A Note On Galatians 2:3-8 -- By: Ronald Y. K. Fung

Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 25:1 (Mar 1982)
Article: A Note On Galatians 2:3-8
Author: Ronald Y. K. Fung


A Note On Galatians 2:3-8

Ronald Y. K. Fung*

In the Expository Times 62 (1950–51) 380, D. Warner proposed that Gal 2:3–8 should be regarded as an interpolation (by Titus). This view was based on “several peculiarities” in the passage: (a) “The passage can stand alone like a minor letter inserted in the main Epistle … [Its] removal restores the smoothness of the factual accounts which lead up to Paul’s defence in 2:14ff.”; (b) there seems to be a contradiction between v 6 and vv 9–10 in Paul’s esteem of the apostles; (c) in addition to five words that are hapaxes either in Paul or in the NT, the greatest peculiarity is the presence of the Greek word Petros, for “elsewhere in Galatians, and throughout his other Epistles, Paul used the Aramaic formKēphas.”

The last-named peculiarity, together with the consideration that “it is very difficult to see any motive… for putting the man second in the list of three [in v 9] after giving him such prominence before,” has led J. C. O’Neill similarly to “conjecture that the phrase kathōs Petros tēs peritomēs and the word Petrō [vv 7–8] were originally glosses to the text.1

We should like to submit that all of the above observations are insufficient to warrant the conclusion that the verses under discussion have been interpolated into the original text as Paul dictated it. Our reasons for dissent are as follows:

1. Little weight can be attached to the first of Warner’s arguments. Smoothness is certainly not the first criterion of authenticity in Paul.

2. The apparent contradiction in Paul’s esteem of the apostles is due to a certain ambivalence in his relationship with the Jerusalem authorities: He wants to show that while he was not dependent on them he was also not dissociated from them.2

3. We cannot say that Paul could not have known and used the hapaxes in question. The presence of the unique Petros in vv 7–8 alone in Paul is indeed a baffling problem, but this is perhaps not completely incapable of being resolved. O. Cullmann 3 and E. Dinkler

visitor : : uid: ()