proudfootz
Sorry to deprive you of your terminal "z" in my last post. I didn't catch it until now. Time to reprise my occasional disclaimer:
Disclaimer: it sometimes happens that I misspell a username. If that is the case, then it is unintentional and accidental, even if the misspelling is itself a possibly meaningful string.
Craig
It seems plain that the additional help that James sent to the Antiocih mission while it was in progress, and while Peter was in Antioch and so away from Jerusalem, were Jewish men, who influenced many Jews whom Peter was dealing with. Peter showing "fear" of fellow Jews (not these men specifically) is an interesting image, but then again, many men are swayed by the newcomers' tastes, and there must be Jews who live in Antioch and are looking at the mission, maybe not friendly to it. And, of course, it is Paul, not Peter, who is telling the story, so Peter's mental states are not available to our source, not that Paul would stoop to portray Peter in a bad light or anything.
In any case, Paul left out any inventory of the knives wielded by James' supposed enforcers, so in the absence of coercion, Peter eats where he chooses to eat. Apparently, that's either with Paul, or else with everybody else who's Jewish (including Paul's lieutenant). So, Peter chose, under your theory or any other. And, whether fearful, respectful or merely as a polite concession to his fellow homeland and resident Antiochan Jews, not one of whom except him and Barnabas were party to any "be nice to Gentiles" agreement, Peter had a reason for the choice he made. So what? Don't people usually have reasons for their choices in your experience?
Really? Jews don't eat with Gentiles because Gentiles might serve them
tref, or serve them using vessels that have been used for serving
tref, or what is served has been prepared in the same kitchen as has prepared
tref. The origin of the "observance" may be religious, but eating habits reliably become visceral (duh). Observant Jews don't develop the habit of eating
tref or what
tref might easily have contaminated. The "observance" becomes self enforcing: what turns your stomach reliably inspires you to eat elsewhere. (BTW, just as it's easy for one person to make another person itch or yawn, it is easy to turn another person's stomach, if you know what disgusts them - you don't need a knife or command authority over them. The men from James could have turned a crowd of Jews, Peter included, simply by mentioning that they catch a whiff of pig fat... can't you smell it, too?).
After years of practice, Paul is down with Gentiles, even if they don't wash before meals, never mind the
tref. Peter, with less practice, can by an act of will keep his word. I don't know about Barnabas. Apart from those three, why should
any other Jew suddenly follow suit, swallow the rising puke, and abandon a lifelong habit?
Where is James' opinion in the matter even mentioned by Paul?
As to
Acts 21, you are right that I have many issues with
Acts as purported history. I can still comment on a passage apart from that. How does "they," plural, offering Paul political advice which he accepts become James, singular, telling Paul what to do? And even if Paul did accept James' authority, which I don't see happening here, what has that to do with Peter?
