Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

Critical 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 clause—presumably the same verb. 8 The sense of
the entire clause then becomes clear: i{na hJmei'" e[lqwmen (or perhaps eujaggeliswvmeqa)
eij" ta; e[qnh aujtoi; de; e[lqwsin (or perhaps eujaggelivswntai) eij" th;n peritomhvn. 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, oujde; ga;r ejgw; para; ajnqrwvpou parevlabon aujto; ou[te ejdidavcqhn,
ajlla; di! ajpokaluvyew" !Ihsou' Cristou'. Here, as Burton notes, “a verb such as
is suggested by parevlabon and ejdidavcqhn is of necessity to be supplied in thought with
di! ajpokaluvyew",” 9 but no further alteration is required. Similarly, Gal 2:10—immediately
following the ellipsis already noted in v. 9—reads, movnon tw'n ptwcw'n i{na mnhmoneuvwmen,
o} kai; ejspouvdasa aujto; tou'to poih'sai. Here, Burton notes that “ejqevlhsan or
some similar verb might be supplied,” 10 but, once again, no further alteration is
required. Further, Gal 3:5 reads, oJ ou\n ejpicorhgw'n uJmi'n to; pneu'ma kai; ejnergw'n
dunavmei" ejn uJmi'n, ejx e[rgwn novmou h] ejx ajkoh'" pivstew"; here, a verb such as is suggested
by the participles ejpicorhgw'n and ejnergw'n 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 dia; de; tou;" pareisavktou" yeudadevlfou"; Gal 3:19, where a verb
is needed in the question, tiv ou\n oJ novmo"; Gal 4:12, where a form of the verb givnesqai is
implied before kajgw; wJ" uJmei'"; Gal 4:23, where the verb gegevnnhtai is to be repeated in
the second clause of the sentence; and Gal 5:13, where a verb is needed in the clause
movnon mh; th;n ejleuqerivan eij" ajformh;n th'/ sarkiv. 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 (ajpostolhvn) after the
preposition eij" and changing the accusative ta; e[qnh to the genitive tw'n ejqnw'n.
If the author of Gal 2:8 had in fact wished to make it clear that Paul’s missionary
8 See, e.g., Burton, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 96:
“A verb such as e[lqwmen or eujaggeliswvmeqa is to be supplied in the first part, and a corresponding
predicate for aujtoiv in the second part.”
9 Ibid., 41.
10 Ibid., 99.
11 A rather cursory examination of ellipses in the other Pauline letters suggests the same conclusion;
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.