Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

326
Journal of Biblical Literature
activity, like that of Peter, was an “apostleship” (ajpostolhv), 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: ejnhvrghsen kai; ejmoi; eij" ajpostolh;n tw'n ejqnw'n. If, however,
for stylistic or other reasons, an ellipsis were preferred, it could have read, ejnhvrghsen
kai; ejmoi; tw'n ejqnw'n (genitive rather than accusative case, with the words eij" ajpostolhvn
to be understood between ejmoiv and tw'n ejqnw'n); 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 specified—more explicitly in
the former instance, but nonetheless unambiguously in the latter. Neither of these alternatives
was followed, however.
Thus, as the wording stands, only two possible conclusions appear warranted. The
first is that the composition here is simply incredibly sloppy 12 —that, although the
intended sense is indeed eij" ajpostolh;n tw'n ejqnw'n), the last two words have been drawn
into the accusative case because they come immediately after eij", which regularly takes
the accusative for its object. This, of course, is conceivable. One must then ask, however,
why it is that th'" peritomh'" is not similarly drawn into the accusative case (th;n peritomhvn)
following the implied verb pepivsteutai 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 ajpostolhvn—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 simply
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”
(ajpostolhv) without applying the same label to his own—even if this did reflect the lan-
12 See the phrase “through negligence” in the quotation from Ernest De Witt Burton above.
13 Except in Acts 14:4, 14, where both Barnabas and Paul are called “apostles” (ajpovstoloi).
14 James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; London: Black, 1993), 107. See,
e.g., Erich Dinkler, “Der Brief an die Galater: Zum Kommentar von Heinrich Schlier,” VF 1–3
(1953–55): 182–83, reprinted with “Nachtrag” in his Signum Crucis: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament
und zur Christlichen Archäologie (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1967), 278–82; idem, “Die
Petrus-Rom-Frage: Ein Forschungsbericht,” TRu n.s. 25 (1959): 197–98; Günter Klein, “Galater
2,6–9 und die Geschichte der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde,” ZTK 57 (1960): 282–83, reprinted in his
Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kaiser,
1969), 106–7; and Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater: Übersetzt und erklärt (KEK 7; 12th
ed.; Göttingen: 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.