1

Engendering Gossip in Galatians 2:11-14:

The Social Dynamics of Honor, Shame,
Performance, and Gossip

Daniels, John W. 2017. "Engendering Gossip in Galatians 2:11–14: The Social Dynamics of
Honor, Shame, Performance, and Gossip." Biblical Theology Bulletin 47, no. 3: 171-179.

Letter Writing, Performing, Gossiping, and Meaning-Making

In her new monograph entitled When in Romans, Beverly Gaventa surmises the important

role a woman named Phoebe probably played in the production and initial delivery of Paul’s

letter to Rome. Gaventa suggests that Phoebe was not only the carrier of the letter, but was likely

involved in the shape and direction of the letter’s content; That, Paul probably made sure Phoebe

understood its content, and could effectively re-present it when she read the letter aloud to the

Roman Christians; That, as Phoebe read the letter, she interpreted it, shaping its hearing as she

read – rushing over parts, lingering over others, pausing, etc.; That, Paul discussed with Phoebe

how he wanted her to read it; And, that after it was read, and questions about it percolated among

groups in the congregation, Phoebe was on her own to manage the discussions with the aim of

engendering her own understanding of the letter’s content (Gaventa 2014: 12-14).

What is striking about Gaventa’s description of events is the needed light it shines on

Paul’s epistles as written, oral, and auditory artifacts that generated informal, vigorous, and

sometimes adjudicative discourse about that meaning among believers engaged in face-to-face

conversations. Consideration of the lively, human processes of informal speech and talk about

subjects deemed worthy of such discourse is thus, fruitfully brought to the fore toward

understanding the reception of Paul’s letters among the various groups of believers that received

them.

The epistle to the Galatians, and specifically the Incident at Antioch at Gal 2:11-14, will

be considered under the same light and so, examined as a written (textual), oral (spoken,
 2

performed), and auditory (heard) artifact constituting a complex culturally specific, multi-modal

social-process that is “epistolary gossip” (Cf. Greenwood 1998; Wills 2009). Thus, by looking at

Galatians 2:11-14 through the lens of gossip, I hope to shine some light on Paul’s aim(s) in

recollecting the incident at Antioch – how he gossips about it, why he does it at 2:11-14, and

what risks he takes doing so. To do this, I will apply perspectives emerging from performance

criticism, orality, social semiotics, and honor-shame research, to imagine how Paul, by means of

a surrogate’s performance of the letter to the Galatians, attempts to convey his ideas by asserting

a sign-complex via gossip. Thus, I hope to demonstrate how Gal 2:11-14 is a window onto the

complex intersection between social processes (challenge-riposte) and values (honor-shame),

oral speech (orality, gossip, performance, aurality), and scribal texts (literacy), at the heart of

emerging Christianity.

Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 2:11-14

Paul’s epistle to the Galatians has been fruitfully examined by modern scholars through

the lenses of Greco-Roman rhetoric and epistolography following the lead of Hans Dieter Betz

(Betz 1979). Betz saw the entire epistle as an example of forensic rhetoric, and was thus able to

parse the text into a typical sequence of rhetorical elements (Exordium, Narratio, Propositio,

Probatio, etc.). Some interpreters have followed rhetorical suit examining Galatians as ancient

apologetic but offering divergent outlines of the rhetorical elements of the letter (Hübner 1984),

while others even see multiple rhetorical genres (forensic, deliberative, etc. cf. Kennedy 1984;

Cosgrove 1998; et al) at work in the text, or have combined rhetorical and epistolary analysis’ to

make sense of the epistle.

 3

Others have evaluated Paul’s argument through the social and rhetorical conventions

related to encomium – or, “speech of praise” – to make sense of Paul’s description of himself

from Galatians 1:11-2:21, while utilizing social-scientific approaches to bring the pivotal value

of honor to bear on understanding the dynamics of the incident at Antioch. Indeed, Paul’s

attempt to demonstrate the honorable character of his behavior in comparison to that of Peter’s

has been related to the encomiastic element of comparison (synkrisis; Stewart 2011; Malina and

Pilch 2006). What this project attempts to do is to look at Paul’s turn toward “comparison” at

2:11-14 as epistolary gossiping aimed at not only construing a subject negatively, but also at

engendering negative gossip among the Galatians about both Peter and the “agitators” in their

midst.

Through the Lens of Gossip

Gossip is defined as evaluative speech/talk (either positive or negative) among

individuals or within groups, about an absent third party, in order to construe (or, “re-construe”)

either an event and/or the words and deeds of an absent person/subject – and/or the social

identity of the subject (Daniels 2012; Paine 1967; Gluckman 1963). The subject of gossip can be

either physically absent to and unaware of the talk, or rendered absent by means of physical

posturing, gestures, voice intonation, or grammatically by the use of third person speech. These

aspects of gossiping are typically described in narratives with phrases like “they turned toward

one another,” or “they whispered,” or “they grumbled.” As a social process, gossip has been

observed by anthropologists, and a few NT scholars, playing vital roles enforcing community

values and social scripts, controlling information, and most importantly, constructing social

identity. When something unexpected is said or done, that is, outside the social status quo, gossip
 4

about it serves to both make sense of the strange words and deeds, determining either their value

or deviance, and to (re)assert or (re)imagine the status quo (Gluckman 1963). Moreover, a

gossiper often seeks to control information about a subject, initiating and then controlling the

content of the discussion so that his/her evaluation might be the one that ultimately emerges

among the gossiping group (Paine 1967).

Ancient Greco-Roman texts generally display a common negative appraisal of gossip and

gossiping. Although gossip is generally viewed negatively, ancient comment on such speech

belies the fact that most everyone, everywhere, gossiped, and everybody knew it. Indeed, the

pervasive practice of gossiping is implied in much of the negative description of it. Thus,

Plutarch describes the practice of gossip by using the image of a hopeful cook:

Just as cooks pray for a good crop of young animals and fishermen for a good haul of

fish, in the same way busybodies pray for a good crop of calamities, a good haul of

difficulties, for novelties, and changes, that they, like cooks and fishermen, may always

have something to fish out or butcher. (Moralia 6.519B)

Plutarch even disparages the common discourse among men in ancient barbershops as gossip:

It is not strange that barbers are a talkative clan, for the greatest chatterboxes stream in

and sit in their chairs, so that they are themselves infected with the habit. (Moralia

6.509B)

Likewise, Lucian offers vivid description of malignant social consequences that often result from

gossip:

What I have in mind more than anything else is the slanderous lying about acquaintances

and friends, through which families have been rooted out, cities have utterly perished,

fathers have been driven mad against their children, brothers against own [sic] brothers,
 5

children against their parents and lovers against those they love. Many a friendship, too,

has been parted and many an oath broken through belief in slander. (Calumnia 1)

The philosopher and rhetorician Dio Chrysostom lauds those who resist the lure of being the

center of public attention and gossip:

However, he who has asserted his independence pays no heed to the foolish talk of the

crowd; rather he mocks at their loquacity, having indeed long since said in answer to

them all, I care not; ‘tis as if a woman threw at me, or else some witless lad; for blunt

the missile of a feeble good-for-naught. (Oration 66.23)

Finally, as one would expect, the derision of gossip even makes it into Greco-Roman fiction, as

this example written by Achilles Tatius displays:

Rumour and slander are two kindred furies: Rumour is slander’s daughter. Slander is

sharper than any sword, stronger than fire, more persuasive than a siren; Rumour is more

slippery than water, runs faster than the wind, flies quicker than any winged bird.

(Leucippe and Clitophon 6.10)

The Hebrew Bible’s assessment of gossip is equally negative. Thus, the Hebrew Bible

not only describes gossiping and slander negatively (see Lev 19:16; Ps 50:19-20; 101:5), but

describes Israel’s negative gossiping about YHWH in the wilderness:

But you were unwilling to go up. You rebelled against the command of the Lord your

God; you grumbled in your tents and said, “It is because the Lord hates us that he has

brought us out of the land of Egypt, to hand us over to the Amorites to destroy us.” (Deut

1:26-27; NRSV)

The wisdom writer associates the avoidance of slander and gossip with obedient and successful

living:
 6

The wise of heart will heed commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin. (Prov

10:8; NRSV)

The psalmist imagines the social and emotional pain often associated with those who find

themselves the subject of gossip or slander:

But at my stumbling they gather in glee, they gathered together against me; ruffians

whom I did not know tore at me without ceasing; they impiously mocked more and more,

gnashing at me with their teeth. (Ps 35:15-16; NRSV)

Following the pioneering work of Pieter J.J. Botha and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, gossip in

the New Testament has come under fruitful analysis by biblical scholars. Botha’s work

highlights gossip as a live, human social-process behind the emergence of the Jesus tradition

(Botha 1993, 1998), while Rohrbaugh not only constructs a lexicon of words signaling gossip,

but also identifies types of texts related to it (Rohrbaugh 2001). In light of this research, scholars

have moved beyond simply noticing that, like the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament generally

repudiates such speech (e.g. Romans 1:29-30; 1 Cor 4:12b-13a). Marriane Kartzow notices how

the authors of the Pastoral Epistles associate gossip with female discourse that should be avoided

(1 Tim 5:13; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16; cf. Kartzow 2005, 2009), while Ernest van Eck identifies texts

implying the social-dynamics of gossip behind them (Van Eck 2012). A recent study of John’s

gospel has observed gossip operating often as an honor challenge, that is, public evaluative

speech – mostly negative – intended to be overheard by the subject in front of a “public court of

reputation” (“PCR”), that is, as the first volley in an agonistic challenge-riposte exchange

(Daniels 2013:46-47; cf. Crook 2009 for PCR). Once the challenge is made via gossip, everyone

present – typically a crowd of some kind – awaits a response from the targeted subject, who

either responds successfully, or not. Honor is distributed to the winner of the exchange by the
 7

PCR, and of course, Jesus wins practically every time in the gospels (See Matt 15:21-28 and

parallels for an exception).

Mark’s gospel offers an example of a group gossiping in order to challenge (or counter-

challenge) Jesus’ tacit honor claim when he teaches in the Nazareth synagogue:

“Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What

deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and

brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?”

And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:2b-3; NRSV)

The challenge is implied in the congregants’ discussion among themselves about Jesus, using

third-person speech about him, and amounts to negative gossip raising questions about both the

source of his knowledge, and his lineage. The parallel of this story in Luke is even more

dramatic as Jesus’ deft response to questions about his lineage result in the congregants’ attempt

to kill him – tacit admission of losing a challenge-riposte (Luke 4:16-30).

The “incident at Antioch” contains all of the fundamental elements of gossip. First, it is

evaluative speech – insofar as Paul avers that Peter’s behavior in Antioch was both based on

fear, and hypocritical (2:12-13). Second, the subject – Cephas/Peter – is absent, neither present

with Paul, nor with anyone in Galatia. Third, it is speech between/among a group – in this case,

between Paul and the Galatian Christians who constitute the PCR. Thus, it is understood here

that Paul’s evocation of the Antioch incident constitutes epistolary gossiping on Paul’s part, as

well as an attempt to engender negative gossiping among the Galatians about Peter. What Paul

hopes for is not only that the Galatians negatively construe Peter, but that they (re)construe the

Incident as a victory for Paul, and if a victory for Paul over Peter, then a victory for Paul over the

“agitators” who are convincing the Galatians to circumcise.

 8

Social Semiotics of Communication

Following the work of Gunther Kress (Kress 2010), Holly Hearon has considered the role

multi-modality plays to make meaning, as this relates to the complexities of gossiping (Hearon

2014). Hearon underscores the two stages involved in creating what is called a “sign complex.”

First, a speaker (rhetor) desires, and thus, attempts to engage the world by giving “material

expression” to her/his ideas/interests/intentions. This “material expression” is some form of

communication accomplished through a selection of a particular mode – text or speech – and

employing various “resources” that constitute the modes – grammar, syntax, style and sound,

rhythm, volume, gesture, gaze, et al. All of this culminates in the creation of the sign-complex.

The sign-complex produced by the speaker, is an invitation to auditors to participate in

constructing meaning by interpreting the sign-complex.

In the second stage – the response to the invitation – the auditor often becomes an

interlocutor selecting what s/he thinks most important, and framing that material vis-à-vis her/his

social context and experience, and thus, interpreting it (Hearon: 46-47). Applied to gossip, a

gossiper constructs a sign complex using the modality of speech – incorporating volume, tone,

gesture, and gaze – that invites listeners to evaluate the subject along with the gossiper. Upon

receiving and responding to the prompt, listeners participate with the gossiper in constructing the

subject (the event/individual) by selecting from the original sign complex what they think is

important, then framing those selections in relation to their social context/experiences, thus,

interpreting the complex. In this way, listeners become active participants in the construction of

meaning (evaluation of the subject) along with the gossiper. With his epistle to the Galatians,
 9

Paul chooses multiple modes (a dictated, delivered, and performed letter) to bring “material

expression” to his ideas/intentions in the text. This choice becomes interesting when one

considers how, in antiquity, oral utterances and texts were not clearly distinguished from one

another.

Considering the Incident at Antioch through the lens of social semiotics allows one to

realize the risky terrain Paul is on gossiping (an interesting mode in itself) about Peter the way he

does. For one thing, it is challenge enough to clearly articulate meaning, and evince change in

the behavior of one’s audience by that meaning. The challenges only increase given that the

letter was delivered/performed by Paul’s surrogate, who then had to manage subsequent

deliberation of the letter’s meaning among the Galatians and the agitators, too.

Scribality, Orality, Gossip and Performance

Pieter J.J. Botha has disclosed the importance of understanding “informal

communication” – rumor and gossip – as a vital social-process within the Greco-Roman world,

underscoring how “communication” in antiquity involved “live processes” through and by which

the New Testament texts were produced (Botha 2012). When it comes to Galatians, the

intersection between scribality and orality comes clearly to the fore in the ancient praxis of

performance. Paul probably dictated the epistle to an amenuensis, and coached his deliverer on

how to “read,” or rather, “perform” the missive in front of the Galatian congregations employing

tonal emphasis, pause, facial expression, hand/body gesture, etc. Moreover, the presence of the

letter’s author was understood to be embodied by the reader/performer in such a way that the

audition of the letter implied the authoritative real presence (Botha’s “apostolic parousia”) of the

author (Botha 2012: 208). In other words, written texts were understood as “inscribed orality” in
 10

such a way that the words on the page recorded the very voice of the apostle, who was in that

sense, really present. Thus, both the performance of the letter by the one entrusted to deliver it,

and his/her management of subsequent discussion about the letter’s contents, was paramount in

achieving the desired response hoped for by the author. The importance of the performance is

aptly illustrated in a recent article by Lee Johnson, that not only suggests the practical role of

ancient rhetoric in informing a reader/performer how to deliver a letter’s contents, but creatively

imagines how an author’s surrogate may have actually performed portions of Paul’s second letter

to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:5, 13-15; 12:1-10; Johnson 2017).

Interestingly, gossiping can be understood as a social process of performance as social

scientists have identified the uniform structure of such speech (cf. Eder and Enke 1991; Eggins

and Slade 1997; Goodwin 1980, 1982). Gossip follows a learned, social-semiotic script/structure

that participants engage in to make sense out of events and individuals that warrant such talk

(Eder and Enke: 495). This script has been examined by sociologists as including elements

pertaining to the gossiper, and those engaging in the discourse.

[Insert graphic here]

As the figure above illustrates, gossip is a process involving a number of persons in a complex

process of speech that, although scripted, is substantially uncontrolled as participants engage in

the lively, adjudicative discourse. The various elements of gossip discourse – “target

identification,” “explanation” and “expansion” of events, and “exaggerated effect” (name calling

or cursing), etc. – are what work together to process an evaluation of the target. The research

also notices a usually fixed order, or, “who-speaks-and-when” in a gossip event, and the

occasional emergence of competing interpretations of the subject in the midst of the discourse

that result in divisions within the gossiping group. When this occurs, the outcome of the
 11

discourse – the ultimate interpretation of the sign-complex by the gossiping group – often does

not match the intent of the one who initiated the gossip in the first place, and so reflects the

failure of the initial gossiper to control information (Eder and Enke: 495). The variety of

potential responses to the gossiper’s invitation to the listeners to engage in gossiping underscores

the complexities of this discursive social process toward eliciting a social identity of the subject.

In many cases, control of such discourse is difficult to master so that the original intent of the

one initiating the process – her/his intended construal of the subject (information control) – is

certainly not guaranteed. With respect to Galatians, this accentuates the importance of

subsequent discussion about the letter’s content that would have followed the performance of the

letter to the congregations, and thus, the considerable task entrusted to Paul’s surrogate to ensure

a desirable response. Paul’s surrogate was not only responsible for delivering a convincing

performance, but for initiating, engaging in, and engendering gossip as well.

Gossip research bears out a number of points pertinent to evaluating Paul’s epistolary

gossip via a surrogate from a distance. Because of gossip’s socially scripted/structured nature,

participants know when it is appropriate to gossip, and of course, how to begin doing it, and

without having to explicitly articulate that “we are gossiping now.” Paul’s surrogate would have

initiated the gossiping by performing the target identification, and relying on the auditors to

recognize the invitation (prompt) accompanying the initial evaluation (gesture, gaze, tone), and

thus, to begin construing the subject along with Paul. Once initiated, the gossip event would

move naturally through the various stages, or elements of the discourse, until a final “summary

evaluation” is reached by the gossiping group. Of course, it is also possible – as some biblical

texts in the gospels demonstrate – that a unanimous evaluation of a target cannot be reached,

resulting in a breakdown in social relations:

 12

Again the Jews were divided because of these words. Many of them were saying, “He

has a demon and is out of his mind. Why listen to him?” Others were saying, “These are

not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (John

10:19-21; NRSV)

In Galatians, there are no explicit indicators given of any results of the reception of the epistle,

let alone Paul’s epistolary gossiping – how the Galatians construed Paul or Peter, or if they were

“divided” between Peter (and the “agitators”) or Paul – so that any results must be implied. That

said, what is clear is that what we have at Galatians 2:11-14 is not the final word or the final

evaluation of Peter by the Galatian Christians. Paul’s recollection of the Incident is only the

beginning of a considerably complex social process that Paul, via his surrogate, hoped to initiate

among the Galatians.

Throwing Peter Under the Bus

What precedes Paul’s recollection of the incident at Antioch, is a description of his own

life both before and after his apocalypsis of Jesus, and specifically, as Zeba Crook has noticed, in

the pattern of “patronal synkrisis” (Crook 2004a&b). In other words, Paul’s description of his

life from 1:11-2:10, before and after his apocalypsis, underscores how his life, catalyzed by the

benefactions of his patron, changed from a persecutor of the Church to a proclaimer of Christ

crucified. Thus, Paul outlines his honorable pattern of living and speaking both in line with and

honoring his patron, the God and Father of Jesus Christ, before turning to the Incident.

Paul prepares his audience for gossiping by dropping evaluative hints regarding “those of

seeming repute” or “apparent standing” in Jerusalem at 2:2 and 2:6 (dokeō) – leaders whose

standing, or “honor status,” within the community “makes no difference” to Paul. At 2:9, Paul
 13

identifies Peter, along with James and John, as “those apparent (seeming to be) pillars”

(stuloicf. “Men of Name” 1QM2:6; Martyn 1997: 191). It is significant to notice Paul’s

attention to social standing, or social identity when recalling his Jerusalem visit. By describing

those with whom he met as “seeming” to be leaders, or even pillars – in terms of their publicly

processed reputation – Paul may be aiming at not only undercutting their “apparent” social

identity and standing in the eyes of the Galatians, but also at preparing the Galatians for the

direct comparison, via gossip, between himself and Peter.

After preparing his audience, Paul signals his audience that he is gossiping by identifying

the target – “But when Peter came to Antioch…” (2:11a). The literary cue that Paul is gossiping

– perhaps performed with hand gestures, tone, and/or facial expression by Paul’s surrogate – may

be the use of “but when” (hote de) to transition from the three previous autobiographical

episodes introduced with the adverb “then” (epeita1:18, 21; 2:1), to the recollection of the

incident. A number of interpreters recognize a break, or at least a “note of discontinuity” that is

struck by the expression “but when” (Martyn 231; cf. Dunn 1993, 116; Bruce 128; Longenecker

63-64, et al). Then Paul evaluates the target as “standing condemned” which necessitated Paul’s

“in your face” opposition to Peter (2:11b). Although Paul’s evaluation of Peter as “standing

condemned” has been unpacked by many, it suffices to note that the initial evaluation of his

target is negative, with the detail of “opposing” Peter “to his face” implying an agonistic

confrontation, anticipating the challenge-riposte scenario that eventually emerges in his telling.

Next, Paul explains how Peter “used to eat with Gentiles” until people from James

arrived, at which point Peter withdrew. Adding a touch of exaggerated affect, Paul surmises that

it was out of fear “of the circumcised” (those who came from James) that Peter withdrew from

table fellowship. So, Paul grounds Peter’s actions in what may be described as a cardinal vice
 14

since fear (phobeomai; Gal 2:12) is the opposite of courage – one of the “four cardinal virtues”

of the ancient world (Plato, Leges 1.631c; Phaedo 69b).

Adding further exaggerated affect, Peter’s action of withdrawing from table fellowship is

labelled as hypocrisy (2:13) that even led other Judeans, including Barnabas, to withdraw. The

charge of “hypocrisy” (hupokrisis), that is, “posturing and play acting” for appearances, amounts

to labelling Peter’s behavior, and thus Peter, as “deviant,” given that one of the highest virtues

was “integral righteousness” wherein one’s behavior accurately reflected one’s heart. Therefore,

Peter’s behavior did not reflect his heart, or what he knew to be, according to Paul, the “truth of

the Gospel.”

The description of Paul’s face-to-face opposition to Peter at Antioch at 2:14, is a classic

challenge-riposte scenario. Paul aggressively and publicly confronts Peter, exclaiming how he so

radically changed his behavior from being “in line with the Gospel” – that is, a Jew, living like a

Gentile and not like a Jew – to compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews in order to maintain

table fellowship between Gentiles and Jews. Of course, Peter has no voice in Paul’s telling of it,

and so its impossible to know exactly how he responded, to the challenge. Nevertheless, most

interpreters suspect Peter’s response was adequate enough in the eyes of Antioch’s PCR since

Paul is silent on the outcome of the challenge-riposte. Since silence in such exchanges implies

one has lost the challenge, it is ironic that Paul renders himself silent by his own recollection of a

challenge he initiated as he never finishes the story. In any event, it is hard to imagine that the

Galatian auditors of the letter, and the “agitators” with them, did not recognize the telling of this

very public, agonistic challenge as a challenge to what was going on in their congregations.
 15

Why Risk Gossiping in the First Place?

The recollection of the incident via challenging gossip is not without considerable risk.

At stake are not only the Galatians’ freedom, but Paul’s reputation, too. It is risky business

because, on the one hand, Paul is absent and so reliant on both his surrogate’s convincing

performance and adroit management of subsequent discussion, while on the other hand, the

“agitators” are present to engage in their own information control to counter the absent Paul’s

gossip with their own interpretation of the sign-complex. Indeed, Paul risks both the mis-

construal of his message, and his own standing in the community by recalling the incident as he

does. Moreover, it is probable that the Galatians had already heard, via the rumour and gossip

network, about Paul’s loss in Antioch and the victory of the “Judaizers” there, as did the

“agitators” too, who would have utilized the information in their favor. In this scenario, Paul’s

surrogate has a very tall order to fulfill.

If the odds were already so stacked against the successful reception of the letter, why

does Paul risk “epistolary gossiping” at a distance via a surrogate in the first place? A number of

possibilities are plausible. First, perhaps Paul intended the gossip about Peter as a public

challenge targeting the “agitators” present in the audience, and this, in front of the Galatian PCR.

In this scenario, Paul hopes to engender negative gossip about Peter and his inconsistent

behavior in order to convince the Galatians to reassess the outcome in Antioch as a victory for

Paul, and so reassess the “agitators’” instructions that they should circumcise. The evaluation of

Peter’s character and behavior is negative as the gossip constructs him as fearful, operating on a

cardinal vice, afraid of losing his standing/status before those who came from James. In Paul’s

telling, Peter is a “hypocrite,” and so, behaves inconsistently – contrary to what he knows to be

true, and even leads others to the same. Thus, Paul’s gossip invites the Galatians to imagine Peter
 16

wrongly seeking to compel the Gentiles to Judaize – just like the “agitators” in Galatia. Of

course, if, as it is likely, the “agitators” were there in the audience, their influential presence

would have been a difficult hurdle for Paul’s surrogate to overcome – s/he would have had a

tough row to hoe convincing the Galatians of anything.

Another plausible reason for the epistolary gossiping may be that Paul was already

looking beyond an expected, imminent defeat in Galatia, and focusing his challenge directly at

the “seeming to be pillars” in Jerusalem – James, Peter, and John (2:9). If correct, this scenario

sheds further light on Paul’s rather agonistic description of the pillar apostles’ “seeming

repute” at 2:2 and 2:9. Although, no one to my knowledge, has yet formally published

extensively on the subject of Paul’s loss of the Galatian churches, Mark Goodacre and Philip

Harland have generated compelling discussion about the possibility in the blogosphere over the

last decade (Goodacre 2006; Harland 2006). In this scenario, Paul would have been relying on

the gossip and rumour network to eventually deliver his derogation of Peter’s behavior – no

doubt, along with the news of the “agitators’” victory in Galatia – to the Jerusalem church. Not

only would the spread of such gossip be considered aggressive, but it would stand as a public

challenge waiting for a response by the pillars. Such aggressive gossiping may be seen as the

Apostle snubbing his nose at the “seeming to be pillars” before intently turning his missionary

gaze westward toward Rome and eventually Spain, further from the oversight of the home

church (Dunn 1983: 39).

In any event, we cannot know with certainty how the Galatians responded to Paul’s

mediated evaluation of Peter, let alone their reception of the entire epistle. However, what we

can know with some certainty is that the epistolary gossip at Galatians 2:11-14 only initiated a

complex social discourse process among the Galatians, and thus in no way reflects how the
 17

evaluation of Peter or his behavior in Antioch finally shook down among the Galatian

congregations. Thus, Paul’s remembrance of the incident as epistolary gossiping discloses the

social dynamics behind the incident, the telling/performance of the incident in Galatians, and the

interpretation via lively social discourse among the Galatians that followed. Considering the

multiple modalities put in play toward ultimately constructing the sign complex for the Galatians

to interpret, allows one to see the recollection of the Incident at Antioch as a written, oral, and

auditory artifact constituting a complex, multi-modal, culturally specific, social-process

accentuating the live, human practices of speech and talk that often have very real social

consequences.

WORKS CITED

Betz, Hans D. 1979. Galatians. Hermenia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Bruce, F. F. 1982. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Eerdmans:
Paternoster.

Botha, Pieter J.J. 1993. “The Social Dynamics of the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition.”
Neotestamentica 27, 205-31.

Botha, Pieter J.J. 1998. “Paul and Gossip: A Social Mechanism in the Early Christian
Communities.” Neotestamentica 32, 267-88.

Botha, Pieter J.J. 2012. Orality and Literacy in Early Christianity. Biblical Performance
Criticism 5. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

Cosgrove, C. H. 1998. “Arguing like a Mere Human Being: Galatians 3:15-18 in Rhetorical
Perspective.” NTS 34.4, 536-549.

Crook, Zeba A. 2004a. Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in

the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. De Gruyter, Berlin.

Crook, Zeba A. 2004b. “BTB Readers Guide: Loyalty.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 34(4),
167−177.
 18

Crook, Zeba A. 2009. "Honor, shame, and social status revisited." Journal Of Biblical Literature
128, no. 3: 591-611.

Daniels, John W. 2012. “Readers Guide – Gossip in the New Testament.” Biblical Theological
Bulletin 42(4), 204-13.

Daniels, John W. 2013. Gossiping Jesus: The Oral Processing of Jesus in John’s Gospel.
Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.

Dunn, James D G. 1983. "The incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-18)." Journal for The Study Of The
New Testament 18, 3-57.

Dunn, James D G. 1993. The Epistle to the Galatians. London: Hendrickson.

Eder, Donna, Jannet L. Enke. 1991. “The Structure of Gossip: Opportunities and Constraints on
Collective Expression Among Adolescents.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 61,
494-508.

Eggins, S., & D. Slade. 1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.

Esler, Philip F. 1998. Galatians. London: Routledge.

Gaventa, Beverly R. 2014. When in Romans: An Invitation to Linger with the Gospel according
to Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Gluckman, Max. 1963. “Gossip and Scandal.” Current Anthropology 4, 307-16.

Goodacre, Mark. 2006. “Paul’s Loss of Galatia II,” The NT Blog, October 27, 2006,
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/pauls-loss-of-galatia-ii.html

Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1980. “He-Said-She-Said: Formal Cultural Procedures for the

Construction of a Gossip Dispute Activity.” American Ethnologist 7, 674-95.

Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1982. “Processes of Dispute Management Among Urban Black Children.”
American Ethnologist 9, 76-96.

Greenwood, A. 1998. “Martial, Gossip, and the Language of Rumour.” Toto Notus in Orbe:
Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation. Palingenesia 65. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Harland, Philip A. 2006. “Paul and the situation at Galatia – again (NT 2.9),” Religions of the
Ancient Mediterranean (blog), October 27, 2006,
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2006/03/11/paul-the-galatians-and-circumcision-nt-
6/

Hearon, Holly. 2014. “A Social Scientific Multi-Modal Approach to Communication Practices in

Early Christianity.” Journal of Early Christian History 41, no. 1: 44-67.
 19

Hübner, H. 1984. “Der Galaterbrief und das Verhältnis von antiker Rhetorik und
Epistolographie.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 109.4, 241-250.

Johnson, Lee A. 2017. "Paul's Letters Reheard: A Performance-Critical Examination of the

Preparation, Transportation, and Delivery of Paul's Correspondence." Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 79, no. 1: 60-76.

Kartzow, Marianne B. “Female Gossipers and Their Reputation in the Pastoral Epistles.”
Neotestamentica 39 (2005) 255-72.

Kartzow, Marianne B. Gossip and Gender: Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2009.

Kennedy, George. 1984. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary

Communication. London: Routledge.

Longenecker, Richard N. 1990. Galatians. Dallas, TX: Word Books.

Malina, Bruce, John Pilch. 2006. Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Martyn, J. Louis. 1997. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New
York: Doubleday.

Paine, Robert. 1967. “What is Gossip? An Alternative Hypothesis.” Man, 2, 278-85.

Rohrbaugh, Richard L. 2001. “Gossip in the New Testament.” Pp. 239-59 in Social Scientific
Models for Interpreting the Bible, edited by John J. Pilch. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature.

Stewart, Eric. 2011. “I’m okay, you’re not okay: Constancy of character and Paul’s
understanding of change in his own and Peter’s behavior.” HTS Teologiese Studies 67.3.
DOI: 10.4102/hts.v67i3.1002

Van Eck, Ernest. 2012. “Invitations and Excuses that are not Invitations and Excuses:
Gossip in Luke 14:18-20.” HTS Teologiese Studies 68.1.

Wills, Gary. 2009. Martial’s Epigrams: A Selection. New York: Penguin Books.
 20

Gossiper Identifies Target (Subject)

Gossiper expands on Gossiper evaluates target Gossiper clarifies target

identifying target identification if necessary

Listener Listener Listener Listener Listener Listener

requests for explanation support of expansion of exaggerated challenges to
clarification initial evaluation affect initial
evaluation evaluation

Summary of evaluation

(Adapted from Eder and Enke, 499)