Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

GALATIANS 2:8 AND THE QUESTION
OF PAUL’S APOSTLESHIP
It has often been noted that Gal 2:8 (oj ga;r eJnerghvsa" Pevtrw/ eij" ajpostolh;n th'"
peritomh'" ejnhvrghsen kai; ejmoi; eij" ta; e[qnh) refers to Peter’s missionary activity as an
“apostleship” or “apostolate” (ajpostolhv) but does not explicitly apply the same label to
that of Paul. 1 The omission is indeed surprising, given Paul’s vehement insistence on his
own apostolic status earlier in the Galatian letter (1:1) 2 and his references elsewhere to
his mission as an “apostleship” (ajpostolhv, Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 9:2). Thus, many scholars
have assumed that the wording of the latter part of the verse (ejnhvrghsen kai; ejmoi; eij" ta;
e[qnh) is to be seen as an ellipsis—“an abbreviated form of speech which would be
understood by Paul’s readers to explicitly attribute apostleship to Paul as well as Peter.” 3
Ernest De Witt Burton, for example, asserts that “eij" ta; e[qnh is manifestly a condensed
expression equivalent to eij" ajpostolh;n tw'n ejqnw'n, 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 immediately
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 à 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 Letter 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’ (hJ ajpostolh; tw'n ejqnw'n).”
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 H. 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 Brief an die Galater: Übersetzt und erklärt [14th ed.; Göttingen:
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