, by J.C. O'Neill, 1972
omit 1.13, 14, 22-4
These verses have been interpolated into Paul’s argument by a
later writer who wished to glorify the apostle. The argument is
irrelevant and anachronistic, the concepts differ from Paul’s con-
cepts, and the vocabulary and style are not his.
Paul is arguing that he was directly commissioned by God,
through a revelation ‘of his Son, to spread the good news among
the Gentiles. Although he Visited Jerusalem to get information
from Cephas,1 and there saw James, the Lord’s brother, he was
not indebted to them for his special commission. That visit was
three years after his call, and his first reaction to the call had not
been to go to Jerusalem but to go to Arabia. What is at stake is his
right to serve Christ as he has been called to serve him. The
astounding reversal of roles he underwent, from a fierce persecutor
of the Church to an evangelist of the faith, and from a precociously
zealous Jew to an opponent of Jewish customs, is no argument in
favour of Paul’s position. His position stands or falls on the revela-
tion he has received and the recognition accorded him by the
“pillars” in Jerusalem.
E. Bammel2 has suggested that the trouble-makers in Galatia had
attacked Paul because he had once been a persecutor of the
Church, and that Paul was defending himself by admitting all, and
then citing the praise of him that was used in the Judean churches:
Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτὲ
νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται
τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει.
It is hard to imagine the men who visited Galatia finding
ammunition to use against Paul in his activities before he was
called. Even if this were brought up against Paul, it is even harder
to imagine that Paul would cite the approval of the Judean
churches as support for his case. His case rested solely on the com-
mission from God and, the subsequent approval he received from
the authorities who might otherwise have been thought of as his
commissioners. What the Judean churches thought was neither
here nor there. Paul had asked the Galatians ironically in verse 10
whether he should now try to please men, and he is not likely, a
few sentences later, to quote the men he had pleased.
The interpolation is anachronistic because it regards Judaism
as an entity distinct from Christianity.3 Jews at the time used the
term Ἰουδαϊσμος to describe their faith in opposition to heathenism
(2 Macc. 2.21; 8.1; 14.38; 4 Mace. 4.26; synagogue inscription in
Frey, C.I.J. 1.694), but the use of the term in a Christian context
seems to imply that Christianity is a system completely distinct
from Judaism. Paul was well aware of the tragic gulf that had
opened up between those Jews who believed in Jesus Christ and
those who refused to believe, but he still held fast to the fact that
“theirs were the fathers” (Rom. 9.5), that the fathers of those who
believed in Christ were also the fathers of the unbelieving Jews.
But this interpolation speaks in the terms to be found in the
Apostolic Fathers of the second century, when Judaism had be-
come a foreign entity (Ignatius 1Magfz. 8.1; 10.3; Philad. 6.1).
The concepts employed are rarely found in Paul, or are entirely
absent. In verse 23 πίστις is used of the Christian religion, as in
Acts 6.7, and the only possible parallels in Paul are at 3.23-5,
6.10, and Rom. 1.5, all passages that are of doubtful authen-
ticity.4
When verse 13 is read in conjunction (with verse 23, it seems
likely that ἐκκλησία is used in the first instance as the word for the
Church as a whole; either the universal Church, or the Church
of the Judean provinces. Although Paul was active as a persecutor
only in Jerusalem, he planned to persecute Christians in
Damascus; the destruction of Christian congregations everywhere
is what is contemplated in the phrase καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν. The
Judean churches which did not know him by sight regarded him
as persecuting them.
But Paul almost always uses the word to refer to a local congre~
gation.5 He had an ideal opportunity to use the singular in 1.2,
if that was his custom, but there he wrote ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς
Γαλατίας. In 1 Thess. 2.14 he spoke of “the churches of God that
are in Judea in Christ Jesus”.6
The vocabulary of this section is unusual. The word ἀναστροφή
occurs only in Ephesians and 1 Timothy among the books of the
Pauline corpus, and Ἰουδαϊσμος, πόρθέω, συνηλικιώτης, and
πατρικός are not found elsewhere in that corpus. The enclitic
ποτέ occurs three times here, once more in Galatians (at 2.6), and
only nine times elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, excluding
Ephesians and the Pastorals (where it occurs seven times).
The style of the section is even and steady, unlike the style of
Paul. The sentences consist of 20, 19, 12, and 20 words respec-
tively. καὶ joins distinct clauses with verbs in the indicative three
times (1.13, 14, 24), which is rather frequent in comparison with
the five times in the rest of the epistle (1.17, 18; 3.6 O.T.; 5.1;
6.2). The imperfect ‘occurs seven times in this section, and only
eight times elsewhere in the epistle (1.10 twice; 2.67; 2.12 twice;
3.23; 4.3, 29). Two of the imperfects are periphrastic, and we are
told that the periphrastic construction was on the increase.7
The case for regarding 1.13, 14, 22, 23, 24 as an interpolation is
a strong one as it stands, but to complete the case I must try to
explain why anyone should wish to add this sort of note to Paul’s
text. E. Bammel has already shown that verse 23 probably con-
tains a citation from a Judean church tradition, and I think it
likely that this thesis can be extended to cover the whole of the
section I have isolated. The author possessed Judean traditions
about Paul, the persecutor who became the champion of the
faith, and he inserted them into Galatians at the appropriate
points in the story. His source was Judean as opposed to Jeru-
salemite,8 so that he has to explain that, although they used to
say “He who once persecuted us”, they did not know him by
sight.
Because he was employing old traditions, the interpolator did
not regard his additions as illegitimate. He saw himself as en-
riching a treasured epistle by an edifying reminiscence of the con-
version of St Paul, which could appropriately be put onto his
lips.
I. G. D. Kilpatrick, “Galatians 1:18 . . . ”, New Testament Essays:
Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (1959), pp. 144-9.
2. E. Bammel, “Galater 1.23”,ZNW 59 (1968), pp. 108-12 at p. m. The germ of
the idea was first put forward by E. Barnikol, . . . (Kiel 1929), p. 50.
3. Cf. Bruno Bauer, op. cit., p. 13.
4-. Cf. E. Bammel, op. cit., p. 108, n. I.
5. J. Y. Campbell, “The Origin and Meaning of the Christian Use of the word
EKKAHEIA”, JTS xux (1948), pp. I30-42; reprintedin Three New Testament
Studies (Leiden 1965), pp. 41-54. Excluding Ephesians, he argues that only in Col.
1.18, 24. it is beyond question that the word has a wider significance; in eight
other instances that is more or less likely.
6. The phrase . . . . in 1 Cor. 15.9 is parallel to our phrase in
Gal. 1.13. It is possible that “God’s church” in I Corinthians could refer to the
congregation in Jerusalem, but the true solution seems to be that I Cor. 15.1-1 I
is a later eredal summary not written by Paul.
7. Blass-Debrunncer-Funk, §65(4).
B. Judea in v. 22 must exclude Jerusalem (Lightfoot against Lipsius; T. Mommsen,
ZNW2 (1901), p. 85; W. Heitmiiller, ZNW 13 (1912), pp. 3203).