Translation and Interpretation in Gal 2.16

7/31/2019 Translation and Interpretation in Gal 2.16

1/7

TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION

OF IN GALATIANS 2:16

Without question, Paul's letter to the Galatians has played a major role in the his

toryofChristian thought. Indeed, Donald G. Milleronce claimedno doubt with somedegree ofhyperbolethat "perhaps no writing ofequal length has influenced the world

so mightily."1

Along the same lines but in more restrained tones, John Knox observed

that Galatians "is one ofthe most significant ofearlyChristian documents, not only

because ofthe light it throws upon Paul and the primitive churches, but also because of

the influence it has exerted in subsequent history."2

Within the letter, it is generally agreed that one particularverse 2:16is ofcru

cial importance. Carolyn Osiek, forexample, declares that this verse "states in one

sentence the core ofPaul's conviction about the salvation brought byChrist vis--vis sal

vation as promised by the Law," and Thomas C. Geer, Jr., asserts that "Galatians 2:16 isgenerally regarded to be the theological center of Paul's letter to the Galatians."3

If this is true, then the accurate translation and correct interpretation of the verse

are clearly matters of the utmost concern. As Geer points out, however, both the transla

tion and the interpretation ofGal 2:16 are fraught with difficulties. At issue are such

questions as: (1) the meaning of, , and ( );

(2) the translation of ; and (3) the relation of w. 15-16 to the preceding verses in

the chapter.4

Obviously, different answers to these difficult questions will lead to quite

diverse understandings ofthe meaning ofthe verse. Forexample, as Geer notes, "the

recent discussion between James D. G. Dunn and Heikki Risnen about Paul's rela

tionship to his former religious life has focused primarily on Galatians 2:16." Dunnbelieves that the verse demonstrates Paul's basic continuity with Judaism, while Ris

nen views it as indicating the apostle's essential break with Judaism.5

To be sure, the debate between Dunn and Risnen involves all ofthe questions

mentioned above; moreover, the questions are themselves interrelated to such an extent

1D. G. Miller, Live As Free Men: A Study Guide on Galatians (Board of Christian Education, The United Presbyterian Church U.S.A., 1964) 11.

2 J. Knox, "Galatians, Letter to the," IDB, 2.338.3

C. Osiek, Galatians (NewTestament Message 12; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1980) 26; T. C.Geer, Jr., "Galatians 2:16: Paul's Continuity With or Radical Break From Judaism?" (unpublishedpaper presented to Southwest Biblical Studies Seminar 1993) 1


2/7

516 Journal of Biblical Literature

that a definitive answer to one would be impossible without attention also to the others.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the question of the correct translation of lies at the

heart of the debate between Dunn and Risnen and, in fact, is central to an under

standing of the verse as a whole. Thus, I shall focus on the question of the translation of and how this might affect the translation and interpretation of the verse as a

whole.

The usual translation ofthe Greek phrase is "if not," "unless," or "except."6

In Gal 2:16, however, it is almost always translated as "but only" or simply "but."7

The

rationale for this was articulated many years ago by Ernest de Witt Burton:

is properly exceptive, not adversative . . ., but it may introduce an

exception to the preceding statement taken as a whole or to the principal part

of itin this case to or to

alone. The latter alternative is clearly to be chosenhere, since the former would yield the thought that a man [sic] can be jus

tified by works of law if this be accompanied by faith, a thought never

expressed by the apostle and wholly at variance with his doctrine as unam

biguously expressed in several passages. . . . But since the word "except" in

English is always understood to introduce an exception to the whole of what

precedes, it is necessary to resort to the paraphrastic translation "but only."8

Apparently following this rationale, the NRSV, for example, reads: "a person is justified

not by the works ofthe law but through faith in Jesus Christ"; and F. F. Bruce has: "it is

not by legal works that any human being is justified but only by faith in Jesus Christ."9

Risnen accepts this translation of and maintains that "justification by works of

the law.. . is denied throughout verse 16, as it is in the rest ofthe letter."10

Dunn, on the

otherhand, argues that in Gal 2:16 should be translated in its usual sense of

"except" or "unless."11

Thus, in his view, Paul appears to be saying that justification is

impossible on the basis ofthe law unless faith in Christ is also present.12

It is my own judgment that Dunn is technically correct as regards the transhtion

of in Gal 2:16: it carries its usual meaning of "except" or "unless." It is also my

judgment, however, that Burton is correct as regards the reference of the exception

introduced by : the exception refers only to the words "a person is not justified,"not to "a person is not justified by works of law." Paul is not saying that "a person is not

6BAGD gives only "ifnot" and "unless" as meanings (p. 211).

7See, e.g., BDF 376: "' is seldom used for 'but, save' (Art. likewise) and always with

out verb." Cited as examples are Gal 2:16 and Mark4:22. In the lattercase, I regard "except" as thepreferable translation; the former, ofcourse, is theverse underpresent consideration.

8E. de Witt Burton, A CriticalandExegeticalCommentary on the Epistle to the Galatians

(ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1921) 121.9

F. F. Bruce, The Epistle ofPaulto the Galatians: A Commentary on the GreekText(NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1982) 136.10

Risnen, "Galatians 2.16," 547.


3/7

CriticalNotes 517

justified by works of law except through faith in Jesus Christ";13

rather, he is saying (in

this part ofthe verse) that "a person is not justified except through faith in Jesus Christ."

Is it possible, however, to explain the syntax of Gal 2:16 in such a way as to make

this clear? I believe it is. I suggest that in Gal 2:16 we have an example of an "ellipsis"14

within a parenthesis, and that the verse makes perfectly good sense ifthe omitted words

are added and the parenthesis is so indicated. Thus, I would render Gal 2:16 as follows

(with the added words in brackets):15

... knowing that a person is not justified by works of law ([a person is not jus

tified] except through faith in Jesus Christ), we also have come to faith in

Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by

works of law, because by works of law no one is justified.

In short, I suggest (1) that "a person is not justified" is intended to serve double duty by

introducing both "by works of law" (i.e., "a person is not justified by works of law") and

"except through faith in Jesus Christ" (i.e., "a person is not justified except through faith

in Jesus Christ") and (2) that "a person is not justified except through faith in Jesus

Christ" is intended as a parenthetical aside, included to clarify and amplify the state

ment, "a person is not justified by works of law."

To support this interpretation, I offer the following brief observations:

1. It is clear that what I am calling "parenthetical asides" or simply "parentheses"16

are by no means rare in the letters ofPaul.17

Indeed, in the Galatian letteritself, the RSV

has parentheses at 1:20; 2:2, 6, 8 (the last three in the same chapter as 2.16!), and the

NRSV includes all of these except 1:20; in addition, T. Baarda, for example, has found

parentheses at 1:1218

and 5:11b.19

Thus, there is no a priori reason for denying the pres

ence ofa parenthesis also at Gal 2:16.

13It is not my purpose in this study to enter the debate regarding the correct translation of

() (i.e., whether the genitive is a subjective or an objective genitive); thus, Ifollow the more generallyaccepted view and translate the phrase as "faith in (Jesus) Christ."

14According to BDF (479-80), "Ellipsis (brachylogy) in the broad sense applies to any idea

which is not fullyexpressed grammaticallyand leaves it to the hearerorreaderto supplythe omission because it is self-evident." "Ellipsis in the strict sense," however, refers to "a case in which a

term neither is present nor can be supplied from some related term."15

As already indicated, I do not here propose to deal with the meaning of , themeaning of , orthe correct translation of () .

16BDF (458) defines "parenthesis" as "a grammatically independent thought thrown into

the midst ofthe sentence," suggesting (465) that it "usually originates in a need which suddenlycrops up to enlarge upon a concept orthought where it appears in the sentence" orthat "it may bedue to the difficulty of adapting an afterthought which suddenly comes to mind to the structure ofthe sentence as it was begun."

17BDF (465) suggests possible parentheses at Bom 1:13; 2:15-16; 3:5; 2 Cor 11:21; 6:2,13;

10:10.18

T. Baarda, "Openbaring-Traditie en Didach," Telfstandig geloven: Studies voorjaap Firet(ed. F. . Kuiper et al.; Kampen: Kok, 1987) 152-67, esp. 157-59.19

T. Baarda, "Ti eti dikomai in Gal. 5:11: Apodosis or Parenthesis," 35 (1992) 250-56;


4/7

518 JournalofBiblical Literature

2. It is also clear that there are numerous examples of ellipsis in Paul's letters.20

Within the Galatian letter, I argued some years ago for the presence of ellipsis in Gal

2:1-5 (just a few verses prior to 2:16).21

Similarly, a few verses later, in Gal 3:5, it is likely

that "he who supplies the Spirit . . ." is intended to be repeated (in slightly differentform) before "by works of law or by hearing with faith."22

Recently, J. Lamprecht has

argued convincingly for the presence ofan ellipsis in Gal. 5:11b.23

Thus, as in the case of

parenthesis, there is no a priori reason for denying the presence ofellipsis at Gal 2:16.

3. More specifically, quite apart from my proposed translation of the verse, it is

clear that an ellipsis already occurs in Gal 2:16. Strictly speaking, as the introduction to

the protasis of an implied conditional statement, should be followed by a verb.

Because it is not, it represents an elliptical construction "with the Verb of the protasis

omitted."24

Both the implied verb and its subject, however, are almost certainly to be

inferred from the earlier in the verse.

25

Thus, the completed protasis would read (subjunctive mood following )

("unless a person is justified through faith in Jesus Christ").26

2 0See, e.g., BDF, 481: "Ellipses dependent on individual style and choice go much farther,

especially in letters, where the writercan count on the knowledge which the recipient shares with

himselfand where he imitates ordinaryspeech. In the latter there is likewise an abundance of elliptical expressions, both conventional and those more dependent on individual preference." Here, it

may be relevant to note that Paul's letter to the Galatians was apparentlydictated(see Gal 6:11),

that is, delivered orally. In Paul's letters, BDF (479-83) finds ellipsis (of various types) at Bom4:9; 5:3, 11, 18; 8:23; 9:6, 10; 11.18; 13:7; 14:21; 1 Cor 1:31; 3:2; 4:6; 10:24, 31; 14:19, 34; 2 Cor1:24;

3:5; 5:13; 8:15, 19; 9:6, 7; 10:9; Gal 2:9; 3:5, 19; 5:13; Phil 3:13; 4:17.2 1W. O. Walker, Jr., "WhyPaul Went to Jerusalem: The Interpretation ofGalatians 2:1-5,"

CB 54 (1992) 503-10.22

See, e.g., BDF, 479.23

Lamprecht, "Is Gal. 5:11b A Parenthesis?"24

LSJ, 481 (VII.3). This is by no means rare, either in classical Greekor in the NT. See, e.g.,

H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956) 530-31; W. W.

Goodwin, Greek Grammar (rev. C. B. Gulick; Boston: Ginn, 1930) 300; and BDF, 376.25

This means, of course, that, as I propose to translate the verse, the verb actually

serves triple (not just double) duty: it introduces both "by works of law" and "except through faith inJesus Christ," and (in the subjunctive mood following ) it is the verb to be inferred after .

2 6Gal 2:16 is in some respects similar to Gal 1:19, where the verb ofthe protasis is also miss

ing and must be supplied from the verb earlier in the sentence (here, it might be said that does double duty, with both and

serving as its direct objects). Cf. also Gal 1:7, where, however, the verb appears both in the protasis

and earlierin the sentence. In neither1:19 nor1:7 is it entirely clear what the implied apodosis

might be. Except forthe absence of in the apodosis, 1:19 might be regarded as a contrary-to-fact

condition: "IfI had not seen James the brother ofthe Lord, I would not have seen another of the

apostles [besides Cephas]." In the case of1:7, Burton suggests that introduces not a protasis

but rather an "exception" and translates the verse, "which is not another except in the sense that

..." (Galatians,23). Here again, however, except forthe absence of and the presenttense oftheverbs, the verse might be regarded as a contrary-to-fact condition: "Ifthere were not some trou

bli d i hi t t th l f Ch i t [th ] ld t b th [ l] " F


5/7

Critical Notes 519

4. Logically, of course, a protasis implies an apodosis. In different ways, both

Dunn and Burton suggest that the apodosis of the conditional statement in Gal 2:16 is

stated at the beginning ofthe verse. ForDunn, it is

; forBurton, only . Both in classical Greek and in the NT,

however, it is not uncommon for the apodosis of a conditional statement to be omitted,

particularly if it can easilybe inferred from the context.27

Thus, it is by no means clear,

on a priori grounds, that the apodosis is in fact stated in Gal 2:16. If not, is it possible to

reconstruct an implied apodosis? I submit that it is. As already noted, the verb of the

protasis in Gal 2:16 is omitted and must be inferred from the verb earlier in the sentence

(). It is a general rule ofGreeksyntax, however, that "the verb ofthe protasis

is usually omitted when the apodosis has the same verb."28

This suggests that the most

likely verb for the apodosis in Gal 2:16 would be the appropriate form of the verb in the

protasis (). In the context, it suggests further that the most likelysubject of

this verb would be the same as the subject ofthe verb in the protasis (). Thus,the most likelyapodosis would be simply . The complete condi

tional statement, then, would read,

("A person is not justified unless he/she is justi-fied

through faith in Jesus Christ").29

5. Not only is my proposed interpretation ofGal 2:16 plausible in terms of Greek

syntax and Pauline style; it also provides a clear and consistent picture ofPauPs views re

garding the basis for justification (i.e., justification is based not on works of law but

ratheron faith in Christ). Although this latter point might be regarded as "begging the

question" or some form of "circular argumentation," nevertheless, in my judgment, itshould not be ignored.

30

grammatically speaking a so-called 'realis', a simple condition, but one expects here an irrealis, a

condition contraryto fact: 'ifI were still preaching circumcision'. There can be no doubt, since hisbecoming a Christian Paul does no longerpreach circumcision. Notwithstanding the simple condition of this protasis Paul refers to an irreal hypothesis, a condition contraryto fact." See also, e.g.,

Burton, Galatians, 286: "The conditional clause . . . , though having the form of asimple present supposition, evidentlyexpresses an unfulfilled condition."

2 7See, e.g., Smyth, GreekGrammar, 532; E. deWitt Burton, Syntax of the Moods andTenses

in New TestamentGreek(3d ed.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1898) 110; and H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, AManualGrammarof the GreekNew Testament(New York: Macmillan, 1949) 291.

2 8Smyth, GreekGrammar, 530.

2 9Despite what has just been said about omission ofthe apodosis in conditional statements, it

could be argued that the apodosis in Gal 2:16 is notactuallyomitted; it has already been stated earlier in the verse and is simply not repeated. This, however, leaves unanswered the question of

whetherthe apodosis consists of or simply . This must be resolved on othergrounds.

Fora somewhat analogous situation in which not the apodosis but ratherthe protasis must besupplied from earlier wording, see Lambrecht, "Is Gal. 5:11b A Parenthesis?" 240-41. Here, theargument is that the protasis . . .

(5:11a) is followed bytwo apodoses (5:11b and

5:11c)and that "one mustfirstrepeat, as it were, the protasis of v. 11a" before reading v. lie.3 0

Indeed, it is essentiallythe argument used byBurton to support his view that in Gal


6/7

520 Journal of Biblical Literature

6. Finally (and this may be as much a conclusion to be drawn from my interpreta

tion as it is an argument for it), the structure ofGal 2:16 can be seen as forming a chiasm

if my reading ofthe verse is correct:

A a person is not justified by works of law ( [a person is not justified] except through faith in Jesus Christ)

C we also have come to faith in Christ Jesus

B1

in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ

A1

and not by works of law because by works of law no one is justified.

William O.Walker, Jr.

Trinity University, San Antonio, TX78212-7200


7/7

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Translation and Interpretation in Gal 2.16

Documents