Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

324
Journal of Biblical Literature
cumcised, Peter to 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 no
more significant than the non-repetition of ‘gospel’ in v. 7.” 6
A close reading of vv. 7 and 8, however, discloses that there is no real parallel in the
syntax of the two verses. The relevant portion of v. 7 (pepivsteumai to; eujaggevlion th'"
ajkrobustiva" kaqw;" Pevtro" th'" peritomh''") 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 (th'" ajkrobustiva" and th'" peritomh'") make it clear
that the words to be supplied (following Pevtro") are pepivsteutai to; eujaggevlion (parallel
to pepivsteumai to; eujaggevlion in the earlier part of the clause). Insertion of the missing
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: pepivsteumai to;
eujaggevlion th'" ajkrobustiva" kaqw;" Pevtro" pepivsteutai to; eujaggevlion th'" peritomh'".
Such, however, is not the case with v. 8. In the first part of the verse (oJ ga;r ejnerghvsa"
Pevtrw'/ eij" ajpostolh;n th'" peritomh'"), it is clear that ajpostolhvn (accusative
case) is the object of the preposition eij" and that th'" peritomh'" (genitive case) is related
to ajpostolhvn 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 (ejnhvrghsen kai; ejmoi;; eij" ta; e[qnh),
however, not only omits ajpostolhvn but also has the preposition eij" followed immediately
by ta; e[qnh. Because ta; e[qnh is in the accusative case, it (not an implied ajpostolhvn)
would appear to be the object of the preposition eij", which is regularly followed by
the accusative case. Thus, there is no syntactical parallelism between th'" peritomh'"
(genitive case) and ta; e[qnh (accusative case) in v. 8, as there is between th'" ajkrobustiva"
and th'" peritomh'" (both in the genitive case) in v. 7. Indeed, rendering ejnhvrghsen kai;
ejmoi; eij" ta; e[qnh as “he worked also in me for an apostleship of the Gentiles” would
require not only supplying the word ajpostolhvn but also changing the accusative ta; e[qnh
to the genitive tw'n ejqnw'n. In short, although it is clear that to; eujaggevlion is to be
repeated in v. 7, it is by no means self-evident that ajpostolhvn 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 (i{na hJmei'" eij" ta;
e[qnh aujtoi; de; eij" th;n peritomhvn); 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 ‘apostolate’
(ajpostolhv) while Paul’s mission is not given a specific name” (Commentary on Paul’s Letter to
the Churches in Galatia, 98).