Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
There can be no doubt that Paul considered himself an apostle at the point of his conversion. In the words of Ferdinand Hahn, Paul's ‘concept of apostleship is characterized by the fact of his being simultaneously converted, entrusted with the gospel, and sent out to the Gentiles’ When we say that Paul considered himself an ‘apostle’ we must clarify at the beginning what is meant by this term since it is susceptible of two interpretations. It could be used loosely to refer to any missionary who was ‘sent out’, as it is commonly used in the Didache. Indeed Paul occasionally used the word in this sense (e.g. 2 Cor 8. 23). However as John Knox observes, Paul's customary use of the term ‘apostle’ means ‘one who saw the Lord and was commissioned directly by him. Certainly when Paul saw himself as an “apostle”, he invariably has this higher meaning in mind.’
1 Hahn, Ferdinand, ‘Paul's Conception of Mission’, in Mission in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1965) 95–110, esp. 98.Google Scholar
2 Knox, John, ‘The Initial Revelation’, in Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York/Nashville: Abingdon, 1950) 111–26, esp. 117.Google Scholar
3 According to Rudolf Bultmann, Paul inserted himself into the tradition found in 1 Cor f5. 5–7 in order to validate his own authority over and against the other apostles. By claiming that he also had witnessed the risen Christ along with all the other apostles he could prove that his teachings had equal authority (‘New Testament and Mythology’, in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate [tr. R. H. Fuller; H. W. Batsch ed.; London: SPCK, 1953] 1–44, esp. 39–40).Google Scholar
4 Luedemann, Gerd, ‘The Content and Occasion of the Jerusalem Conference’, in Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles (tr. Jones, F. S.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 64–80.Google Scholar
5 Schlier, Heinrich, Der Brief an die Galater (KEK 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 10 1949) 78, n. 2Google Scholar; Mussner, Franz, Der Galaterbrief (HThK 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 116, n. 91Google Scholar; Hans Lietzmann thinks that v. 8 represents Paul's own self-elevation to this status and not the recognition of the Jerusalem apostles (An die Galater [HNT 10; 3rd ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1932] 13Google Scholar). Cf. Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik (3 Vols.; Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlasbuchhandlung, 1950) 2. 99, n. 1; BDB § 479, 483.Google Scholar
6 Luedemann, G., Paul, 76–7, cf. 70.Google Scholar
7 Luedemann, G., Paul, 54–7.Google Scholar
8 Mussner, F., Galaterbrief, 117, cf. n. 93 for a more detailed explanation.Google Scholar
9 Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 2:8.Google Scholar
10 Dinkler, Erich, ‘Der Brief an die Galater‘, in Signum Crucis (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1953) 270–82, esp. 279–80Google Scholar; cf. Klein, Günter, ‘Galater 2:6–9 und die Geschichte der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde, wieder abgedruckt mit einem Nachtrag’, in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation (BEvT 50; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969) 90–128, esp. 109Google Scholar; Betz, H. D., Galatians, 2. 8.Google Scholar
11 Wilckens, Ulrich, ‘Der Ursprung der Überlieferung der Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen’, in Dogma und Denkstrukturen: Edmund Schlink in Verehrung und Dankbarkeit (ed. Joest, E. and Pannenberg, W.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 56–95, 72 n. 41.Google Scholar
12 Luedemann, G., Paul, 64–9.Google Scholar
13 Luedemann, G., Paul, 69–71.Google Scholar
14 G. Klein's argument rests upon his interpretation of π∘τέ and the imperfect tense of 
σαν. He takes them together to mean ‘what they once were’ instead of taking ποτέ with όποΐοι (‘whatever’) and interpreting ἦσαν in a way which is consistent with the present tense of διαφέρει which follows (2. 6). Accordingly, Klein argues that the present tense of διαφέρει refers to a condition which exists at present, but did not exist previously, whereas the imperfect tense of δσαν refers to James and John at the time of the conference. ‘Das δοκο
ν̑ντες ist dann auf die Gegenwart zu beziehen (‘die heute in Geltung Stehenden’), und der in der Parenthese mit dem σαν deutlich angelegte imperfektische Bezug zielt auf die Einflussverhältnisse zur Zeit des Konzils' (‘Galater 2:6–9’, in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation, 99–128 esp. 112–13, cf. 106, 118, 124–5; cf. G. Klein, ‘Die Verleugnung des Petrus,’ in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation, 49–98, 81). According to this theory, Peter would have been in charge at the time of the conference. The reference then to the δοκοντες and the στύλοι, describes the political situation which had arisen following the conference but prior to Paul's composition of Galatians. By that time, James had displaced Peter and formed a triumvirate of ‘pillars’.
15 Critics of Klein's post-conference dating of a power transference include: Luedemann, G., Paul, 120 n. 78Google Scholar; Cullmann, Oscar, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study (tr. Filson, F. V.; 2nd rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 42–3Google Scholar; Schmithals, Walter, Paul and James (Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1965) 83 n. 13Google Scholar; Kasting, Heinrich, Die Anfänge der urchristlichen Mission (BEvT 55; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969) 78 n. 78.Google Scholar The principal fault of Klein's theory lies in his interpretation of the imperfect tense of 
σαν. This interpretation has been ruled out by Berthold Häsler in his article on this very subject (‘Sprachlich-grammatische Bemerkungen zu Gal. 2:6’, TLZ 5 [1957] 393–4) by E. Schwyzer, and by BDF (170–1, §330), all of whom consider this usage (2.6) to be an example of ‘assimilation of the tense’ (attractio temporis); it should therefore be translated in the present (Grammatik, 2.279).
16 Betz, H. D., Galatians, 2. 9.Google Scholar
17 Lightfoot, Joseph B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (3rd ed.; London/N.Y.: Macmillan & Co., 1865/1905) 109.Google Scholar There can be no doubt that Peter and James did exercise decisive authority over the affairs of the Church. Though Paul considers himself to be independent of them, and may even have considered the ‘pillar’ apostles to be rivals and adversaries, he nevertheless considered their opinions to be of great importance. As C. K. Barrett remarks, ‘it was necessary for him to consult them lest he should be running or have run in vain (Gal. 2:2)’ (Barrett, C. K., ‘Paul and the Pillar Apostles’, Studio. Paulina: in Honorem Johannis de Zwaan Septuagenarii (Haarlem: Erven F. Bohn, 1953) 1–19, esp. 16).Google Scholar
18 ‘Peter’ is read here in p46 D F G it(d, g, r) goth, Marcion, Origen (lat), Victorinus, Ephraem, Ambrosiaster, Hieronymus, but these are harmonizations with w. 7–8; cf. Elliott, J. K., ‘κηφᾶς; Σίμῶν Πέτρος ό Πέτρος. An Examination of New Testament Usage’, NT 14 (1972) 241–56.Google Scholar
19 Schlier, H., Galater, 78Google Scholar; Mussner, F., Galaterbrief, 118Google Scholar; Satake, Akira, ‘Apostolat und Gnade bei Paulus’, NTS 15 (1968–1969) 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Lightfoot, J. B., Galatians, 109.Google Scholar
21 Mussner, F., Galaterbrief, 117–18, cf. n. 95.Google Scholar
22 Luedemann, G., Paul, 125, n. 104.Google Scholar
23 “On this F. Mussner remarks: ‘Damit erkennen sie Paulus schon als legitimen Heidenapostel an, was dann seinen “offiziellen” Ausdruck in der nachher berichteten Vereinbarung findet … Neben der “Betrauung” des Paulus mit der Heidenmission “erkennen” die δοκοντες “die Gnade”, die ihm verliehen wurde. Damit wird die “Gnade” gemeint sein, die ihn speziell zum Apostel befähigt und bestimmt hat' (Galaterbrief, 11–32).
