Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:41:44.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peter's ‘Hypocrisy’ and Paul's: Two ‘Hypocrites’ at the Foundation of Earliest Christianity?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2012

Margaret M. Mitchell
Margaret M. Mitchell
Affiliation:
University of Chicago Divinity School, 1025 E. 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. email: mmm17@uchicago.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an infamous passage in his Letter to the Galatians (2.11–14), Paul called out Peter as a ‘hypocrite’. This passage, especially when read in light of Paul's own appeal to himself as ‘all things to all people’ in 1 Cor 9.19–23, was to cause deep trouble for later Christian interpreters, who sought to defend their movement against charges from outsiders that it had a cracked and unstable foundation in dual ‘hypocrites’. This essay will introduce this ‘pagan’ critique and the cultural force it had, and the various solutions to the inherited dilemma from their scriptures that were offered by patristic authors (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome and Augustine). In light of this context, we turn to a sustained analysis of an untranslated homily by John Chrysostom, hom. in Gal 2.11 (In faciem ei restiti), which addresses not just the hypocrisy of Peter and Paul, but also the sticky problem of the hypocrisy of the Christian who reads this text approvingly as Paul's ‘in your face’ to Peter. Chrysostom does this by engaging in a convoluted pretence of his own.

Keywords

Galatians 2.11-14hypocrisyPeterPaulJohn ChrysostomMacarius Magnesearly Christian biblical interpretationapologeticsliteral meaningallegorical meaning
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 213 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Don't let this passage upset you!’ John Chrysostom, comm. in Gal. 2.13 §1 (PG 61.640). Chrysostom's commentary on Galatians was excerpted and widely made available in the catenae, as in Catena in epistulam ad Galatas (e cod. Coislin. 204) (ed. Cramer, J. A., Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, vol. 6 [Oxford: Oxford University, 1842Google Scholar]).

2 Comm. in Gal. 2.13 §1 (PG 61.642). Πολλοὶ τῶν ἁπλῶς ἀναγινωσκόντων τουτὶ τὸ ῥητὸν τῆς ἐπιστολῆς νομίζουσι τοῦ Πέτρου τὸν Παῦλον κατηγορεῖν ὑπόκρισιν. John follows with the immediate exclamation: ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα, οὐκ ἔστιν, ἄπαγε.

3 This was well noted by Meiser, Martin, Galater (Novum Testamentum Patristicum 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) 97Google Scholar: ‘Zugleich ist Gal 2,11–14 ein Text, der für Christentumskritiker die Fragwürdigkeit der neuen Religion und ihrer führenden Figuren der Anfangszeit bestätigt’.

4 There is no critical edition of this homily, for which we are reliant upon the text of Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 51, cols. 371-388. I am currently working on a translation of this and 17 other homilies by Chrysostom that have not been translated into a modern language for the Writings From the Greco-Roman World series (SBL/Brill). For a list, see Mitchell, M. M., The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (HUT 40; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 2000; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002) 2 n. 7Google Scholar.

5 The author is sometimes thought to be Porphyry; this is possible, but not certain. The text is preserved in Macarius Magnes, Monogenes (or apocriticus). For discussion of the authorship, title, date and sources of this work, see Goulet, Richard, Macarios de Magnésie: Le monogénès (Tome II) (Paris: Vrin, 2003)Google Scholar. Berchman, Robert M., Porphyry against the Christians (Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition 1; Leiden: Brill, 2005)Google Scholar is more skeptical about our ability to prove the direct use of Porphyry behind Macarius's ‘Greek’, while still seeing the influence of Porphyry's critical biblical interpretation here: ‘Nonetheless, if the Apocriticus reveals anything, it is that the critical approach to the Bible employed by late fourth-century Roman critics of Christianity was dependent upon Porphyry. Macarius is stung by the same tenacious use of gospel parallels and a “positivist” reading of the scriptures as earlier Patres were’. This characterization of Porphyry's exegesis may be questioned, since his reading strategies are not unusual among ancient critics (and cannot be reduced to a ‘positivist’ hermeneutic), including the orthodox Christian authors who rebut these accusations. As we shall see below, both the canonical reading strategy and the historical critical testing of narratives are used by the Christian exegetes, but to reach different conclusions.

6 ‘Macarius Magnes’, monogenes 3.22 (the full title is Μακαρίου Μάγνητος Ἀποκριτικὸς ἢ Μονογενὴς πρὸς Ἕλληνας περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων); text Goulet, my translation, here and throughout.

7 Like κόθορνος, an ambidextrous boot that could be worn on either foot.

8 This translation of ἄνομος is meant to reflect one of the ways the ‘pagan’ critic understands the derogatory implications of this term, though he clearly also recognizes that the contrast (as in 1 Cor 9.21) involves being ‘Torah-bereft’.

9 Monogenes 3.30–31.

10 Christian authors were masterful, but not unique, in this, as they used inner-biblical prophetic critiques against ‘hard-hearted Israel’ against Jews as outsiders, and philosophical critique of literalistic readings of the anthropomorphic features of the gods in Homeric myths and hymns against ‘pagans’ as ‘idolators’. But this is the stuff of philosophical debate between schools, as well (as in Cicero, de natura deorum, a phenomenon satirized by Lucian, Vitarum auctio, Icaromenippus, etc.).

11 As argued by Pervo, Richard I., Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists (Salem, OR: Polebridge, 2006)Google Scholar: ‘That Luke knew Galatians seems beyond doubt; yet of all the epistles, this one exhibits more conflicts with Acts than any other… I shall argue that the author of Acts quite intentionally revised what Paul said in that letter in order to create a construction more conducive to Christian unity’ (73–4).

12 This phenomenon was facilitated both by the popularity and variable interpretations of the Pauline letters and by the lack of genuine letters by either Peter or James. See, e.g., Nienhuis, David, Not By Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Waco: Baylor University, 2007)Google Scholar; Mitchell, M. M., ‘The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?’, Reading James With New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James (ed. Webb, Robert L. and Kloppenborg, John S.; London: T&T Clark, 2007) 75–98Google Scholar.

13 As attested, e.g., in the epigram written by Pope Damasus (366–384) to Peter and Paul as citizens of Rome (suos cives) and new stars (nova sidera) (Epigram. 20.6–7); Prudentius Liber peristephanon 12.55–57; and in Leo the Great's hom. 82.1 (from 441 CE). There is much literature on this development and connection of the two apostles to Rome's mythic founders and protectors. See, e.g., Pietri, Charles, ‘concordia apostolorum et renovatio urbis (Culte des martyrs et propagande pontificale)’, Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire 73 (1961) 275–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trout, Dennis E., ‘Damasus and the Invention of Early Christian Rome’, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33 (2003) 517–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lønstrup, Gitte, ‘Constructing Myths: The Foundation of Roma Christiana on 29 June’, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 33 (2008) 27–64Google Scholar; Eastman, David L., Paul the Martyr: The Cult of Paul in the West (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011) especially 32–3Google Scholar. The artistic scene of the embrace of Peter and Paul is first attested in the fifth century, and may have its roots in depictions of the imperial tetrarchy (see Kessler, H. L., ‘The Meeting of Peter and Paul in Rome: An Emblematic Narrative of Spiritual Brotherhood’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 41 [1987] 266–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

14 Hom. in Rom. 32.1 (PG 60.678): Διὸ καὶ ἐπίσημος ἡ πόλις ἐντεῦθεν μᾶλλον, ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων· καὶ καθάπερ σῶμα μέγα καὶ ἰσχυρὸν, ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχει δύο λάμποντας, τῶν ἁγίων τούτων τὰ σώματα.

15 As LSJ notes, the term ὑποκριτής was used in Attic for ‘playing a part on the stage’, a usage that was extended metaphorically to ‘playing a part, hypocrisy, outward show’. This sense is not unique to Christian usage (LSJ cites Polybius 35.2.13; Lucian Somn. 17) but the Matthean employment of the term for external religious observance at odds with internal disposition had an influential role in the history of development of the concept.

16 Including within Hellenistic Judaism, of course. See, e.g., the following passage from Paul's contemporary, Philo, which shows the confluence of these rhetorics and cultural values in first-century Hellenistic Judaism. It is occasioned by the Septuagint translation of the ambiguous Hebrew statement of Abimelech to Sarah in Gen 20.16 (ונכחת את כל) as πάντα ἀλήθευσον, to which Philo responds: ‘The statement: ‘tell the truth (ἀλήθευσον) about everything (πάντα)’ is a command that comes from one who is no philosopher (ἀφιλόσοφος) and one with no proper training (ἰδιώτης). For if the life of human beings progressed well and admitted no falsehood (ψεῦδος), then it would be reasonable to tell the truth to all (πάντες) about every matter (πᾶν). But since hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις), as in the theatre (θέατρον), holds sway and the lie is the curtain over the truth (παραπέτασμα τῆς ἀληθείας), one who is wise (σoϕóς) has need of a many-turned craft (τέχνη πολύτροπος); he will be much benefitted by this, if he imitates the actors (ὑποκριταί) who say one thing (ἄλλα λέγειν) but do another (ἕτερα δρᾶν) so that they might save (διασώζειν) those whom they can' (Philo QG 4.69; text F. Petit, Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum. Fragmenta Graeca [Les oeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie 33; Paris: Cerf, 1978], my translation).

17 See Malherbe, Abraham J., ‘Antisthenes and Odysseus, and Paul at War’, HTR 76 (1983) 143–73Google Scholar; Glad, Clarence E., Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epircurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (NovTSup 81; Leiden: Brill, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and further literature and discussion in Mitchell, M. M., ‘Pauline Accommodation and “Condescension” (συγκατάβασις): 1 Cor 9.19–23 and the History of Influence’, Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (ed. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 197–214, 298–309Google Scholar.

18 On the ῥητὸν/διάνοια progymnasma, and 2 Cor 3.6 as Paul's Christianized version, see Mitchell, M. M., Paul, the Corinthians and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010)Google Scholar Chapter 2.

19 Chrysostom himself surveys and critiques different λύσεις (‘solutions’) known to him for this ζήτησις (‘problem’) in the homily we shall examine (§15 [PG 51.383–384]).

20 See the valuable surveys of these and other positions by Meiser, Galater, 97–102; John Kenneth Riches, Galatians through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Oxford: Blackwell, 2008) 85–104; and by Hennings, Ralph, Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des Alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal. 2,11–14 (VCSup 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994)Google Scholar. I would be less inclined than the latter to separate these out into an ‘eastern’ and a ‘western’ position; neither Tertullian nor Jerome in the west are in agreement with Augustine's interpretation, so it is hard to see his view as representative (Jerome himself challenges Augustine to name one other authority who sides with him; Ep. 112.6).

21 We do not have independent evidence of this interpretation in Origen's extant works, however.

22 Meiser cogently identifies 5 motifs of this line of interpretation: ‘1. die Behauptung, Paulus habe dem Petrus nicht wirklich widerstanden, 2. die Bezeichnung des Apostelstreites als οἰκονομία bzw. dispensatio, als zeitweise Verstellung, die von den Heidenchristen freilich nicht als Verstellung durchschaut worden war, 3. die schweigende Zustimmung des Petrus zu dem ihn tadelnden Paulus, durch die die Judenchristen dazu bewogen werden sollen, die Worte des Paulus als wahr anzuerkennen, 4. die Betonung der σύνεσις und der Bewunderungswürdigkeit beider Apostel, 5. das Motiv der zu wahrenden Einheit der Kirche’ (Galater, 99).

23 Augustine, Epp. 28.3–5; 40.3–7; 82.4–30; Dolbeau 10.13.30 [Carthage, Lent 397]: ‘Once an Apostle could be thought to lie or to have colluded in a simulated incident, it was as if a moth had entered the precious cupboard of the Scriptures. Its larvae would devour the entire texture of revealed truth as surely as they would ruin an entire case of clothes’ (as paraphrased by Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography [new ed., with an Epilogue; Berkeley: University of California, 2000] 450).

24 Notably Hennings, Briefwechsel, esp. 121–30.

25 It is not clear whether Jerome was directly dependent upon Chrysostom's interpretation when he wrote his commentary on Galatians (c. 386–390), however, as Chrysostom's preaching career began in Antioch in February, 386, and the commentary and homily we treat here are both of uncertain date (though situated in the Antiochene period, 386–398 [see n. 29 below]). In the later correspondence with Augustine (covering the period 394–419), Jerome refers to John as bishop of Constantinople (Ep. 112.6).

26 Hennings treats the two works as though entirely of a piece with one another (Briefwechsel, 230–4; as does Meiser, Galater, 97–102); in this paper I seek to highlight some unique characteristics of the occasional homily. Hennings judges that the sermon ‘könnte in Stil und Aufbau durchaus ein Teil des Kommentars sein’ (Briefwechsel, 231 n. 48). While the line between commentary and homily in Chrysostom's oeuvre is difficult to establish, in this case I think there is a decided difference, which may account for the purported ‘jeu d'esprit’ in which John engages in the homily.

27 §1 (PG 51.373).

28 §2 (PG 51.373).

29 §2 (PG 51.373).

30 Wendy Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom—Provenance: Reshaping the Foundations (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 273; Rome: Pontificio istituto orientale, 2005) 291, 319, 360 (‘a sermon clearly delivered at Antioch’).

31 There is nothing comparable to this in his comm. in Gal.

32 Οὐ γὰρ πρὸς Παῦλόν μοι νῦν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξωθεν. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ παρακαλῶ προσέχειν (§2 [PG 51.374]).

33 On αὔξησις in rhetorical training and its relationship to κοινὸς τόπος, see Malcolm Heath, ‘Invention’, Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400 (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 89–120, especially 95; detailed discussion and references in R. Dean Anderson, Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms Connected to Methods of Argumentation, Figures and Tropes from Anaximenes to Quintilian (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 24; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 26–9.

34 §2 (PG 51.374).

35 οἱ ἀπόστολοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἦσαν συνδεδεμένοι τοῖς τῆς ἀγάπης δεσμοῖς (§2 [PG 51.374]).

36 §3 (PG 51.374).

37 There is a brief passage with three direct questions to Paul in comm. in Gal. §5 (PG 61.642) on 2.14, but nothing as extensive as we find in the occasional homily.

38 §3 (PG 51.374).

39 §3 (PG 51.374).

40 §3 (PG 51.374).

41 §3 (PG 51.374).

42 John adds as further evidence the same apostolic forbearance and accommodation offered by the Jerusalem apostles to Paul in Acts 21.20–24. Εἶδες πῶς φείδονταί σου τῆς ὑπολήψεως; πῶς κρύπτουσί σε τῷ προσωπείῳ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἐκείνης, τῇ θυσίᾳ, τοῖς ἁγνισμοῖς σε περιστέλλοντες; Διὰ τί μὴ τοσαύτην κηδεμονίαν ἐπεδείξω καὶ σύ; (§3 [PG 51.375]). Note especially the theatrical language of ‘mask’ connected with both hiddenness and ‘accommodation’.

43 §4 (PG 51.375).

44 This section of the proof is paralleled in comm. in Gal. (PG 61.640) though the treatment is much condensed. There is also more of an emphasis there that, since Peter was giving his own life for the Jewish people, πῶς ἄν ὑπεκρίθη ποτέ.

45 John offers a selective citation of Matt 16.13; Mark 10.33–34; Matt 16.21; 17.4; Matt 26.21 to substantiate this point, arguing that Peter spoke when all the rest were silent (he was ἡ γλῶττα τῶν ἀποστόλων), an index of his uncommon bravery.

46 μετὰ τοσαύτης παῤῥησίας πρὸς τοὺς αἱμοβόρους κύνας ἐκείνους, καὶ τῷ θυμῷ ζέοντας ἔτι, καὶ φόνου πνέοντας (§4 [PG 51.375]); πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων μαινομένων αὐτῶν καὶ οἰδούντων ἀπὸ τοῦ φόνου, ὡμολόγησε μετὰ παῤῥησίας (§5 [PG 51.376]; ‘he confessed boldly before all of the others who were crazed and bloated from the murder [of Christ]’). Peter, by the opening salvo of Acts 2, ‘broke the front line of the Jewish phalanx’ (τὸ μέτωπον τῆς φάλαγγος τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς διαῤῥήξας) (§5 [PG 51.376]). Chrysostom's severe invective against Jews is well known; see the analysis by Robert L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Transformation of the Classical Heritage 4; Berkeley: University of California, 1983).

47 John does the math from Gal 1.18 and 2.1 (§7 [PG 51.377]), but conflates the date of the writing of Galatians with the date of the incident of which it speaks (Νυνὶ δὲ, ὅτε ταῦτα Παῦλος ἔγραφεν, ἑπτὰ καὶ δέκατον ἔτος εἶχε τὸ κήρυγμα). He also appears to assume (despite his emphasis on Peter as inaugural leader), that one can date the gospel proclamation from Paul's call!

48 This argument is also found in comm. in Gal. (PG 61.640).

49 Πῶς οὖν τολμᾷς λέγειν, ὅτι φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς, ὑπέστελλεν ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀφώρισε; (§6 [PG 51.377]).

50 §7 (PG 51.377).

51 ἀλλ' ἰδοὺ περιέτρεψε τὴν κατηγορίαν ὁ λόγος (§7 [PG.51.378]).

52 There is a parallel here with John's defense earlier in the homily of Peter's ‘unconsidered’ (ἀπερισκέπτος) speech at Matt 16.22; 17.4 and his silence at 26.21; cf. John 13.24 (§5–6 [PG 51.376]).

53 §7 (PG 51.378).

54 Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἔστιν εἰπεῖν· μὴ γένοιτο §7 (PG 51.378).

55 §8 (PG 51.378–379).

56 Ἐνταῦθα προσέχετε, καὶ διανάστητέ μοι, καὶ συντείνατε ἑαυτοὺς, ὥστε δέξασθαι σαφῆ τὴν ἀπολογίαν. Καὶ γὰρ ἄτοπον ἐμὲ μὲν τὸν διασκάπτοντα τοσοῦτον πόνον ὑπομένειν, ὑμᾶς δὲ τοὺς ἐξ εὐκολίας μέλλοντας τὸ χρυσίον ὁρᾷν, τῇ ῥᾳθυμίᾳ τὸ κέρδος τοῦτο παραδραμεῖν (§9 [PG 51.379]). ‘Pay attention here, stay awake now, and extend yourselves so you can receive this crystal-clear argument of defense. For it would be absurd for me, who is digging down to the bottom of this problem, to endure such labors while you, who at leisure are about to see the golden ring, run right past this great gain due to your sloth!’

57 This section and the next are unparalleled in comm. in Gal.

58 §9 (PG 51.379).

59 As always with John (author of 8 infamous discourses, Adversus Judaeos), this kind of invective represents a marriage of biblical statements (Acts 22.19–20; John 12.43) and rhetorical topoi, fueled by his own rivalry with contemporary Jews in Antioch.

60 §11 (PG 51.381).

61 Διὰ τοῦτο τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις ἅπασι γράφων, τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ προστίθησιν ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν, Ἑβραίοις δὲ ἐπιστέλλων, οὐδὲν τοιοῦτον ἐποίησεν … Ἵνα γὰρ μὴ μετασχῇ τοῦ μίσους τὰ γράμματα, καθάπερ προσωπείῳ τινὶ, τῇ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀφαιρέσει κρύψας ἑαυτὸν, οὕτως αὐτοῖς λανθανόντως τὸ τῆς ἐπιτίθησι φάρμακον (§11 [PG 51.381]).

62 One with resonances of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed: Τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ ἀμφότεροι καὶ Ἰουδαίοις καὶ Ἕλλησιν ἐκήρυττον· οἷον, ὅτι Θεὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, ὅτι ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ἐτάφη, καὶ ἀνέστη, καὶ ἔστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὅτι μέλλει κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα ἦν, ὁμοίως καὶ Παῦλος καὶ Πέτρος ἐκήρυττον (§12 [PG 51.381]).

63 Either for John or for Luke.

64 Ὁρᾷς ὅτι ἡνίκα μὲν καιρὸς συγκαταβάσεως ἦν, καὶ Παῦλος ἰουδάϊζεν· ἡνίκα δὲ οὐχὶ συγκαταβάσεως καιρὸς ἦν, ἀλλὰ δογματίζειν ἔδει καὶ νομοθετεῖν, καὶ Πέτρος ἐκείνης τῆς συγκαταβάσεως ἀπαλλαγεὶς, εἰλικρινῆ καὶ καθαρὰ τὰ δόγματα παραδίδωσι (§13 [PG 51.382]).

65 See the similar argument in comm. in Gal. 5 (PG 61.641), there by appeal to Paul's own similar ‘fear’ in Gal 4.11 and 2 Cor 12.20.

66 §14 (PG 51.383).

67 §14 (PG 51.383).

68 §15 (PG 51.383–384). Briefly, it must be the same Peter, since Barnabas and the others were persuaded by his illustrious example. But if it was really Peter, and Paul rightly accused him, ‘As I said at the beginning of this homily, our task is not to show that Paul rightly issued this accusation, because in that way the problem (ζήτημα) remains, since Peter will appear to be liable to blame’. The exegesis is determined by this intent.

69 τὸ δὲ ζητούμενον, καὶ τοῦτον κἀκεῖνον ἀπαλλάξαι τῶν ἐγκλημάτων (§16 ([51.384]).

70 Πῶς οὖν ἔσται τοῦτο; Ἂν τὴν γνώμην, μεθ' ἧς ὁ μὲν ἐπετίμησεν, ὁ δὲ ἐπετιμήθη, μάθωμεν, καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτὴν ἀναπτύξωμεν (§16 [51.384]).

71 §16 (51.384–385).

72 §17 (51.385): παρασκευάζει τὸν Παῦλον ἐπιτιμῆσαι μεθ' ὑπερβολῆς, καὶ ἐπιπλῆξαι, ἵνα ἡ ἐπίπλαστος ἐπιτίμησις αὕτη δικαίαν αὐτῷ παῤῥησίας κατ' ἐκείνων ἀφορμὴν παρέχῃ καὶ πρόφασιν. This carefully crafted sentence (note the paronomasia with ἐπι-compounds) contains multiple terms that can have a positive or a negative implication (παρασκευάζειν: ‘prepare’ or ‘connive’; ἐπίπλαστος: ‘fashioned’ or ‘fabricated’; πρόφασις: ‘pretext’ or ‘pretence’), but by hyperbaton the δικαίαν is thrown forward for emphasis so as to turn attention to the positive valences—that it was a ‘just(ifiable)’ action.

73 The term is key to the argument. It means both ‘underlying intention’ and ‘judgment/opinion’ about whether believers must keep the Law (thereby uniting the teacher and the teaching).

74 §19 (51.387).

75 ‘That is why Peter did not introduce this judgment (γνώμη) about the Law himself, but put up with it being spoken by another (I mean, Paul), and was silent, so that the teaching would be readily accepted’ (§17 [PG 51.386]).

76 Earlier John said that Paul's words demonstrated that ‘Peter had these teachings in his own soul’ (ταῦτα εἶχεν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ τὰ δόγματα) (§17 [PG 51.386]).

77 οὕτω δὴ καὶ οὗτος νῦν μετὰ τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης, μεθ' ἧς ἐπετίμησε Πέτρῳ, γράφει ταῦτα, ἅπερ ἔγραψε Γαλάταις (§20 [PG 51.388]).

78 §20 (PG 51.388).

79 Chrysostom does not use direct language of falsehood, or as overt language of dissimulation or dissembling as does Jerome. He walks that line most carefully in the sentence analyzed in n. 72 above.

80 In this respect, Hennings's argument (Briefwechsel, 123) that what differentiates Augustine (in contrast to ‘the Greek exegesis’) is that he is the first interpreter to see the problem in light of the general question of the auctoritas of Scripture is I think not quite sustainable. Chrysostom is keenly aware of the hermeneutical stakes in needing to maintain the biblical text as it is but to find an acceptable reading of it to safeguard the truthfulness of the scriptures and the apostolic witness.