, and refs).In Gl 2:8 Paul uses the term a) postolh/ to describe the work of proclaiming the gospel, rather than the personal designation a) po/ stoloj.It has been argued that Paul cites the actual words of a formal agreement at this point (Betz 1979:98;cf Dunn 1982:473;Longenecker 1990:56;McLean 1991:67).However, a) postolh/ , while applied explicitly to Peter and the Silvanus represented an Antiochene notion of apostleship (Taylor 1992:148-52).
In summary, the apostles of the church of Antioch, so far as we have been able to reconstruct, were deployed by that church to proclaim the Christian gospel in other centres.They were supported either from their own resources or by the sending church, but not by the communities they established.They were defined not by status but by the nature of their commission, and were sent by and were presumably accountable to the church of Antioch.If Paul's acquaintance with Andronicus and Junia (Rm 16:7) dated to his Antiochene period, this would suggest that the apostolate of the church of Antioch was not exclusively male.
However, it could be argued on the basis of 1 Cor 9:5 that a husband-wife with the hegemonic status it seeks to claim" (Castelli 1991:33).Galatians and 2 Corinthians must be examined bearing this in mind.

APOSTLESHIP AND THE CONFLICT IN GALATIA
The churches in Galatia, to whom the letter is addressed, were established by Barnabas and Paul under the auspices of the church of Antioch (Dunn 1993;Longenecker 1990;Longenecker 1998;Taylor 1992:45-46;contra, Murphy-O'Connor 1996).In understanding Paul's ideology of apostolic authority asserted in the letter, we need to be aware of the situation both of the communities 2) and in the (auto)biographical narrative (Gl 1:11-2:14).Before these texts can be considered in detail, some attention to the rhetorical structure of Galatians is required.While the use of rhetorical criticism in the study of Galatians has been criticised, on the grounds that too rigid an application of the categories of the rhetorical handbooks of Cicero and Quintilian could be misleading (Kern 1996), we nonetheless need to be aware in general terms of the conventions which influenced the composition of speeches and letters.While this section of the letter is clearly the narratio, its parameters and purpose are both disputed (cf Taylor 1993:66-69).Several scholars have argued that Paul is concerned not so much with his own apostolic authority as with the content of the gospel he preaches (Brinsmead 1982:50;Kennedy 1984;Lategan 1988;Smit 1989).Others have argued that Paul portrays himself as an example to the Galatian Christians (Aune 1987:189-90;Gaventa 1986;Lyons 1985:75-176), or that he is seeking to persuade the Galatians to conform to his interpretation of the gospel (Hall 1991;Hester 1991:282;Kennedy 1984:146;Smit 1989:23).The last point might be regarded as self-evident from even a cursory reading of Galatians.However, it is crucial that we recognise that Paul was not participating in a free exchange of ideas regarding Christian living in the abstract, but asserting his position unequivocally in a specific and concrete ecclesiastical situation.His example would not be followed, nor would his injunctions regarding Christian life be Christ (Gl 1:16; cf 1 Cor 9:1; 15:1-8), and, moreover, to derive from it that authority which he defined as apostleship (Dunn 1982:463;Kim 1981:55-56;Stendahl 1976:7-11).The identification of Paul's revelatory vision of the risen Christ as a criterion for apostolic authority does not, however, imply that his vocation to apostleship was received in that vision (cf Taylor 1992:63-67).There is little evidence that anybody else was concerned at this time with personalising, or even with defining, the Christian apostolate, with the possible exception of Paul's opponents in Corinth, who will be considered below.Paul therefore does not need to counter in Galatians one explicit definition of apostleship with another, but rather to match the authority exercised by others with his own, which he linked to his self-designation a) po/ stoloj.Galatians was written early in Paul's period of independent mission and therefore early in the process in which he sought to articulate his conception of his personal apostolic vocation.
The Galatian Christians had previously encountered apostles, including Paul himself and Barnabas, who had been commissioned by the church of Antioch (cf Ac 13:1-3; 14:4, 14).Insofar as they acknowledged any specifically Christian usage of the term, therefore, the Galatian Christians would have understood it in the Antiochene sense.Paul accordingly articulates against Antiochene conceptions of apostleship familiar in Galatia his ideology of apostolic authority derived from and accountable only to God.

Apostleship and the Rhetoric of Authority
Paul articulates his claim to authority over the Galatian churches in terms of an apostleship derived directly from God (Gl 1:1).The fact of preaching the gospel is Dunn 1993:25).Paul's apostolic self-conception is radically different from that of the missionaries of the church of Antioch among whom he had previously worked, and with at least some of whom the Galatian Christians would have been acquainted.The possibility needs to be considered that it is precisely this pattern of apostleship to which Paul is contrasting his own apostolic identity (cf Dunn 1993:14-17; Murphy-O 'Connor 1996:193-94).
In seeking to identify the party Paul opposes in Galatians, a number of further factors need to be considered in addition to those identified above.One is that it is not clear that Paul himself knew precisely who they were (cf Gl 1:6-9; origin (Brown & Meier 1983:36-44;Dunn 1983;Holmberg 1998;Howard 1990:14;Taylor 1992:124-38).Apart from a passing mention of calendrical observations (4:10), Paul makes no reference in Galatians to any specific judaising practice other than circumcision (5:2, 3, 6; 6:12, 13, 15).There are very general allusions to Torah observance in 2:14-3:14 and elsewhere.While Paul may not respond to every aspect of the teaching he opposes (Barclay 1988:38), or may caricature it (Hall 1991:311), it is nonetheless surprising that he makes in the probatio and peroratio no reference to table fellowship and dietary laws which had been at issue in Antioch.On the contrary, Paul intimates that those he opposes demand circumcision to the exclusion of other observances (5:2-3), and he attacks an antinomian tendency in the Galatian churches (5:13-26).These factors suggest that the leadership of the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch cannot be identified with the party Paul opposes in Galatia.While tension between Paul and the Jerusalem church is clearly reflected in Galatians (1:16-2:14; cf 4:21-31), there is no evidence that either the Jerusalem or the Antioch church came to regard circumcision as obligatory for gentile Christians (cf Barrett 1985:6, 22;Watson 1986:59-61).There may well have been pressure on the Jerusalem church (cf Gl 6:12; 1 Th 2:14-16) not to allow the conversion of gentiles to abrogate the distinction between Israel and the gentile world (Reicke 1984;Taylor 1996).Such pressure may well have contributed to the confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch (Gl 2:11-14;Dunn 1983;Taylor 1992:124-38).There is nevertheless no indication of a fundamental departure from the consensus established at the Jerusalem conference, and the agenda of Paul's antagonists are quite contrary to implementation of the Apostolic Decree (Borgen 1988;Taylor 1992:110-22;140-42;cf Murphy-O'Connor 1996:193-94).
In view of the difficulties in identifying Paul's antagonists with the Jerusalem and Antioch churches and their leadership, the majority of recent scholars argue that they represent a faction in the Jerusalem or Antioch church, but not the leadership of either community (Betz 1979:7;Burton 1921:lvi;Dunn 1993:14-17;Gunther 1973:298;Koester 1971:144-45;Longenecker 1990:xcv; Murphy-O 'Connor 1996:193-94).That there was a faction in the Jerusalem

HTS 59(3) 2003
church which sought the imposition of the Mosaic law on Gentile Christians, and that they were active in the Antiochene church as well as Jerusalem, is clear from Ac 15:1-5 and Gl 2:3-5 (cf Watson 1986:50-51).This group were overruled at the Jerusalem conference, but pressure from them may have influenced James's subsequent despatch of emissaries to Antioch (Gl 2:12).However, there is no indication that James's delegation made demands comparable to those of the judaistic faction (cf Taylor 1992:128-31 & refs).They may, however, have had the same motivation, to ameliorate pressure on the Jerusalem church by reinforcing the distinction between Jew and gentile in ethnically mixed churches (cf Gl 5:11; 6:12; 1 Th 2:14-16).The resolution of this second crisis in the Apostolic Decree would have been a second defeat for this party.They may have taken matters into their own hands, either in response to the Apostolic Decree or by taking advantage of the crisis in the Antiochene church resulting from the confrontation between Peter and Paul, before the Apostolic Decree had been formulated and adopted.Churches established under Antiochene auspices, but remote from the oversight of that church, may have seemed susceptible to their influence, and have posed an opportunity to shape Christian communities in accordance with their vision (cf Barclay 1988:58-59;Taylor 1992:138-42).It is entirely possible that this movement was represented in Galatia by apostles of the church of Antioch, who had been known previously to the Christian communities there.
Some scholars argue that the party Paul opposes was unconnected with the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch (Barclay 1988:42-44;Brinsmead 1982:104;Gaston 1984:64;Howard 1990:xiv-xix ;Martyn 1985;Munck 1959:129-32;Schmithals 1965:9-10).Their apparently selective imposition of the Mosaic law, involving no more than token incorporation into Israel, noted above, may count against an association with these churches.Even allowing for the diversity of Judaism (Sanders 1977;1992;cf Martyn 1985:308-11), and of gentile conformity with Christian (Taylor 1995) and other forms of Judaism (Cohen 1989), a movement which stressed circumcision cannot easily be identified with communities which waived circumcision for gentile Christians while imposing The convoluted manner in which Paul defines his relationship with the Jerusalem church and its leaders (Dunn 1982;Taylor 1992) indicates that this relationship is very much at issue.While there is no clear link between the party Paul opposes and the Jerusalem church, or that of Antioch, Paul's relationship with the former and its leadership is integral to defining his apostolic identity in Galatians.This is particularly clear in the autobiographical narrative (1:11-2:14; cf Taylor 1993).The narratio interprets selected events in Paul's life from his conversion to the time of writing in order to substantiate his authority, before proceeding in the remainder of the letter to articulate the position of gentile Christians in relation to the Mosaic law.Galatians may well be the earliest attempt to limit apostleship as an office or vocation belonging to particular people (Schmithals 1971b:86;cf Munck 1949:100-101;Taylor 1992:155-70).In order to define his own apostleship as independent of any human or ecclesiastical authority, Paul closely identifies his reception of the gospel (conversion) with his vocation to preach it (Gal 1:16; cf Schütz 1975:134;Segal 1990;Taylor 1992:62-67;pace, Kim 1981:55-66;McLean 1991:67;Stendahl 1976:7).He models his account of his conversion on the Hebrew tradition of prophetic vocational oracles, as reflected in Jr 1:5, claiming to have been chosen for his apostolic work before his birth (Gl 1:15; Malina & Neyrey 1996:40-41;Munck 1959;Sandnes 1991;Segal 1990).It is arguable that Paul, in claiming to have been called directly by God, claims a higher vocation than that of apostles sent by Jesus (Boyarin 1994:107-109;Malina & Neyrey 1996:40-41).It is doubtful, however, whether this distinction would have been recognised either by those thereby relegated to an the letter, is of less importance for reconstructing early Christian nomenclature (cf Betz 1979:77-78;Dunn 1993:76-77;Howard 1977;Longenecker 1990:38;Schmithals 1971b:64-65;Trudinger 1975) Gentiles in the Antiochene church to his own apostolic authority and the gospel he associates therewith (Gl 2:2; cf Betz 1979:81;Schütz 1975:140;Taylor 1993).
Paul relates that he had submitted his gospel to the scrutiny of the leadership of the Jerusalem church (Gl 2:2), and that these had affirmed his preaching (Gl 6:6).The redefining of the issue at stake in Gl 2:2 in terms of Paul's apostolic preaching and authority is followed here by the vindication of for Paul on account of his having ceased to be engaged in the apostolate of the Antiochene church, and forfeited the authority which derived from that commission.For apostles of churches whose authority is reinforced by the commissioning community, personal status is not so important.But for Paul, without any commissioning church after the Antioch incident, his authority needed to be sufficient in itself to be effective.
Paul makes a number of potentially significant, if tangential, statements concerning apostles in 1 Corinthians.His identification of himself as klhto\ j a0 po/ stoloj Xristou~ 0 Ihsou= dia\ qelh/ matoj Qeou~ in the epistolary greeting (1:1) gives no hint that Paul expected his self-designation to be contentious in the eyes of the recipients.The rhetorical question at 1 Cor 9:1 would seem to confirm this.While some scholars see this section as a response to a challenge to Paul's apostolic authority (cf Conzelmann 1975:151-53;Fee 1987:390-94;Horrell 1996:205-16;Hurd 1965:126-31;Lüdemann 1989:65-67), this interpretation does not take adequate account of the place of the passage in the structure of 1 Corinthians.In the context of admonishing the Corinthians regarding the consumption of meat which had been offered in pagan rituals (1 Cor 8:1-11:1), Paul cites the example of his renunciation of the rights and freedom to which he is entitled as an apostle (Barrett 1968:197;Mitchell 1991:243-50;Sumney 1999:58;Willis 1985:35).This would be possible only if Paul's apostleship and the rights attached thereto were not being contested in Corinth at the time.
An indication of Paul's understanding of his commission is provided in 1 Cor 1:17 where he states that a0 pe/ steile/ n me Xristo\ j ...eu0 aggeli/ zesqai. 1 Cor 15:7 (cf 9:1) implies that a vision of the resurrected Christ, presumably accompanied by some form of vocational oracle, was the defining credential of apostleship (cf Conzelmann 1975:305;Moray-Jones 1993;Mosbech 1948;Munck 1949;Rengstorf 1933:431;Schmithals 1961;Schnackenburg 1970;Taylor 1992:176-94).Irrespective of the origins and parameters of the tradition Paul is citing (cf Allo 1956:341;Barrett 1968:341-42;Conzelmann 1975:299-303;Fuller 1971:14-29;Gaston 1984:66;Héring 1962:158;Robertson & Plummer 1914:335;Schmithals 1971b:74;Schütz 1975:96-97), his appending his own resurrection vision and defining it as the last (15:8-9) are both significant.Paul claims for his conversion christophany the same vocational connotations as the resurrection experience of the original followers of Jesus (cf Mt 28:19; Lk 24:47; Ac 1:8).This claim may have been contentious elsewhere in the early Church, but there is no indication that it was so in Corinth at the time 1 Corinthians was written (cf 9:1; Rowland 1982:376;Taylor 1992:190-94).That Paul is constrained to justify including himself among the a0 po/ stoloi on the basis of his vision of the risen Christ, confirms very clearly that such visions were an important criterion of authority in the early Church.However, there is no evidence that there was at this time a more general association of apostleship with resurrection christophanies.
Paul implicitly denies that any such vision subsequent to his own could have the same vocational significance as his (1 Cor 15:8).Paul therefore by implication defines out of legitimacy any later challenger to his authority.It is at least potentially significant that this argument is nowhere repeated in 2 Corinthians, where Paul's authority and the credentials thereof have clearly been challenged.

The Opponents in 2 Corinthians
Jerusalem church and only implicitly to Barnabas, Paul, and the Antiochene mission, suggests a more fluid and less personalised conception of apostleship than is reflected in Paul's conception of his own apostleship.The work of Christian mission, rather than the status of individuals, is at issue(cf Holmberg   1980:18;McLean 1991).In a context in which the status and authority of individuals are not of primary concern, the term a) po/ stoloj could be applied to any person involved in a) postolh/ .It may therefore not be insignificant that the only occasion in which Barnabas and Paul are referred to as a) po/ stoloi in Luke-Acts is in the account of their mission from Antioch (Ac 14:4, 14).A similar usage is found in 1 Th 2:7, where Silvanus and Timothy are included in the description Xristou= a) po/ stoloi.This text may be particularly relevant if have been more characteristic of the circles associated with Peter and the brothers of Jesus, and have emanated from Jerusalem rather than Antioch.This point is inherently uncertain, as Barnabas and Paul are the only Antiochene apostles known by name.Furthermore, 1 Cor 9:6 could indicate that Barnabas and Paul were exceptional even among this group in not being accompanied by wives on their apostolic travels (cf Conzelmann 1975:153).As will be clear from our study of the relevant sections of Galatians, Paul departs from this notion of apostleship very fundamentally in his conception of the origin of his commission as an apostle.In place of, and over against, the commission and authority he himself had previously derived from the church of Antioch, Paul expounds a conception of apostleship derived directly from God, superior in origin and authority to that of those whom he opposes.That this has shaped subsequent Christian notions of apostleship, and of Paul himself, requires caution in the reading of texts and reconstruction of the Christian mission and life which lies behind them."Paul's discourse, which is situational, rhetorical, embattled to lesser and greater degrees, and in competition with other discourses, is imbued by later interpreters addressed and of Paul himself at the time of writing.The church of Antioch was the parent community of the Galatian churches, and Paul's relationship with the latter had hitherto been governed by his position as an apostle of the former.Antioch did not cease to be the parent congregation of the Galatian churches when Paul lost his position in that community.On the other hand, Paul's ceasing apostle of the Antiochene church meant that he no longer had a recognised authority relationship with the churches of Galatia.His purpose in the letter is to create such a relationship.Paul does this in two ways.Firstly, he claims an apostolic authority that is independent of the church of Antioch, deriving directly from God.Secondly, he claims in this capacity to have been the founder of the Galatian churches, and by implication not to have been acting on any commission from the church of Antioch.Paul's objective is therefore in effect to replace the oversight of the church of Antioch with his own apostolic authority in the Galatian churches.It is in the context of this conflict that Paul's claims to apostolic authority in Galatians are to be understood.Paul's authority claims are most explicit in the epistolary greeting (Gl 1:1- Paul's authority to regulate the life of the Galatian churches was acknowledged.As we have already noted, Paul was addressing a situation in which his authority would not be accepted without question.His rhetoric is accordingly directed to establishing his authority, in order that he might govern the lives of the Galatian Christians in accordance with his interpretation of the gospel (cfBetz 1979; Taylor 1993).It is clear from the way in which Paul qualifies his self-designation as a) po/ stoloj in Gl 1:1 that the term was capable of alternative interpretation, and that the theological weight and authority claims Paul attaches to the term are at least potentially controversial(Dunn 1993:25-26; Longenecker 1990:4; cf Betz   1979:39).Paul cites nowhere any paradigm of apostleship, other than claiming for a) po/ stoloi pre-eminence in the church (1 Cor 12:28).Where criteria of apostleship are reflected in the letters, it is not clear to what extent these criteria were generally current in the early Church, and to what extent they reflect Paul's self-conception and ideological and rhetorical agenda in a particular letter (1 Cor 9:1-5; 15:7; 2 Cor 12:12; Gl 1:16; 2:7-9).Paul could recognise another as an apostle only insofar as that person met the criteria on which Paul based his own apostolic self-identity.At the same time, if Paul was to assert authority within established churches, as he does in Galatians, as well as in establishing new churches, he needed to define himself in terms of those who were able to exercise authority effectively in the various Christian communities.The leaders of the Jerusalem church were the most effective wielders of authority in the Church of this period, and were acknowledged as pre-eminent by the church of Antioch (cf Gl 2:1-14;Brown & Meier 1983;Dunn 1982; 1983;Holmberg 1980;Taylor 1992).Paul therefore needed to model himself on them so far as he could, irrespective of whether they used the title a) po/ stoloj or accorded it to anyone else.Paul could not claim to have been a disciple of Jesus(cf Hengel 1991; Riesner 1998:33-58), and his reference to sarki\ kai\ ai3 mati in Gl 1:16 may be wilful disparagement of this criterion of authority as well of James's blood relationship with Jesus (cf 2:2, 6; 2 Cor 5:16; Boyarin 1994:109-  13; Betz 1979:72-73; Dunn 1993: 67-68; Longenecker 1990:32-35).Perhaps more significantly, Paul did not have the support or commission of any community, such as the church of Jerusalem or of Antioch, on which to base his claim to authority.He was alienated from the eschatological centre of Christianity and could derive no authority from that centre without affirming the higher authority of the Jerusalem church in communities over which he asserted authority.Paul was obliged therefore to claim for his conversion experience the significance attributed to other prominent Christians' experiences of the risen adequate qualification for apostleship in the ecclesiastical and rhetorical context Paul is addressing.Paul's apostleship dia\ 0 Ihsou~ Xristou= kai\ Qeou= patro\ j is contrasted with apostleship a) p 0 a0 nqrw& pwn ou0 de/ di' a) nqrw/ pon.Paul's notion of his own apostleship is highly personalised and theologised.The exclusion of any human principal, including by implication a Christian community such as that of Antioch, and claim to direct and unmediated divine revelation and vocation, serve both to entrench Paul's claim to authority and to exclude rival claimants (cfBoyarin 1994:107-109; Burton 1921:37-39;

4
:20; 5:10; Kümmel 1975:300; Martyn 1985:313-14).It would seem clear from Gl 5:2-3 that Paul is attacking a party influencing the (gentile) Galatian Christians to undergo circumcision.His argument that the obligation to observe Torah in full is a corollary of circumcision would militate strongly against any figurative interpretation of peritomh/(Betz 1979:259-61; Dunn 1993:265-67; Longenecker   1990:226-27).In place of token incorporation into Israel signified by circumcision, Paul articulates the inheritance by gentile Christians into the promises made to Abraham (Gl 3:14-18; 4:21-31).The position Paul opposes seems similar to that which was repudiated at the Jerusalem conference (Ac 15:6-21; Gl 2:1-10), and which is excluded by the Apostolic Decree (Ac 15:23-29), a document or formulary which must be seen as subsequent to the Antioch incident(Borgen 1988; Taylor 1992:110-22, 140-42).There is no indication that the crisis reflected in Gl 2:11-14 concerned circumcision of gentile Christians, but rather the appropriate degree of commensality between Christians of Jewish and gentile other observances on them.Another possibility is that those have regarded him (and Barnabas) as being unduly dependant upon the Jerusalem church, rather than as defying the authority of that community, as representatives of the Jerusalem and Antioch churches would maintain.Persons unconnected with the Jerusalem church, on the other hand, could have accused Paul of being unduly subservient to that community (cfBrinsmead 1982:104; Munck 1959:129-32; Schmithals 1965:9-10).Therefore, if attached to the Jerusalem or Antioch churches, this movement would have been something of a dissident faction, but nevertheless possibly one which enjoyed more support than Paul.
. Any others who could claim to be apostles senior to Paul are, by implication, of no consequence.While claiming acknowledgement by Peter and James, Paul is nonetheless concerned not to accord them, or anyone else who could claim apostolic title, any jurisdiction over his ministry which others, particularly those he opposes in Galatia, would recognise or claim for themselves.Paul next travelled to Jerusalem, as the junior partner to Barnabas, as a representative of the church of Antioch (Ac 15:2; Gal 2:1; Taylor 1992:102).The details of the issues discussed and resolved, or left unresolved, are not of significance for the present purpose (cf Dunn 1982; Murphy-O'Connor 1996; Taylor 1992:96-122).Perhaps more than any other section of the autobiographical narratio, Paul reinterprets the Jerusalem conference in the light of his situation at the time of writing Galatians.The church of Antioch is conspicuously not mentioned, and Paul's purpose in travelling to Jerusalem is stated in the singular.Paul distances himself from Barnabas, whose presence he acknowledges only in Gl 2:1 and 2:9, while his use of the singular in 2:2, 6-8 implicitly ignores him.Paul shifts the focus from issues between Jews and Paul's gospel.Affirmation by the Jerusalem church of the gospel preached at Antioch becomes Paul's claim that his own teaching and practice, and by implication his apostolic authority, were recognised by the Jerusalem leadership.Paul had been entrusted with το\ ευ0 αγγε/ λιον τη= ς α0 κροβυστι/ ας, just as Peter had been entrusted with the (gospel) thj peritomhj (Gl 2:7).The parallelism between the gospels preached in and from Jerusalem and Antioch (cf Taylor 22) is co-opted by Paul in defence of his own gospel and preaching.He claims further that the Jerusalem leaders recognised that God operates through Peter ei0 j a0 postolh\ n thj peritomhj and through Paul ei0 j ta\ e1 qnh (Gl 2:8).Two aspects of these statements are remarkable.ei0 j ta\ e1 qnh designates the scope of Paul's work, whereas in the previous clause he had used a0 krobusti/ a (Gl 2:7), indicating the distinctive character of the gospel he preached.This alteration to the wording of the agreement(Taylor 1992:166; cf   Betz 1979:95-99; Dunn 1993:105-107; Longenecker 1990:55-56)  reflects and emphasises Paul's later apostolic claims (cf Rm 1:5; 11:13; Gl 1:16), signifying his notion of his own unique and all but exclusive apostleship to the gentiles.Paul, in defence of his personalised notion of his own apostleship, uses the term a0 postolh/ of Peter's mission but not explicitly of his own(Gl 2:8; Betz 1979:98;   cf Longenecker 1990:56;McLean 1991).Reference is made to the ministry exercised, not the title of the one exercising it.The work of a0 postolh/ in which several members of the two churches were presumably engaged, was the issue of the original agreement, and not the personal status of the various missionaries.The personalised concept of apostolic office has become important That proclamation of the gospel is the essence of Paul's interpretation of the apostolic vocation is corroborated or implied at several points in his letters (Rm 1:2; 11:13; Gl 1:16), not least in Paul's identification of himself as founder of the church of Corinth (1 Cor 3:6, 10; 9:2).This correlates with identification of apostleship as the highest calling in the Church in 1 Cor 12:28, notwithstanding of that office at 4:9.The rights of apostles to material compensation for their efforts, which Paul waives (1 Cor 9:1-6), have already been discussed.

2
Corinthians 10-13 reflects the most intense conflict between Paul and the Corinthian church, and also the zenith of influence in Corinth of Paul's opponents.The identity of these latter remains a matter of contention in HTS 59(3) 2003 Jones 1956fficient to note that the term would have been readily understood, even if not in widespread use, in the ancient world.The principle and practice of sending agents andJones 1956).a0 po/ stoloj gained currency in early Christian usage, referring very generally to messengers and representatives of Christian communities (cf 2 Buckland & McNair 1952;own, even if technical details regarding the scope and limitations of such representation were disputed (cfBuckland & McNair 1952;with theological, ideological, and rhetorical weight.Later usage of the term in Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts (Mt 10:2; Mk 6:30; Lk 6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10; Ac 1:2, 26; 2 ; Schütz