question of paul's apostleship

7/31/2019 Question of Paul's Apostleship

1/6

GALATIANS 2:8 AND THE QUESTION

OF PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP

It has often been noted that Gal 2:8 (

) refers to Peter's missionary activityas an

"apostleship" or"apostolate" () but does not explicidy apply the same label to

that ofPaul.1

The omission is indeed surprising, given Paul's vehement insistence on his

own apostolic status earlier in the Galatian letter (1:1)2and his references elsewhere to

his mission as an "apostleship" (, Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 9:2). Thus, many scholars

have assumed that the wording ofthe latter part ofthe verse (

) is to be seen as an ellipsis"an abbreviated form ofspeech which would be

understood byPaul's readers to explicidyattribute apostleship to Paul as well as Peter."3

Ernest De Witt Burton, forexample, asserts that " is manifestlya condensedexpression equivalent to , or the like, used forbrevity's sake or

through negligence."4

To support this latterinterpretation ofGal 2:8, the ellipsis in the verse immedi

atelypreceding (v. 7) is sometimes cited as a parallel. Thus, forexample, FrankJ. Mat-

era insists:

Th e omission of"apostleship" here [in v. 8] does not mean that Paul has an

inferiorposition 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-

1E.g., Hans Dieter Betz, A Commentary on Paul's Ijetter to the Churches in Galatia (He

meneia; 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 Cor1:1; 4:9; 9:1-2, 5; 15:9; 2 Cor1:1; 11:5; 12:11-12; Rom1:1; 11:13.

3

Bradley. McLean, "Galatians 2.7-9 and the Recognition ofPaul's Apostolic Status at theJerusalem Conference: ACritique ofG. Luedemann's Solution," NTS37 (1991): 68-70 (quotation

from p. 70). Heinrich Schlier(Der Brie) an die Galater: bersetzt underklrt[14th ed.; GttingeVandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971], 78 n. 2) and Franz Mussner (DerGalaterbrief: Auslegung[HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder 1974] 116 n 91) see this as an example of a construction known as


2/6

324 Journal of Biblical Literature

cumcised, Peterto the circumcised; Peter entrusted with apostleship to the

circumcised, Paul to the uncircumcised.5

Similarly, Richard B. Hays maintains that "the non-repetition of'apostleship' in v. 8 is nomore significant than the non-repetition of'gospel' in v. 7."

6

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 ofv. 7 (

) is carefully crafted in such a way as to leave

no doubt regarding either the meaning ofthe 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 ofthe clause). Insertion ofthe miss

ing words in no way disturbs the syntax of the sentence, and no further alteration isrequired. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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

northe 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 immediatelyfollowing Gal 2:8 also contains an ellipsis ('

); thus, one might argue that the presence ofellipses 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.


3/6

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, neitherv. 7 norv. 9 provides an apt parallel for the alleged ellipsis

in v. 8.

There are, in fact, a number of otherellipses in Paul's letter to the Galatians, and in

everycase, as far as I can ascertain, it is necessary only to supply the missing word orwords to make clear the meaning ofthe 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 th e 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 ofthe 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 ofthe sentence required. Thus, at least in his Galatian letter, Paulappears 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

8

See, e.g., Burton, CriticalandExegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 9"Averb such as or is to be supplied in thefirstpart, and a corresponding

di t f i th d t "


4/6

326 Journal ofBiblical Literature

activity, like that ofPeter, 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 spellthis out, fullyand explicitly: . If, however,

for stylistic orother 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 ofPeter, 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. Thefirst is that the composition here is simply incredibly sloppy

1 2that, 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 bookofActs)13

intentionally refrains from claiming apostolic status forPaul. Thus, some commentators

believe that Paul deliberately omitted the second perhaps because he wasechoing oreven quoting the wording ofan 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 wiserto

cite [the earlier agreement] without comment, since all that he meant and claimed by

'apostleship' had been agreed to in effect, whether ornot the title itselfhad been

used."15

My own judgment, however, is that, forreasons 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 lan-

1 2See the phrase "through negligence" in the quotation from Ernest De Witt Burton above.

1 3Except in Acts 14:4,14, where both Barnabas and Paul are called "apostles" ().

1 4James 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," VF1-3(1953-55): 182-83, reprinted with "Nachtrag" in his Signum Crucis: Aufstze zum Neuen Testa-ment undzurChristlichen Archologie (Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1967), 278-82; idem, "DiePetrus-Rom-Frage: Ein Forschungsbericht," TRu n.s. 25 (1959): 197-98; Gnter Klein, "Galater

2,6-9 und die Geschichte der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde," ZTK57 (1960): 282-83, reprinted in his


5/6

CriticalNotes 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

16Ernst Barnikol, Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung des Parallelismus der Apostel Petrus

Paulus (Galater 2 7-8) (Forschungen zur Entstehung des Urchristentums, des Neuen Testamentsund der Kirche 5; Kiel: Mhlau, 1931), translated into English by Darrell J. Doughty with B.KeithBrewer as "The Non-Pauline Origin of the Parallelism of the Apostles Peter and Paul: Galatians

2:7-8," Journal ofHigher Criticism 5 (1998): 285-300. According to Barnikol, the interpolationconsists of v. 7b (beginning with ) and v. 8.

17

See William O. Walker, Jr., "Galatians 2:7b-8 as Non-Pauline Interpolation," CBQ65(2003): 568-37.


6/6

^ 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 thecopyright 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 previouslypublished 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

question of paul's apostleship

Documents