Douglas Campbell on Gal 5:11

Here I review Douglas Campell's recent paper, "Galatians 5.11: Evidence of an Early Law-observant Mission by Paul?", NTS 57 2011, p325-347.

Gal 5:11 is an immensely important verse:

But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

ἐγὼ δέ, ἀδελφοί, εἰ περιτομὴν ἔτι κηρύσσω, τί ἔτι διώκομαι; ἄρα κατήργηται τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ.

Here is Campbell's abstract:

Galatians 5.11 refers to Paul ‘proclaiming circumcision’—a proposition that he is concerned to refute because he constructs two compact but powerful inferences designed to falsify it. One argues from present persecution, the other from the cross. Following a precise reconstruction of these it can be shown that the three main previous interpretations of the reference of Paul's ‘proclamation of circumcision’ are dubious, whether in terms of a blatantly false charge by opponents, a phase in Paul's pre-Christian Jewish life, or an occasional apostolic mission to Jews. A fourth, embarrassing reading is more likely, especially when other comparable missionary work is considered. Early on Paul proclaimed a fully law-observant gospel to pagans that included circumcision, but then later revised his praxis.

Campbell shows (uncontroversially) that the original text contained both instances of "still" (ἔτι). He then argues (against J.L.Martyn) that the word has the same meaning (of extension in time) in both cases. Therefore, when Paul writes (5:11a) "if I am still preaching circumcision", he concedes that there was an earlier time, known to the Galatians, when he had actually preached circumcision. Concerning that earlier occasion when Paul had preached circumcision, Campbell lists what he considers to be the only three possibilities:

(1) 5.11a refers to preaching activity by Paul before his call;

(2) 5.11a refers to missionary work to Jews by Paul after his call;

(3) 5.11a refers to an early phase in Paul's missionary work to pagans, after his call, when he did expect his male converts to be circumcised (a phase that has now passed).

Unfortunately, Campbell has overlooked a fourth possibility, namely, that 5:11a refers to a recent episode in Paul's missionary work when he had "preached circumcision".

Campbell argues against (1) by pointing to the growing consensus that Jews rarely, if ever, evangelized Gentiles. He also points out that it is hard to see how pre-conversion preaching by Paul would have been relevant to Paul's debate here.

Campbell finds (2) problematic because it would make the text irrelevant to the Galatian audience. Why would Paul's Gentile addressees have cared whether Paul had preached (or continued to preach) circumcision to Jews? Also, Jews were already circumcised.

Campbell therefore prefers option (3). He suggests that, for a while after conversion, Paul believed that male Gentile converts should undergo circumcision. This means that Paul later changed his mind and Campbell cites several cases in which people have changed their minds on similar matters. He deals with other objections to option (3) and concludes that it is correct.

My assessment of Campbell's paper

The paper provides a good review of much of the discussion of this very important verse. His arguments against the popular interpretations are well made, and convincing. However, I feel that his study is incomplete, in that he has dealt with only a subset of the relevant issues and texts. I also offer some objections to Campbell's reconstruction:

1. If I have read him correctly, he proposes the following sequence of events:

a) Paul converts, b) Paul preaches circumcision to Gentiles and is not persecuted, c) Paul permanently abandons preaching circumcision to Gentiles, d) Paul visits the Galatians, e) the Galatians think Paul is preaching circumcision to Gentiles, but he is being persecuted for preaching a law-free gospel, and he writes the letter.

Paul says that his is "still" being persecuted and that he is not "still" preaching circumcision. As Campbell points out, these two instances of the word "still" must have the same meaning. They must also, surely, refer to the same earlier time, but Campbell's reconstruction does not allow this because he has the persecution begin only after the period when Paul preached circumcision.

2. According to Campbell the Galatians believed the following sequence:

i) Paul preached circumcision, ii) Paul preached a law-free gospel and was persecuted, iii) Paul preached circumcision again.

The Galatians would then have seen two distinct periods in which Paul preached circumcision. It would then be surprising that Paul says "If I still preach circumcision", rather than "If I again preach circumcision", especially as the period of persecution that would intervened between the two periods of preaching circumcision is in view  in this verse.

3. Gal 1:11-12 suggest that Paul's law-free gospel was received by him at his original revelation. Can this objection be overcome?

4. Campbell's reconstruction requires that Paul preached circumcision in the first phase of his missionary career and was not persecuted. However, we know that the persecution started very early (Acts 9:23).

5. Campbell offers no explanation for how the Galatians came to believe that Paul was preaching circumcision at the time of writing (Campbell refuses to appeal to the circumcision of Timothy and on page 339 he seems to assume (against the evidence) that Timothy would have been considered Jewish because of his Jewish mother).

6. Campbell, along with all other commentators, interpret Gal 5:11 in isolation. They fail to see its connection to Gal 5:2-10. I have argued here that the three passages that deal with the agitators, namely Gal 1:1-10, Gal 5:2-12, and Gal 6:11-17 contain the same sequence of thought. Gal 5:11 should be interpreted alongside its counterparts Gal 1:8-9 and Gal 6:17. Rather than being an aside or anomaly, as is universally believed, Gal 5:11 must be central to the background of the entire letter. 

7. On page 344 Campbell writes, "Paul's opponents are, after all, trying ot embarrass him (or worse)." There is no evidence for this. Indeed, 5:11 suggests that the influencers/agitators thought that Paul was on their side. As Nanons, for one, has pointed out, there is no evidence that they challenged Paul's authority, and it is hazardous to assume that they were "opponents".

So, while Campbell has successfully shown that the common understandings of 5:11 are problematic, I do not feel that he has yet solved the problems. I am willing to be corrected, though, and I will invite him to comment.

In my next blog post I intend to give my own interpretation of Gal 5:11.

"we passages", Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus, & W.S. Campbell

Here I discuss a paper by William Campbell, "The Narrator as "He", "ME," and "We": Grammatical Person in Ancient Histories and in the Acts of the Apostles", JBL 129, no. 2 (2010): 385-407. I will use Campbell's observations to show that the author of Acts was present during the events of the "we passages" and at other times too.

A writer can refer to himself/herself in the first person singular ("I", "me"), the first person plural ("we", "us"), or using the third person, as Richard does now. Campbell explores the styles of self-reference by the ancient historians, Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus, and compares them with Acts. He distinguishes two types of self-designation: narrator level and event level.

Narrator level
Narrative-level self-reference is when the author refers to himself in his capacity as author/narrator. Campbell gives examples from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War: "Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war..."; "the earliest sea battle of those we know". Campbell tells us that Polybius referred to himself frequently (using first person singular) at the narrator level. E.g. "I was persuaded to write"; "I do not think it seemly...". Examples from Josephus include, "as we said previously"; "I would not hesitate to say"; "we Jews".

Concerning Acts, Campbell writes,

Another difference between Acts and the four texts analyzed is how infrequently first person (singular or plural) appears at the narrator level. The narrator rarely intrudes in the story to offer commentary, which compels the narrative to stand on its own merits. Only two instances each of first person singular and plural narrator-level comments occur in Luke and Acts, and these are located in the prefaces (Luke 1:1-3 and Acts 1:1).

My interpretation:
Luke's reluctance to intrude with narrator level self-reference should come as no surprise since his works, like the other gospels, are anonymous. Baum (Nov. Test. 50 (2008)) argues that the purpose of this anonymity was to give priority to the subject matter. Excessive self-reference would distract attention from the narrated events.

Event level
Event level self-reference is when the author refers to his own participation in the historical events. Campbell shows that the third person is generally preferred:

Large sections of War are devoted to Josephus's involvement in the conflict, and once again, as was the case in Thucydides and Polybius, event-level passages with Josephus as a character - indeed the main character and protagonist - are narrated in the third person. One brief example is the account of his appointment as commander of Galilee: "John, son of Ananias, was appointed commander of Gophna and Acrabetta, and Josephus, son of Matthias, of each of the two Galilees" (J.W. 2.568).

Here is an example from Thucydides:

4.104.4 The opponents of the betrayers .... sent to the other commander of the areas in Thrace, Thucydides, son of Olorus .... 

Campbell gives the following passage from Polybius, which has striking parallels with Acts.

36.11.1 When instructions arrived in the Peloponnese from Manilius for the Achaeans that they would do well to send Polybius the Megalopolitan with Haste to Lilybaeum, as there was need of him for affairs of state, the Achaeans resolved to send him in accordance with the petition of the consul. 36.11.2 We, thinking it our duty for many reasons to obey the Romans, putting aside all other matters, set sail when summer began. 36.11.3 Arriving in Corcyra and finding there a letter from the consuls that had been sent to the Corcyraeans in which they made quite clear that the Carthaginians had already handed over the hostages to them and were prepared in every way to obey them, 36.11.4 thinking that the war had been brought to end and there was no further any need of us, we sailed back again to the Peloponnese.

My interpretation:

Since Luke refers to himself very sparingly at the narrator level we should expect him to do the same at the event level. Therefore he may well have been present for more of the events than he indicates. If Luke was present only for the 'we passages', as is commonly assumed, he mentioned his presence at every available opportunity, and this would not be consistent with his tendency to minimize self-reference. Indeed, I have argued before, here, that the author of Acts was present with Paul on his journey to Troas (Acts 16:1-9) before the "we passage" of Acts 16:10ff, and was again present in Achaia (Acts 20:3-4) before the "we passage" of Acts 20:6ff). 

Since these historians referred to themselves by name at the event level, we should be open to the possibility that Luke did too (albeit more sparingly than the other historians). The convention of anonymity followed by Luke and the other gospel writers required that the author not be identified (obviously). However, it did not require that no reference should be made to the author by name, because otherwise no-one would have accepted the view that the fourth gospel was written by John, or that the first was written by Matthew. I have argued that Luke did indeed refer to himself by name once (Lucius of Acts 13:1).

Of the three forms of self-reference available to Luke (first person singular, first person plural, and third person), first person plural was the least obtrusive. It was the form that drew least attention to the author as an individual and so we should not be surprised that Luke preferred it.

The passage from Polybius above is particularly interesting because the author switches to the first person plural at precisely the point where he sets sail, just as Luke does (Acts 16:10; 20:6; 27:1). This supports the view of Vernon Robbins that first person narrative was preferred for sea voyages (but not his view that the author need not have been present on the voyage).

It seems to me, therefore, that Acts combines the conventions of the historians about styles of self-reference with the convention of the gospels about limiting self-reference. He limits narrator level self-reference to his prefaces, and gives his name (Lucius/Luke) only once (Acts 13:1). He chose to make explicit reference to his participation only for sea voyages and their aftermath, where convention allowed him to use the relatively unobtrusive first person plural. For land events he omitted reference to himself completely, not because he was absent, but because convention required the use of the third person, "Lucius", which he did not want to overdo.


Campbell's evidence shows that when historians used the first person they were indeed claiming to have been participants of the events described. Therefore, Luke was (claiming to be) present. This is, in any case, common sense.

Campbell's deductions about Acts
It is therefore baffling that Campbell uses the same data to conclude that:

The analysis of grammatical practice by Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus raises questions about the traditional argument that the first person plural undeniably documents historical eyewitnessing.

 His reasoning seems to be this:

If the author of Acts wished to lift up his historical presence at and involvement in events, the grammatical guidance offered by Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus would seem to be that he identify himself by name, associate himself unmistakably with the narrator character, and report events in which he claims participation primarily in the third person.

 He assumes that "the author of Acts never appears as a third person actor in the narrative".

Campbell has failed to make allowance for Luke's desire to avoid excessive self-reference that would detract from the centrality of his subject matter. I have shown above that Luke follows the grammatical guidance of the other historians as much as was possible without obtrusive self-reference.

Moreover, Campbell does not explain how the "we passages" could have been understood by the original readers as implying anything other than the actual presence of the author.

Campbell's paper is valuable because he has made some important observations about the styles of self-designation employed by ancient historians. It is a real pity that his analysis of Acts misses the point completely.