People who have even a passing familiarity with the Pauline corpus tend to know four things about Paul: (1) that he experienced a conversion on the road to Damascus; (2) that he became a missionary and apostle to the Gentiles; (3) that he was a figure of controversy; and (4) that he wrote letters. Furthermore, they have an instinctive sense that these four features are somehow linked that is, that Paul’s sometimes divisive role in the nascent Christian movement as the apostle to the Gentiles resulted from the combination of these aspects of his personal story. Paul writes a remarkable autobiographical narratio, an ancient rhetorical device, which serves to yoke his call to be the apostle to the Gentiles with his conversion experience and his subsequent con flicts with other members of the Christian communities in Judaea, Syria and Gal atia (Gal 1:13–2:14) (James D.G. Dunn, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC, 19; James L. Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33a; Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatian, 8-13). Commentators all agree that Paul wrote to counter what he considered to be a significant conflict with rival missionaries whoweredisturbing his Gentile converts at Galatia (Martyn, Galatians, 117–26; E. Earle Ellis, “Paul and His Opponents,” in: Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. Jacob Neusner; Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A So ciological Approach, SNTSMS 56, 59-72).

Traditionally these interlop ers have been called “Judaisers,” primarily on the basis of Paul’s own language, which alludes to similar opponents who espoused a Law-observant gospel and had previously tried to “force the Gentiles [those who had converted to the Jesus Movement at Syrian Antioch] to live like Jews” (τὰἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν Gal 2:14); that is, to adopt adherence to the Mosaic Law (Gal 3:10), including the practice of circumcision (Gal 5:2–4; 6:12–13), as well as the observance of the Sabbath and the Jewish feast days (Gal 4:8–11) (Walt Russell, “Who Were Paul’s Opponents in Galatia?,” BSac 147 (1990): 329–50; Frank J. Matera, Galatians, SP 9, 7–11; and Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41). Marcion first inferred that Paul’s opponents were fanatical Jewish Christians from Jerusalem (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.2–4).

Rival missionaries’ warrant apparently appealed to scripture, par ticularly the story of the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:6–29; 4:21–31), at which the institution of circumcision was imposed on God’s chosen people (Gen 17:1–27). Second, the fact that Paul finds it necessary to detail the nature of his conversion and call and his relationship with the apostolic authorities at Jerusalem (Gal 1:11– 2:14) may imply that these missionaries also claimed a direct commission from the Jerusalem church, while casting doubts on Paul’s own claims to apos tolic authority. Few scholars are willing to accept that Paul’s autobiographical reminiscen ces in Galatians 1:13–2:14 have an apologetic intent, and even fewer are willing to directly link the Judaisers to the earlier conflicts in Jerusalem and Antioch. Some commentators have suggested that Paul’s apostleship was never an issue at Galatia (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm,” NovT 28 (1986): 309–26; Bernard Lategan, “Is Paul Defending his Apostleship in Galatians? The Function of Galatians 1:11–12 and 2:19–20 in the Development of Paul’s Argument,” NTS 34 (1988): 411–30). Some have argued that the Judaisers did not even view them selves as opponents of Paul (Martyn, Galatians,431–66; George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia– A Study in Early Christian Theology, SNTSMS 35, 1-19; Robert Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,” NTS 17 (1970): 198–212).

Others have even questioned the methods used to identify the missionaries as “Judaisers” with connections to Jerusalem and their message as a Jewish Christian “gospel,” preferring less incendiary descriptions of Paul’s Galatian rivals, such as “agitators,”“troublemakers” or “influencers” ( J.B. Tyson, “Paul’s Opponents in Galatia,” NovT 10 (1968): 241–5; George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Towards a New Understanding, SBLDS 73; John M.G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987): 73–93; Id., Obeying the Truth: A Study in Paul’sEthics in Galatians; James L. Martyn, “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians,” SJT 38 (1985): 307–24; Pauline Theology, vol. 1, Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon,ed. Jouette M. Bassler, 160-79).

John J. Gunther revealed that there had been at least eight major theories pro posed for the identity of Paul’s opponents at Galatia, and further hypotheses have been added in the years since (John J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings, NovTSup 30, 1-5; Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context, 110-92).

1. The writing of Galatians

In 2 Corinthians, Paul suggests that one of the criticisms current amongst his opponents at Corinth was that his letters were more powerful and impressive than his per sonal presence (2 Cor 10:10). Paul himself admits that sometimes his letters could cause offense and sorrow (2 Cor 7:8; 10:9). After Paul’s death, the author of 2 Peter warns against misconstruing the meaning of Paul’s letters which, Peter ad mits, are “hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). And, the author of 2 Thessalonians alludes to letters, possibly forged in Paul’s name, which may have shaken or disturbed the Pauline community at Thessalonica (2 Thess 2:2; cf. 3:17). Paul’s letter to the Galatians is perhaps the most polemical of all the Pauline correspondence. We noted at the outset that Paul’s oppo nents, whom he never explicitly identifies, were preaching a “different gospel.” Despite recent attempts to suggest otherwise, we must assume that his oppo nents at Galatia were fellow Christians (Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind; Anthony E. Harvey, “The Opposition to Paul,” SE 4 (1968): 319–32). James L. Martyn observes rightly that the term “gospel” is so significant to Paul that he would not have used it here unless his opponents were also using it and, therefore, these opponents could not be anything other than Christian missionaries (Martyn, Galatians, 109; Nanos, Irony, 141–42, 284–316). This conclusion can be confirmed by Paul’s claim that the Galatian troublemakers were preaching a gospel message that was clearly at odds with the one he preached (Gal 1:6–9), and he suggests that their motive in doing so was to avoid being persecuted for Christ (Gal 6:12).

This reveals alot about their religious affiliations (Sumney, “Servants of Satan”, 136; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2 vols., 2.119; Dieter Lührmann, Galatians: A Continental Commentary, 123). Why did Paul react so violently to the message of the Judaisers at Galatia? Elsewhere, we find Paul ready to counsel tolerance in the face of conflicting interpretations of the Christian message (cf. 1 Cor 8:1–13; 10:14–33; Rom 14:1–15:13). According to Paul, the Galatians were in danger of “falling from grace” (Gal 5:4) as a result of his opponents who had “bewitched” (Gal 3:1) and “unsettled” (Gal 1:7; 5:12; cf. 6:12–13) the communities. Moreover,when Paul wrote Galatians it seems that the Judaisers were well established and were enjoying some success (Gal 1:6; 3:1; 4:21; 5:4.7). Indeed, many of Paul’s Gentile converts were apparently adopting some aspects of Law-observance (Gal 4:10–11), and Paul expresses astonish ment at the rapidity with which the Galatians had deserted the gospel he preach ed (Gal 1:6).

In Paul’s day most letters were composed with the aid of a professional scribe and, in Paul’s case, most likely with the collaboration of co-workers (E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 59–80; Id., The Secretary in Paul’s Letters, WUNT 2/42, 189–94; Richard N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, 281–97; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul The Letter Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills, GNS 41, 1–14; Stanley E. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity). Evidence from Paul’s correspondence suggests that his letters were composed collaboratively. Many of Paul’s letters are prefaced by greetings, not just from Paul, but from various co-workers who were with him at the time, and who may have had some role in composing or writing down the letters (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; cf. 16:21–24; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1)– and in these cases the letter is usually written in the second person. Paul’s letter to the Gala tians has no such greeting from co-workers, and it is written in the first person. Paul does, however, acknowledge that he is not alone when he writes, and he sends greetings from “all the brothers” who are with him (Gal 1:2), adding his hand-written “signature” to the letter conclusion (Gal 6:1; cf. 1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17; Phlm 19). This latter addition would seem to indicate that the body of the letter was written in another hand, probably that of the profes sional scribe who may or may not have been one of Paul’s co-workers (Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest: The Search for the Jew of Tarsus, 99–109; Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter Writer, 6–7, 16–33; Ian J. Elmer, “I, Tertius: Secretary or Co-Author of Romans,” ABR 56 (2008): 45–60).

Pauline Christianity was a collaborative effort; it was a movement, not sim ply the sole work of a single individual. Paul probably spent very little time in any one place– except Corinth and Ephesus where he seems to have spent about eighteen months and two or three years respectively. For the most part, his communities were run and administered by fellow workers. Hence, the composition of all the Pauline letters, Galatians included, was probably also the product of a collaborative enterprise.

1. In recent years much has been made of Paul’s style of argumentation, and tomes have been written about Paul’s knowledge and use of the ancient conventions of rhetoric, especial ly in the case of Galatians: Hans Dieter Betz, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975): 353–79; Id., Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia; J.D. Hester, “The Use and Influence of Rhetoric in Galatians 2:1–14,” TZ 42 (1986): 386–408; George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, Studies in Religion; David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment; Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament; Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians; Stephen M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians, SBLDS 134; R. Dean Anderson Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul; Pieter J.J. Botha, “The Verbal Art of the Pauline Letters: Rhetoric, Performance and Presence,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays From the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, JSNTSup 90, 409–28; David G. Horrell, An Introduction to the Study of Paul, 48–50

1. Paul’s autobiographical narratio
2. What is an ‘autobiographical narratio’?

An “autobiographical narratio” refers to a narrative or account that someone writes about their own life. It is a form of autobiographical writing that typically involves the author recounting personal experiences, memories, and events that have shaped their life. The term “narratio” comes from the Latin word for “narration” or “storytelling,” so an autobiographical narratio focuses on the personal story or life history of the author.

Lyons has argued that Galatians is primarily “deliberative” in nature and does not respond directly to any attack upon Paul’s character (Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 25–27, 119). Other commentators have drawn attention to Paul’s use of the rhetorical de vice of the narratio (Gal 1:13–2:14), which was a common feature of not just an cient apologetic pieces, but also deliberative speeches (Philip F. Esler, Galatians, NTR, 65; David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 203, 207). A narratio of the kind found in Galatians 1:13–2:14 could be included when such would serve to correct mistaken impressions about the speaker and, thereby, improve his standing and encourage his audience to be sympathetic to the arguments that were to follow (Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 95). A narratio, even in a deliberative speech, had two functions (Betz, Galatians,61–62; Esler, Galatians,64–65; Witherington, Grace in Galatia,97). First, the pur pose of a narratio was not simply to inform or remind the auditors of past events, but to recall those past events as lessons for the future. In this way the rhetor could persuade his auditors by placing the facts of his case in a certain context and presenting them in the manner most conducive to his point of view. Quintil ian (Inst. Or. 4.2.87) observes that it was the correct and accepted convention in a narratio to chronicle the relevant events surrounding an issue in chronological order so as to provide the proper context. Furthermore, a narratio afforded the rhetor the opportunity to either attack the character of an opponent or eulogise an ally. Lyons agrees with the first, ar guing that the narratio in Galatians has to do with Paul’s concern to establish “his divinely determined ethos, not defending his personal or official creden tials” (Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 133; Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit, 133; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 71–73).

Put otherwise, Paul’s opponents need not have made any accusations against Paul for Paul to want to stress his authority and offer himself as an ex ample to the Galatians of one who formerly stood against similar onslaughts from Judaising opponents. In a narratio the rhetor could resort to pejorative language in order to dis pose his auditors to his point of view and against that of his opponents.Through out the narratio, Paul responds directly to his opponents’ views on the Law from the perspective of their shared Christian traditions (Gal 1:7.13–14; 2:15).

With this in mind, it is no surprise that Paul labels his previous opponents at Jerusalem as “false brothers” who were “secretly brought in to spy on our free dom” by “those reputed pillars.” In the subsequent incident at Antioch, Peter and Barnabas are accused of “hypocrisy” and cowardice in the face of the interference of the factional and divisive “men from James.” Similarly, Paul’s present opponents at Galatia are cast as “troublemakers” and “agitators” who are moti vated by fear of persecution. Such derogatory and emotional language could not be accidental. It must have been intended to raise animus against the viewpoint of those whom Paul perceived to be his adversaries (Betz, Galatians, 61). To return to the proposal that Paul’s opponents had directly attacked Paul, it should be noted that Paul explicitly signals his readers’ familiarity with some version of events in his past. First, it is significant that Paul introduces the ac count of his past with the formula, “You will have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism…” (1:13), which must signal that the Galatians had been informed of his career as a zealous Jew. Further, he implicitly signals that this knowledge could only be derived from his opponents. In support of this view, we might cite Paul’s rhetorical question “why am I still persecuted if I am still preaching cir cumcision?” (Gal 5:11),which many scholars read as an indication that Paul’sop ponents must have told the Galatians that Paul still taught circumcision (Tyson, “Paul’s Opponents,” 248–49; Jewett, “Agitators,” 208;Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 55; Bruce, Galatians, 236; Betz, Galatians, 268).

There is no significant evidence to suggest that following his conversion Paul ever returned to the practice of Law-observance (Betz, Galatians, 269; Dunn, Galatians, 278–80). Steve Mason raises the possibility that Paul himself had once been a“Judais er.” While we cannot be certain that Paul sought to force Gentile converts to“live like Jews” as he now accuses Peter and the Galatian opponents of doing, it does seem clear that he was (prior to his conversion) involved in the “violent harass ment of Jesus’ followers (Gal 1:13) out of zeal, as he puts it, for the ancestral tra ditions (Gal 1:14)” (Steve Mason, “Jews, Judeans, Judaising, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512). This description of Paul’s pre-conversion activities mirrors the sort of “Judaising” activity attributed to Judas Maccabaeus and Razis in 2 Maccabees (8:1; 14:38), who sought to purge Hellenistic practices from amongst the Judaean population. Paul raises the issue of his former Judaising activity be cause he wants to make the point that “the Judaisers are doing something he has neglected, for the same mindset was part of his background; but he has deliber ately abandoned Judaising for the sake of the Gospel” (Mason, “Jews, Judeans, Judaising, Judaism,” 469). Paul’s narration of his early career does not simply stop at his pre-Christian phase, however; but goes on in precise detail to describe events that followed his conversion. A significant as pect of the Judaisers’ message must have been the record of the events surround ing Paul’s early association with the Jerusalem apostles, Peter, James and John, including the Council at Jerusalem.Why else would Paul report the performances of both the false brothers and Peter in supporting James’ pro-circumcision putsch at Antioch, if their duplicity were not directly related to the current be haviour of the Judaisers at Galatia? (Dunn, Galatians,72–78).

Paul focuses only on the relevant facts. He asserts that he first went to Jerusalem in order to get “ac quainted” with Peter (Gal 1:18), not to be “taught” or “receive” the content of the gospel he preached (1:12) or the “call” to preach it (Gal 1:15–16) (Matera, Galatians, 68–69; Martyn, Galatians,171–72). Both his gospel and his apostolic commission (Gal 1:15) are the products of the revelation (Gal 1:12) he received three years prior to his initial meeting with Cephas and James (Gal 1:15–17) and fourteen years before the council meeting that recognised the legitimacy of his apostleship among the Gentiles (Gal 2:1–10) (John Howard Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, SNTSMS26, 128–58). According to Paul, at some stage after the conference in Jerusalem, Peter came to Antioch,where he joined fully in the social and faith life of the commun ity (2:11–12). However, with the arrival of some people who had been sent as en voys of James from Jerusalem, Peter withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles (2:12). Paul claims that it was fear of the “circumcision party” that led not only Peter, but also Barnabas and all the Jews to separate themselves from the Gentile converts (2:12–13). Infuriated by what he saw as “hypocrisy” on Pe ter’s part, Paul accuses Peter (2:14), a Jew who till the arrival of James’ people lived like a Gentile and not like a Jew, of forcing the Gentile converts at Antioch “to live like Jews.” Paul is determined to set the record straight by explaining what kind of re lationship existed between himself and the Jerusalem triumvirate, James, Cephas, and John. He is resolute in his willingness to demonstrate that no rift exists between him and them and, thus, that the gospel he preaches was not at variance with apostolic teaching. Paul seeks to establish that at the Jerusalem council his gospel was recognised by the “pillars” as divinely authorised (Gal 2:7–9).

Paul asserts that he went to Jerusalem the second time to “present” his gos pel to the Jerusalem apostles, not to seek their approval. Clearly, he is attempting to argue that he did not go to Jerusalem to seek apostolic sanction for his gospel, in the sense of an inferior seeking the blessing of a superior, but merely to pres ent the details of his gospel message,which was to provide the subject for a con versation amongst equals. Moreover, he carefully distinguishes between the leadership at Jerusalem and a faction of “false brothers” at Jerusalem, as well as the “men from James” at Antioch who were the primary cause of trouble in the two conflicts. But Paul also implies that it was as a result of the pressure brought to bear by this “circumcision party” (Gal 2:12) that both James and Peter failed to act in accordance with the “truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:5.14) and it was they who reneged on the agreement reached at Jerusalem.

Jerusalem and Antioch who had similarly challenged the content of his Law-free gospel and his right as an apostle to preach that gospel among the Gentiles. And despite his attempt to drive a wedge between his opponents and the apostolic triumvirate at Jerusalem, and even discredit Peter and James by association, Paul implies wittingly or unwittingly that they all sought to undermine his apostolate by forcing his Gentile converts to accept circumcision and adhere to the Law (Esler, Galatians, 138; Martyn, Galatians, 462–66; Sumney, “Servants of Satan”, 137; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 448–49). It may be true that, in Galatians (2:1–14), Paul attempts to present his rela tionship with the Jerusalem apostles as amicable, accusing the false brothers at Jerusalem and the people from James at Antioch as the real cause of the division. He accuses James of acting with duplicity in sending a del egation to Antioch to undo the agreement forged at Jerusalem. He cites Peter’s hypocrisy in yielding to James’ initiative, despite Peter’s previous acceptance of the mixed table fellowship at Antioch. And, he implicitly groups the “pillars” with the Christian-Jewish missionaries at Galatia, charging them all with seeking to impose circumcision on the Gentiles out of fear of persecution and in the in terests of their own self-aggrandisement. The troublemakers were attempting to “compel” (ἀναγκάζουσιν) the Galatian Gentile converts to submit to circumcision (6:12). Paul was clearly famil iar with these people. He had encountered others from this pro-circumcision putsch elsewhere, as he testifies in his opening biographical comments. He re lates how the “false brothers” at Jerusalem had wanted to have the Gentile Titus “compelled” (ἠναγκάσθη) into submitting to circumcision (2:3). Their aim too had been to both “spy on the liberty we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves” (2:4).

1. Similarly in Antioch some time later, Peter, out of fear of this “circumcision party,” backed a new policy intended to “compel (ἀναγκάζεις) the Gentiles to live like Jews” (2:14). We observe that Paul’s use of the verb ἀναγ κάζω (Gal 2:14) to describe Peter’s actions mirrors both that of the false brothers at Jerusalem and the troublemakers at Galatia.That Jerusalem and its leadership figures in this pro-circumcision putsch can be detected further in Galatians. First, we should note that in Paul’s letters there are a mere ten explicit references to Jerusalem, half of which occur in Galatians (1:17.18; 2:1–2; 4:25.26; cf. Rom 15:19.21.26.31; 1 Cor 16:3). The names of the pre-eminent leaders of the Jer usalem church– Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:9.11.14; cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5) or alternatively Peter (Gal 2:7.8), Jesus’ brother James (Gal 1:19; 2:9.12; cf. 1 Cor 15:7), “brothers of the Lord” (1 Cor 9:5), and John (Gal 2:9)– appear more often in Galatians than any of the other Pauline texts. Similarly, we find Barnabas (2:1.9.13; cf. 1 Cor 9:6; Col 4:10), an erstwhile member of the earliest Jerusalem community (Acts 4:36; 9:27), figuring prominently with the aforementioned Jerusalem trium virate in Paul’s opening autobiographical narrative (Gal 2:1.9.13). Later Jerusalem reappears as a figure of derision “for she and her children are in slavery” to the covenant from Mount Sinai (4:25). This claim echoes Paul’s earlier attack on the false brothers at Jerusalem (2:4), whose attempt to “make us slaves” by imposing circumcision on the Gentiles is later extended to the James party, and then to Peter, Barnabas and the rest at Antioch (2:13), who were attempting to “compel the Gentiles to live like Jews” (2:14).
2. This repeated focus on the apostolic com munity suggests that the spectre of the Jerusalem church and its leadership haunts the pages of this letter like no other in the Pauline corpus. This description of the “Judaising” behaviour of Paul’s opponents is striking, not only because of the parallels Paul draws between the three episodes, but also because it seems to run counter to the overwhelming scholarly consensus that Jews did not actively proselytise Gentiles. Those Gentiles who did become Jewish proselytes tended to have sought out conversion proactively, usually on the basis of close, personal or familial ties with local Jewish communities (Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytising in the Religious History of the Roman Empire, 84–88; Perkins, Abraham’s Divided Children, 13; Nanos, Irony, 117). Martin Good man notes that it was in the interest of Diaspora Jewish communities to encour age Gentile sympathisers whose links with the local synagogues could only lend support to Jews who were often marginalised because of their distinctive cus toms and ethnicity (Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 87–88).
3. Jewish synagogues welcomed Gentile God-fearers without demanding cir cumcision as a condition for attending assembly. God-fearers were embraced by the synagogue, surrendering their worship of idols, giving their children Jewish names, receiving instruction in Torah, observing Jewish Sabbath and Holy days, and even serving as generous patrons without converting and receiving circumcision (Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS n.s. 42 (1991): 532–64). If a male God-fearer wanted to become a Jewish convert, then cir cumcision would be required; but if a Gentile Christian wanted to attend syna gogue, there was no such requirement and no likelihood that they would be co erced into doing so. At Galatia, however, Paul’s rivals appear to have demanded that Gentile converts to the Jesus movement accept the practice of circumcision and complete Law-observance as a requirement for inclusion in the Christian community.We must assume that what we are dealing with here is not a Jewish phenomenon per se, but a Christian Jewish one, which can find no other precedent than those cited by Paul himself and laid at the feet of his opponents at Galatia, as well as in Jerusalem and Antioch previously. The sense that we get from Paul’s narratio that he is dealing with a single group of opponents is further supported by possible recurring echoes throughout the rest of Galatians (Esler, Galatians,138).

When Paul claims that the members of the pro-circumci sion putsch are only acting in the interests of self-aggrandisement (Gal 4:17), he appears to be consciously reiterating the motives he earlier attributed to James, Peter and John, who thought themselves important and reputed pillars of the church (Gal 2:6.9) (C.K. Barrett, “Paul: Councils and Controversies,” in: Con flicts and Challenges in Early Christianity, ed. Donald A. Hagner, 42–74). Barna bas and the Antiochene Jews who defected to the circumcision party under the onslaught of James’ people from Jerusalem. And when he accuses his opponents of preaching circumcision for fear of persecution, he may be alluding to the cow ardice of Peter who abstained from sharing table fellowship with the Gentiles for fear of the circumcision party (Gal 2:12).

Paul seeks to demonstrate that his opponents at Galatia and his adversaries at Jerusalem and Antioch, and possibly also James and Peter, are all of one mind and all have in Paul’s opinion conspired to undermine the truth of the gospel that he preaches. The clear implication here is that the demands of the three groups– the false brothers at Jerusalem, the circumcision group at Antioch and the missionaries at Galatia– were identical (Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 61).