GALATIANS 2:8 AND THE QUESTION OF PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP

It has often been noted that Gal 2:8 ( ) refers to Peter's missionary activity as an "apostleship" or "apostolate" () but does not explicidy apply the same label to 1 that of Paul. The omission is indeed surprising, given Paul's vehement insistence on his 2 own apostolic status earlier in the Galatian letter (1:1) and his references elsewhere to his mission as an "apostleship" (, Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 9:2). Thus, many scholars have assumed that the wording of the latter part of the verse ( ) is to be seen as an ellipsis"an abbreviated form of speech which would be understood by Paul's readers to explicidy attribute apostleship to Paul as well as Peter." 3 Ernest De Witt Burton, for example, asserts that " is manifestly a condensed expression equivalent to , or the like, used for brevity's sake or through negligence."4 To support this latter interpretation of Gal 2:8, the ellipsis in the verse immedi ately preceding (v. 7) is sometimes cited as a parallel. Thus, for example, Frank J. Matera insists: The omission of "apostleship" here [in v. 8] does not mean that Paul has an inferior position vis vis Peter. Rather, there is a balance in the use of ellipsis in this and the preceding verse: Paul entrusted with the gospel to the uncir-

1 E.g., Hans Dieter Betz, A Commentary on Paul's Ijetter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 98: "Most surprisingly, the statement does not contain the parallel notion of Paul's 'apostolate of the Gentiles' ( )." 2 See also Gal 1:17; 1 Thess 2:6; 1 Cor 1:1; 4:9; 9:1-2, 5; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; 11:5; 12:11-12; Rom 1:1; 11:13. 3 Bradley . McLean, "Galatians 2.7-9 and the Recognition of Paul's Apostolic Status at the Jerusalem Conference: A Critique of G. Luedemann's Solution," NTS 37 (1991): 68-70 (quotation from p. 70). Heinrich Schlier (Der Brie) an die Galater: bersetzt und erklrt [14th ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971], 78 n. 2) and Franz Mussner (Der Galaterbrief: Auslegung [HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974], 116 n. 91) see this as an example of a construction known as comparatio compendiaria; on this, see, e.g., Eduard Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft; Munich: Beck, 1950-71), 2:99 n. 1; and BDF 479,483. 4 Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1921), 94.

323

324

Journal of Biblical

Literature

cumcised, Peter to the circumcised; Peter entrusted with apostleship to the 5 circumcised, Paul to the uncircumcised. Similarly, Richard B. Hays maintains that "the non-repetition of'apostleship' in v. 8 is no 6 more significant than the non-repetition of'gospel' in v. 7." A close reading of w. 7 and 8, however, discloses that there is no real parallel in the syntax of the two verses. The relevant portion of v. 7 ( ) is carefully crafted in such a way as to leave no doubt regarding either the meaning of the statement or, indeed, the actual wording to be supplied. The parallel genitives ( and ) make it clear that the words to be supplied (following ) are (paral lel to in the earlier part of the clause). Insertion of the miss ing words in no way disturbs the syntax of the sentence, and no further alteration is required. The resulting sense of the entire clause is then obvious: . Such, however, is not the case with v. 8. In the first part of the verse ( ), it is clear that (accusative case) is the object of the preposition and that (genitive case) is related to in some kind of descriptive way (e.g., "apostleship of the circumcision," "apostleship to the circumcision," "apostleship for the circumcision"). Thus, a literal translation of these words reads, "For the one who worked in Peter for an apostleship of the circumcision . . . ." The second part of the verse ( ), however, not only omits but also has the preposition followed immedi ately by . Because is in the accusative case, it (not an implied ) would appear to be the object of the preposition , which is regularly followed by the accusative case. Thus, there is no syntactical parallelism between (genitive case) and (accusative case) in v. 8, as there is between and (both in the genitive case) in v. 7. Indeed, rendering as "he worked also in me for an apostleship of the Gentiles" would require not only supplying the word but also changing the accusative to the genitive . In short, although it is clear that is to be repeated in v. 7, it is by no means self-evident that is similarly to be repeated in v. 8. The latter part of v. 8 may indeed be an ellipsis, but, if so, neither the meaning nor the wording to be supplied is obvious. A literal translation reads simply, "he worked also in me for the Gentiles";7 anything beyond this is pure speculation. The verse immediately following Gal 2:8 also contains an ellipsis (' ); thus, one might argue that the presence of ellipses in both v. 7 and v. 9 strengthens the case for such an ellipsis also in v. 8. The claim that v. 8 is syntactically parallel to v. 9, however, is even less convincing than that involving v. 7.
5

Frank J. Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, Michael Glazier, 1992), 77. 6 Richard B. Hays, "The Letter to the Galatians," NIB 11:226. 7 Thus, Betz, for example, says: "The difference is that only Peter's mission is called 'aposto late' () while Paul's mission is not given a specific name" (Commentary on Paul's Letterio the Churches in Galatia, 98).

Ctical

Notes

325

As in the case of v. 7, the phrasing in v. 9 makes clear both the meaning of the statement and, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent, the wording to be supplied. A verb must be understood in both members of the clausepresumably the same verb.8 The sense of the entire clause then becomes clear: (or perhaps ) (or perhaps ) . Again, as in v. 7, no alteration has been required except insertion (twice) of the missing word. As has already been noted, however, such is not the case if v. 8 is to be seen as an ellipsis affirming Paul's apostolic status; there, both the insertion of a word and a change in case are required. In short, neither v. 7 nor v. 9 provides an apt parallel for the alleged ellipsis in v. 8. There are, in fact, a number of other ellipses in Paul's letter to the Galatians, and in every case, as far as I can ascertain, it is necessary only to supply the missing word or words to make clear the meaning of the statement; no other alteration is needed. Thus, for example, Gal 1:12 reads, , ' . Here, as Burton notes, "a verb such as is suggested by and is of necessity to be supplied in thought with 9 ' ," but no further alteration is required. Similarly, Gal 2:10immedi ately following the ellipsis already noted in v. 9reads, ' , . Here, Burton notes that " or some similar verb might be supplied," 1 0 but, once again, no further alteration is required. Further, Gal 3:5 reads, , ; here, a verb such as is suggested by the participles and is to be supplied in the second clause of the sentence, but no further alteration is needed. Other examples include Gal 2:4, where a verb is needed before ; Gal 3:19, where a verb is needed in the question, ; Gal 4:12, where a form of the verb is implied before ; Gal 4:23, where the verb is to be repeated in the second clause of the sentence; and Gal 5:13, where a verb is needed in the clause . In none of these examples, however, is any further alteration of the sentence required. Thus, at least in his Galatian letter, Paul appears to be consistent in his construction of ellipses: in order to make the meaning clear, one need only supply the missing word or words. 11 As has been noted, however, such is not the case if Gal 2:8 is to be read as an ellipsis asserting (or implying) Paul's apostleship. This would require both the insertion of a word () after the preposition and changing the accusative to the genitive . If the author of Gal 2:8 had in fact wished to make it clear that Paul's missionary See, e.g., Burton, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 96: "A verb such as or is to be supplied in thefirstpart, and a corresponding predicate for in the second part." 9 Ibid., 4L 10 Ibid., 99. 11 A rather cursory examination of ellipses in the other Pauline letters suggests the same con clusion; see, e.g., Rom 5:3, 11, 18; 8:23; 9:6, 10; 12:1; 13:11; 14:21; 2 Cor 1:24; 3:5; 5:13; 8:19; 9:6; 10:16; Phil 1:28; 3:13.
8

326

Journal of Biblical Literature

activity, like that of Peter, was an "apostleship" (), the verse could easily have been worded in such a way as to accomplish this. Given Paul's insistence elsewhere on his own apostolic status, one might expect that the relevant clause would simply spell this out, fully and explicitly: . If, however, for stylistic or other reasons, an ellipsis were preferred, it could have read, (genitive rather than accusative case, with the words to be understood between and ); in such case, Gal 2:8 would have been syntactically parallel to v. 7. In either case, the meaning would have been clear, and Paul's "apostleship," like that of Peter, would have been specifiedmore explicitly in the former instance, but nonetheless unambiguously in the latter. Neither of these alter natives was followed, however. Thus, as the wording stands, only two possible conclusions appear warranted. The 12 first is that the composition here is simply incredibly sloppy that, although the intended sense is indeed ), the last two words have been drawn into the accusative case because they come immediately after , which regularly takes the accusative for its object. This, of course, is conceivable. One must then ask, however, why it is that is not similarly drawn into the accusative case ( ) following the implied verb in v. 7. The other possibility is that, for whatever reason, Gal 2:8 (like the book of Acts) 13 intentionally refrains from claiming apostolic status for Paul. Thus, some commentators believe that Paul deliberately omitted the second perhaps because he was echoing or even quoting the wording of an agreement between him and the Jerusalem leaders "in which the term 'apostleship' was deliberately withheld from the description of Paul's missionary work."14 In short, because Paul's primary goal in Gal 2:1-10 is sim ply to claim apostolic support for his Gentile mission, he "could have thought it wiser to cite [the earlier agreement] without comment, since all that he meant and claimed by 'apostleship' had been agreed to in effect, whether or not the title itself had been used." 15 My own judgment, however, is that, for reasons already noted, Paul would have been highly unlikely to characterize Peter's missionary activity as an "apostleship" () without applying the same label to his owneven if this did reflect the lanSee the phrase "through negligence" in the quotation from Ernest De Witt Burton above. Except in Acts 14:4,14, where both Barnabas and Paul are called "apostles" (). 14 James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; London: Black, 1993), 107. See, e.g., Erich Dinkier, "Der Brief an die Galater: Zum Kommentar von Heinrich Schlier," VF 1-3 (1953-55): 182-83, reprinted with "Nachtrag" in his Signum Crucis: Aufstze zum Neuen Testament und zur Christlichen Archologie (Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1967), 278-82; idem, "Die Petrus-Rom-Frage: Ein Forschungsbericht," TRu n.s. 25 (1959): 197-98; Gnter Klein, "Galater 2,6-9 und die Geschichte der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde," ZTK 57 (1960): 282-83, reprinted in his Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufstze zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1969), 106-7; and Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater: bersetzt und erklrt (KEK 7; 12th ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 77 n. 2. See also, e.g., Gerd Luedemann (Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology [trans. F. Stanley Jones; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 64-80), who argues that Gal 2:7-8 reflects the wording of an agreement reached at Paul's first visit to Jerusalem (prior to the "Jerusalem Conference"). 15 Dunn, Epistle to the Galatians, 107.
13 12

Critical Notes

327

guage of an agreement between him and the Jerusalem "pillars." Furthermore, it is by no means clear that Paul would have regarded himself as bound by the specific wording of such an agreementparticularly when writing to the Christians in Galatia, which is rather far removed from Jerusalem. This, of course, opens up the possibility that Paul himself may not have included 2:8 in his letter to the Galatians. Thus, more than seventy years ago, Ernst Barnikol argued that the verse should be viewed as part of a later, non-Pauline interpolation.16 My own judgment is that Barnikol is correct, but this is the subject of another study.17 For the moment, suffice it to note that Gal 2:8 does not attribute apostolic status to Paul, as it explicidy does to Peter, and, in a letter attributed to Paul, this must be seen as quite surprising. William O. Walker, Jr. wwalker@ trinity. edu Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212 Ernst Barnikol, Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung des Parallelismus der Apostel Petrus und Paulus (Galater 2 7-8) (Forschungen zur Entstehung des Urchristentums, des Neuen Testaments und der Kirche 5; Kiel: Mhlau, 1931), translated into English by Darrell J. Doughty with B. Keith Brewer as "The Non-Pauline Origin of the Parallelism of the Apostles Peter and Paul: Galatians 2:7-8," Journal of Higher Criticism 5 (1998): 285-300. According to Barnikol, the interpolation consists of v. 7b (beginning with ) and v. 8. 17 See William O. Walker, Jr., "Galatians 2:7b-8 as Non-Pauline Interpolation," CBQ 65 (2003): 568-37.
16

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.