Galatians, Volume 41 (41) (Word Biblical Commentary) 9780310521945, 0310521947

Citation preview

WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY

Editorial Board O ld Testament Editor: Nancy L . d e Claisse-Walford (2011 - ) New Testam ent Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013 - )

Past Editors General Editors Ralph P. Martin (2012 - 2013) Bruce M. Metzger (1997 - 2007)

David A. H ubbard (1977 - 1996) Glenn W. Barker (1977 - 1984)

Old Testament Editors: Jo h n D . W. Watts (1977 - 2011)

Jam es W. Watts (1997 - 2011)

New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin (1977 - 2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997 - 2013)

Volumes 1 2 3 4 5 6a

Genesis 1 - 15 Gordon J. W enham Genesis 16 - 50 Gordon J. W enham Exodus........................ Jo h n I. Durham Leviticus Jo h n E. Hartley Num bers Philip J. B udd D euteronom y 1:1 - 21:9, 2nd ed D uane L. Christensen 6b D euteronom y 21:10 - 34:12 D uane L. Christensen 7a Joshua 1-12, 2nd ed Trent C Butler 7b Joshua 13-24, 2nd ed. Trent C Butler 8 Judges Trent C Butler 9 Ruth - Esther Frederic W Bush 10 1 Samuel, 2nd ed Ralph W Klein 11 2 Samuel A A A nderson Simon J Devries 12 1 Kings, 2nd e d .......... 13 2 Kings........................ ..................T. R. Hobbs 14 1 Chronicles Roddy Braun 15 2 Chronicles Raymond B Dillard 16 Ezra, Nehem iah H. G. M. Williamson 17 Jo b 1 - 20 David J. A. Clines David J. A. Clines 18a Job 21 - 3 7 .................. 18b Job 38 - 42 .................. David J. A. Clines 19 Psalms 1 - 50, 2nd ed Peter C. Craigie, Marvin E. Tate Marvin E. Tate 20 Psalms 51 - 1 0 0 ......... Leslie C Allen 21 Psalms 101 - 150, rev ed R oland E. M urphy 22 Proverbs 23a Ecclesiastes R oland E. M urphy 23b Song o f Songs/L am entations . . . .D uane H. Garrett, Paul R. House Jo h n D. W. Watts 24 Isaiah 1 - 33, rev. ed. . Jo h n D. W. Watts 25 Isaiah 3 4 - 66, rev. e d . Peter C. Craigie, 26 Jerem iah 1 - 25 Page H. Kelley, Joel F. D rinkard J r Gerald L. Keown, 27 Jerem iah 26 - 52 Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers *forthcoming as of 2014 **in revision as of 2014

28 Ezekiel 1 - 1 9 ............................ Leslie C . Allen 29 Ezekiel 20 - 4 8 .......................... Leslie C . Allen 30 Daniel Jo h n E. Goldingay 31 H osea - J o n a h * * ....................Douglas Stuart 32 Micah - M alachi**..................Ralph L. Smith 33a Matthew 1 - 13..................Donald A. H agner 33b Matthew 14 - 28............... Donald A. H agner 34a Mark 1 - 8:26** R obert A. Guelich 34b Mark 8:27 - 16:20 ................... Craig A. Evans 35a Luke 1 - 9 :2 0 .............................Jo h n Nolland 35b Luke 9:21 - 18:34......................Jo h n Nolland 35c Luke 18:35 - 24:53....................Jo h n Nolland 36 John, 2nd ed. . . . George R. Beasley-Murray 37a Acts 1 - 1 4 * .........................Stephen J. Walton 37b Acts 15 - 28* Stephen J. Walton 38a Rom ans 1 - 8 Jam es D .G. D unn 38b Romans 9 - 1 6 ...................James D . G. D unn 39 1 Corinthians* Andrew D. Clarke 40 2 Corinthians, rev e d Ralph P. Martin 41 Galatians Richard N Longenecker 42 Ephesians Andrew T. Lincoln 43 Philippians, rev. ed. . . .Gerald F. Hawthorne, rev by Ralph P. Martin 44 Colossians, Philemon** . . . Peter T. O'Brien 45 1 & 2 T hessalonians**..................F. F. Bruce 46 Pastoral Epistles William D. M ounce 47a Hebrews 1 - 8 .......................... William L. Lane 47b Hebrews 9 - 13........................William L. Lane 48 Jam es Ralph P Martin 49 1 Peter J. Ramsey Michaels 50 Jude, 2 P e te r* * ........... Richard J. Bauckham 51 1, 2, 3, Jo h n , rev ed Stephen S. Smalley 52a Revelation 1 - 5 David E Aune 52b Revelation 6 - 1 6 .......................David E. Aune 52c Revelation 17 - 2 2 ................... David E . Aune

W O RD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY Galatians

RICHARD N. LONGENECKER General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

ZONDERVAN Galatians, Volume 41 Copyright © 1990 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Previously published as Galatians. Formerly published by Thomas Nelson, now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChristian Publishing. Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 This edition: ISBN 978-0-310-52194-5 The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows: Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211 The author’s own translation of the text appears in italic type under the heading “Translation,” as well as in brief Scripture quotations in the body of the commentary, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

9780310521945_Galatians_Vol41.indd 4

2/11/15 8:45 AM

To my doctoral students of the past dozen years, who have taught me much!

Contents E d ito ria l Preface A u th o r's Preface A b b revia tio n s C om m entary B ibliography G eneral B ibliography

ix x xiii x x ix xxx xli xlii lvii lxi lx x ii lxxxviii c

I n tro d u c tio n T h e Im p a c t o f G alatian s o n C h ristia n T h o u g h t a n d A c tio n A u th o rs h ip A d d re ssees D a te O p p o n e n ts a n d S itu a tio n E p isto lary a n d R h e to ric a l S tru c tu re s T e x t a n d C o m m e n ta ry I. S a lu ta tio n (1 :1 -5 ) II. R e b u k e S ectio n (F o ren sic R h e to ric P ro m in e n t) (1 :6 -4 :1 1 ) A. O c casio n fo r W ritin g /Is s u e s a t S take (E xordiu m ) (1 :6 -1 0 ) B. A u to b io g ra p h ic a l S ta te m e n ts in D e fen se ( N a rra tio ) (1 :1 1 -2 :1 4 ) 1. T h esis S ta te m e n t (1 :1 1 -1 2 ) 2. E arly Life, C o n v ersio n , a n d C o m m issio n (1 :1 3 -1 7 ) 3. F irst V isit to J e ru s a le m (1 :1 8 -2 4 ) 4. S e c o n d V isit to J e ru s a le m (2 :1 -1 0 ) 5. T h e A n tio c h E p iso d e (2 :1 1 -1 4 ) E xcursus: A n tio ch on the O rontes

C. T h e P ro p o s itio n o f G alatian s (P ropositio) (2:15-21) D. A rg u m e n ts in S u p p o rt (P robatio) (3 :1 -4 :1 1 ) 1. R ig h te o u sn e ss A p a rt fro m th e Law: A g a in st L egalism (3 :1 -1 8 )

1 11 12 20 20 25 35 43 62 65 81 97 98

E xcursus: A b ra h a m 's F a ith a n d F a ith fu ln ess in Jew ish W ritin gs a n d in P a u l

110 2. T h e B eliev er’s Life n o t “u n d e r Law ” B u t “in C h ris t”: A g a in st N o m ism (3 :1 9 -4 :7 ) 135 3. P a u l’s C o n c e rn fo r th e G a la tia n s (4 :8 -1 1 ) 177 III. R eq u est S ection (D eliberative R h e to ric P ro m in e n t) (4:12-6:10) 184 A. E x h o rta tio n s a g a in st th e J u d a iz in g T h r e a t (.E xh ortatio , P a r t i ) (4 :1 2 -5 :1 2 ) 186 1. P e rso n a l A p p e als (4 :1 2 -2 0 ) 187 2. T h e H a g a r-S a ra h A llegory (4 :2 1 -3 1 ) 197 E xcursus: The H a g a r-S a ra h Story in Jew ish W ritin gs a n d in P a u l

200

C ontents

3. Holding Fast to Freedom (5:1-12) B. Exhortations against Libertine Tendencies (Exhortatio, Part II) (5:13-6:10) 1. Life Directed by Love, Service to Others, and the Spirit (5:13-18) 2. The Works of the Flesh and the Fruit of the Spirit (5:19-26) 3. Doing Good to All (6:1-10) IV. Subscription (6:11-18) Indexes

220 235 237 248 267 285 302

Editorial Preface T he launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillm ent an en ter­ prise o f several years’ planning. T he publishers and the m em bers o f the editorial bo ard m et in 1977 to explore the possibility o f a new com m entary on the books o f the Bible th at would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers o f these volumes are entitled to know w hat such features were in ten d ed to be; w hether the aims of the com m entary have been fully achieved tim e alone will tell. First, we have tried to cast a wide n e t to include as contributors a n u m b er of scholars from aro u n d the world who n o t only share ou r aims, b u t are in the m ain engaged in the m inistry o f teaching in university, college, and seminary. They rep resen t a rich diversity of denom inational allegiance. T he broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense o f a com m itm ent to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the tru th an d power o f the Christian gospel. T hen, the com m entaries in o u r series are all com m issioned and w ritten for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. U nlike several of o u r dis­ tinguished co unterparts in the field o f com m entary writing, there are no trans­ lated works, originally w ritten in a non-English language. Also, ou r com m entators were asked to p rep are their own ren d erin g o f the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own com m ents and exegesis. W hat may be claim ed as distinctive with this series is th at it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to m ake the technical and scholarly approach to a theological u n d erstan d in g o f Scripture understandable by—and useful to— the fledgling student, the working m inister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well. Finally, a word m ust be said about the form at of the series. T he layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section h ead ed Notes. If the read ers’ concern is with the state o f m odern scholarship on any given portion o f Scripture, they should tu rn to the sections of Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition o f the passage’s m eaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to m eet th at need. T here is therefore som ething for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes. If these aims com e anywhere n ear realization, the inten tio n o f the editors will have been m et, and the labor of ou r team o f contributors rewarded. G eneral Editors:

David A. Hubbard Glenn W. Barker j; O ld Testam ent: John D. W. Watts New Testam ent: Ralph P. Martin

Author’s Preface Why an o th er Galatians com m entary? T he question is pertinent, particularly with such com m entaries as those by Lightfoot (1865), B urton (1921), M ussner (1974), Betz (1979), and Bruce (1982) already existing. Ultimately, the answer to why an o th er scholarly com m entary can only be given in term s of (1) new ap­ proaches or new data of relevance to the subject, and (2) the interests and expertise o f the com m entator. T hat there are both new approaches to and new data for the study o f Galatians is a thesis I hope to dem onstrate th ro u g h o u t the Introduction and Commentary proper. As for my interests and expertise, the first can be item ized briefly below. T he second, of course, m ust be left to the ju d g m en t of others. My interests in NT study are m ost concisely stated as follows. First, I am always concerned with the history of interpretation— that is, with how a subject has been treated in the past, so as to profit from either advances or false starts in the discussion and to give direction to my own research through the isolation of crucial issues. Second, I want to know as m uch as possible about the circum stances beh in d the writing and the purposes for which its au th o r wrote. T hird, I approach the m aterial in question asking about its literary structures—in the case of letters, epistolary and rhetorical structures—and their relations to the conventions o f the day. T hen, o f course, I am concerned with the m eaning o f words in a text, both as to how particular expressions were used in the day and as to how a given au th o r shaped those expressions for his own purposes. Following hard on the heels of philology is my concern with what may be called phenom enological historiogra­ phy—th at is, the identification and tracing of similar them es and parallel ways of looking at things in roughly cognate bodies of literature with the hope o f spawning fresh interpretive insights. A sixth interest is in the developm ent o f tho u g h t in the apostolic period and beyond, while a seventh has to do with the relevance o f the NT for Christian faith and life today. P aul’s letter to the Galatians has been a favorite of m ine. In large m easure, repeated study o f Galatians has generated my own scholarly interests in the NT generally. F urtherm ore, the letter has been of late the object o f a great deal of research and specialized study. So I have worked on this com m entary with great relish. W here I believe my work on Galatians is m ost distinctive is in (1) its stress on Hellenistic epistolary conventions, (2) its eclectic treatm ent of Greco-Roman rhetorical features, (3) its highlighting of Jewish them es and exegetical proce­ dures, and (4) its A ntiochian style of interpretation. I would also like to believe that at many o th er points—e.g., on addressees, date, opponents, and a host of specific exegetical issues—I have m ade a contribution as well. Most o f all, however, as one who views the NT in term s of salvation history and n o t ju st with a history-of-religions perspective, it is my desire that through what follows the read er will experience som ething o f the same im pact on his or h er life as I have experienced from a close study o f P aul’s letter to the Galatians. Only then will the question o f why one wants to write an o th er Galatian com m entary be truly answered. In the course o f research and writing I have had help from a nu m b er o f form er doctoral candidates who have worked u n d e r my supervision at T oronto, and to

Author's Preface

XI

them I express my heartfelt thanks. Dr. Terry D onaldson and Dr. Steve Mason p rep ared a great deal of m aterial on Pauline chronology, rabbinic parallels, parallels in Josephus, and ethical treatises in the ancient world. Dr. W alter H an sen ’s dissertation on “The A braham Story in Galatians, in Light o f Epistolary and R hetorical Analyses” (published 1989) and Dr. M urray B arron’s dissertation on “T he Relational Function of the Spirit in Galatians” (unpublished), while incorporating some of my interests and ideas, were foundational in many ways for my writing o f this com m entary. Dr. Tom Sappington and my son, Dr. Bruce Longenecker, helped greatly with regard to bibliography. In addition, my wife Fran and Allan M artens (Th. D. cand.) aided in a n u m ber of ways, including proofreading. To all these faithful helpers I express my heartfelt thanks. Also, of course, I owe m uch to the vast host of scholars who have w ritten on Galatians before me. I trust that in the way I handle their m aterials my debt will be evident. All I can pray is th at my attem pt to carry on their work will to some extent be a fulfillm ent of their endeavors, and so be to the greater benefit of the C hurch at large. October 1990 Wycliffe College

R ic h a r d

N.

L ongenecker

Abbreviations A. General Abbreviations ad comment on Akkadian Akkad. Codex Sinaiticus K Apocalyptic Literature Ap. Lit. Apoc. Apocrypha Aquila’s Greek Transla­ Aq. tion of the OT Arab. Arabic Aram. Aramaic c. circa,, about century cent. cf. confer; compare chap(s). chapter (s) cod., codd. codex, codices contra in contrast to DSS Dead Sea Scrolls ed. edited by, editor (s) e.g. exempli gratia, for ex­ ample et al. et alii, and others ET English translation EV English Versions of the Bible f., ff. following (verse or verses, pages, etc.) fem. feminine frag. fragments FS Festschrift, volume written in honor of ft. foot, feet gen. genitive Gr. Greek hap. leg. hapax legomenon, sole occurrence Heb. Hebrew Hitt. Hittite ibid. ibidem, in the same place id. idem, the same i.e. id est, that is impf. imperfect infra below in loc. in loco, in the place cited Jos. Josephus loc. cit. the place cited LXX Septuagint m. Mishna

masc. mg. MS(S) MT n. n.d. Nestle no. n.s. NT obs. o.s. OT p., pp. pace / / , par(s). par. passim pi. Pseudep. Q q.v. rev. Rom. RVmg Sam. sc. Sem. sing. Souter Sumer. s.v. Symm. Tg. Theod. Tisch.

masculine margin manuscript (s) Masoretic text (of the Old Testament) note no date Nestle (ed.), Novum Testamentum Graece 26, rev. by K. and B. Aland num ber new series New Testament obsolete old series Old Testament page, pages with due respect to, but differing from parallel (s) paragraph elsewhere plural Pseudepigrapha Quelle (“Sayings” source for the Gospels) quod vide, which see revised, reviser, revision Roman Revised Version margin Samaritan recension scilicet, that is to say Semitic singular A. Souter, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece, 2nd ed. (1947) Sumerian sub verbo, under the word Symmachus Targum Theodotion C. Tischendorf, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece, 8th ed., 186972

xiv TR tr. UBSGT Ugar. UP u.s. V, w

viz.

A b b r e v ia t io n s

Textus Receptus translator, translated by The United Bible Societies Greek Text Ugaritic University Press ut supra, as above verse, verses videlicet, namely

v. I. vol. WH

x

varia lectio, alternative reading volume B. F. Westcott 8c F. J. A. Hort, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881) times (2x = two times, etc.)

N ote: The textual notes and numbers used to indicate individual manuscripts are

those found in the apparatus criticus of Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. E. Nestle and K. Aland et al. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 197926). This edition of the Greek New Testament is the basis for the Translation sections. B. Abbreviations for Translations and Paraphrases

AmT

Smith and Goodspeed, The Complete Bible, An American Translation American Standard Version, ASV American Revised Version (1901) AV Authorized Version = KJV Berkeley G. Verkuyl, ed., The Holy Bible: The Berkeley Version in Modern English (NT 1945, OT 1959) Good News Bible = Today’s GNB English Version Jerusalem Bible JB Jewish Publication Society, JPS The Holy Scriptures King James Version (1611) = KJV AV R. A. Knox, The Holy Bible: A Knox Translation from the Latin

Moffatt NAB NEB NIV NJB Phillips RSV RV Wey Wms

Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Original J. Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible (NT 1913) The New American Bible The New English Bible The New International Version (1978) Newjerusalem Bible (1985) J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modem English Revised Standard Version (NT 1946, OT 1952, Apoc. 1957) Revised Version, 1881-85 R. F. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modem Speech C. B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People

C. Abbreviations o f C om m only U sed Periodicals, R eferen ce Works, and Serials

AAS AARSR AASOR AB ABR AbrN ACNT AcOr ACW

Acta apostolicae sedis American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Re­ search Anchor Bible Australian Biblical Review Abr-Nahrain Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament Acta orientalia Ancient Christian Writers

ADAJ AER AfO AGJU AGSU AH

Annual of the Department of Antiquities ofJordan American Ecclesiastical Re­ view Archiv fu r Orientforschung Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentum s und des Urchristen turns Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spatjudentums und Urchristen turns F. Rosenthal, An Aramaic Handbook

Abbreviations AHR AHW AION AJA AJAS AJBA AJBI AJP AJSL AJT ALBO ALGHJ ALUOS AnBib AnBoll ANEP ANESTP ANET ANF Ang AnOr ANQ ANRW ANT Anton AOAT AOS AP APOT ARG

Amencan Historical Review W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch Annali delVistituto orientali di Napoli American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Arabic Studies Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology Annual of theJapanese Biblical Institute American Journal of Philology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature American Journal of Theology Analecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentum s Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society Analecta Biblica Analecta Bollandiana J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East in Pictures J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East Supplementary Texts and Pictures J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts The Ante-Nicene Fathers Anglicum Analecta orientalia Andover Newton (Quarterly Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, Berlin Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung Antonianum Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series J. Marouzeau (ed.), L ’annee philologique R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocry­ pha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte

ARM ArOr ARSHLL ARW ASNU ASS AsSeign ASSR ASTI ATAbh ATANT ATD ATDan AT] ATR AUSS BA BAC BAG

BAH BangTF BAR BASOR BASP BBB BCSR BDB

BDF

XV

Archives royales de Mari Archiv orientalni Acta Reg. Societatis Humani­ orum Litterarum Lundensis Archiv fü r Religionsmssenschafi Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis Acta sanctae sedis Assemblies du Seigneur Archives des sciences sociales des religions Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Acta Theologica Danica African TheologicalJournal Anglican Theological Review Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblioteca de autores cristianos W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ET, ed. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich (1957) Bibliotheque archeologique et historique Bangalore Theological Forum Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the Amencan Society of Papyrologists Bonner biblische Beitrage Bulletin of the Council on the Study of Religion F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar

XVI

BDR BeO BET BETL BEvT BFCT BGBE BGU BHH BHK BHS BHT Bib BibB BibLeb BibNot BibOr BibS(F) BibS(N) BiTod BIES BIFAO BILL BJRL BJS BK BEAT BL BLE BLit

A b b r e v ia t io n s

of the New Testament (Univer­ sity of Chicago/University of Cambridge, 1961) F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch Bibbia e oriente Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Berliner griechische Urkunden Biblisch-Historisches Handwörterbuch R. Kittel, Biblia hebraica Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblische Beiträge Bibel und Leben Biblische Notizen Biblica et orientalia Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895-) Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, 1951-) The Bible Today Bulletin of the Israel Explora­ tion Society ( = Yediot) Bulletin de Tinstitut frangais d ’archeologie onentale Bibliotheque des cahiers de Tinstitut de Linguistique de Louvain Bulletin of theJohn Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Book List Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique Bibel und Liturgie

BLS BNTC BO BR BRev BS BSac BSO(A)S BSR BT BTB BU BulCPE BVC BW BWANT BZ BZAW BZET BZNW BZRGG CAD CAH CAT CB CBG CBQ CBQMS CBVE CCath CChr CG CGTC CGTSC CH CHR CIG

Bible and Literature Series Black’s New Testament Commentaries Bibliotheca onentalis Biblical Research Bible Review Biblische Studien Biblica Sacra Bulletin of the School of Chiental (and African) Studies Bibliotheque de sciences religieuses The Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Untersuchungen Bulletin du Centre Protestant d Etudes (Geneva) Bible et vie chretienne Biblical World Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische ZeitschHft Beihefte zur ZAW Beihefte zur Evangelische Theologie Beihefte zur ZNW Beihefte zur ZRGG The Assynan Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Cambridge Ancient History Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament Cultura biblica Collationes Brugenses el Gandavenses Catholic Biblical (Quarterly CBQ Monograph Series Comenius Blatterfür Volkserziehung Corpus Catholicorum Corpus Christianorum Cairenensis Gnosticus (Nag Hammadi Codex) Cambridge Greek Testa­ m ent Commentary Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges Church History Catholic Historical Review Corpus inscriptionum

Abbreviations

CII CIL CIS CJT ClerRev CLit CM CNT ComLit ConB Concit ConNT CQ CQR CRAIBL CrQ CSCO CSEL CTA CTJ CTQ CurTM CV DACL DBSup Diak DISO DJD DL DOTT DR DS

graecarum Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum Corpus inscriptionum latinarum Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Canadian Journal of Theology Clergy Review Christianity and Literature Cahiers marials Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Communautes et liturgies Coniectanea biblica Concilium Coniectanea neotestamentica Church Quarterly Church Quarterly Review Comptes rendus de TAcademie des inscriptions et belles-lettres Crozier Quarterly Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques Calvin TheologicalJournal Concordia Theological Quarterly Currents in Theology and Mission Communio viatorum Dictionnaire d ’archeologie chretienne et de liturge Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement Diakonia C. -F. Jean a n d j. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de Touest Discoveries in the Judean Desert Doctrine and Life D. W. Thomas (ed.), Documents from Old Testament Times Downside Review Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum

DT DTC DTT DunRev EBib EBT EcR ED EE EglT EHAT EKKNT EKL Emman Encjud EnchBib EpR ER Erjb EstBib ETL ETR ETS EvK EvQ EvT EW

Exp ExpTim FB FBBS FC EM FRLANT FTS

xvii Deutsche Theologe Dictionnaire de theologe catholique Dansk teologisk tidsskrift Dunwoodie Review Etudes bibliques Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology Ecclesiastical Review Euntes Docete (Rome) Estudios Eclesidsticos Eglise et theologie Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon Emmanuel Encyclopedia judaica (1971) Enchiridion biblicum Epworth Review Ecumenical Review Eranos Jahrbuch Estudios biblicos Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Etudes theologques et religieuses Erfurter Theologische Studien Evangelische Kommentar Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (EWNT), ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980-83) Expositor The Expository Times Forschung zur Bibel Facet Books, Biblical Series Fathers of the Church Faith and Mission Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Frankfurter Theologische Studien

x v iii

GAG GCS GKB GKC GNT GOTR GRBS Greg GThT GTJ GuL HALAT HAT HB HDR HeyJ HibJ HKAT HKNT HE HNT HNTC HR HSM HTKNT HTR HTS HUCA HUTH

A b b r e v ia t io n s

W. von Soden, Grundnss der akkadischen Grammatik Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller Gesenius-KautzschBergstrasser, Hebraische Grammatik Gesenius’Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament Greek Orthodox Theological Review Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Gregonanum Geformelet Theologisch Tijdschrifi Grace TheologicalJournal Geist und Leben W. Baumgartner et al., Hebraisches und aramaisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament Handbuch zum Alten Testament Homiletica en Biblica Harvard Dissertations in Religion HeythropJournal HibbertJournal Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Das heilige Land Handbuch zum Neuen Testament H arper’s NT Commentaries History of Religions Harvard Semitic Mono­ graphs Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie

IB IBD IBS ICC IDB IDBSup

m

IER ILS Int ISBE ITQ ITS

JA

JAAR JAC JAMA JANESCU JAOS JAS JBC JBL JBR JCS JDS JEA JEH JES JETS JHS JIBS JlPh

Interpreter’s Bible Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas and N. Hillyer Insh Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary volume to IDB Israel Exploration Journal Irish Ecclesiastical Record H. Dessau (ed.), Inscnptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin, 1892) Interpretation International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G. W. Bromiley Insh Theological (Quarterly Indian Theological Studies Journal asiatique Journal of the Amencan Academy of Religion Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Journal of the Amencan Medical Association Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the Amencan Oriental Society Journal of Asian Studies R. E. Brown et al., eds., The Jerome Biblical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of Cuneiform Studies Judean Desert Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeol­ ogy Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Journal of Indian Philosophy

Abbreviations JfS JMES JMS flJES JPOS JQR JQRMS JR JRAS JRE JRelS JRH JRomH JRT JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSS JSSR JTC JTS JTSA Jud KAI KAT KB KD KEK KIT KTR

Journal ofJewish Studies Journal of Middle Eastern Studies Journal of Mithraic Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Palestine Onental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series Journal of Religion Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of Religious Ethics Journal of Religious Studies Journal of Religious History Journal of Roman History Journal of Religious Thought Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNT Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOT Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Journal for Theology and the Church Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theology for South Africa Judaica H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kannaanaische und aramaische Inschnften E. Sellin, ed., Kommentar zum Alten Testament L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Vetens Testamenti libros Kerygma und Dogma Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament Kleine Texte King’s Theological Review (London)

LCC LCL LD Les LingBib LLAVT LouvStud LPGL LQ LR LSJ LTK LTSB LUA LumVie LVit LW MC McCQ MDOG MelT MeyerK MM MNTC MPAIBL MQR MS MScRel MTS MTZ MUSJ MVAG

NAG

xix Library of Christian Classics Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Lesonenu Linguistica Biblica E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae Vetens Testamenti Louvain Studies G. W. H. Lampe, Partistic Greek Lexicon Lutheran Quarterly Luthensche Rundschau Liddell-Scott-Jones, GreekEnglish Lexicon Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche Lutheran Theological Seminary Bulletin Lunds universitets arsskrift Lumiere et Vie Lumen Vitae Lutheran World Modern Churchman McCormick Quarterly Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Melita Theologica H. A. W. Meyer, Kritischexegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament J. H. Moulton and C. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (1930) Moffatt NT Commentary Memoires presentes a VAcademie des inscriptions et belles-lettres Michigan Quarterly Review Milltown Studies Melanges de science religieuse Marburger theologische Studien Milnchener theologische Zeitschnft Melanges de Vuniversite SaintJoseph Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-agyptischen Gesellschaft Nachnchten von der Akademie der Wissenschafien in Gottingen

xx

NB NCB NCCHS

NCE NCIB NedTTs Neot N E STR NewDocs

N FT NGS NHS N IC N T

N iew T T N IG T C NJDT NKZ N o rT T N o vT N ovT Sup N PN F NRT NTA N T A bh N TD N TF NTL NTS N TSR N TTS Num en NZM

A bbreviations New Blackfriars New C entury Bible (new ed.) R. C. F uller e t al., eds., New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture M. R. P. M cGuire et al., ed., New Catholic Encyclopedia N ew C laren d o n Bible Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift Neotestamentica Near East School o f Theology Reveiw New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, A Review o f Greek Inscriptions, etc., ed. G. H. R. H orsley, N o rth Ryde, NSW, A ustralia New F ro n tiers in T heology New G ospel Studies N ag H am m ad i Studies New In tern atio n al C om m entary o n th e New T estam en t Niew theologisch tijdschrift New In te rn a tio n a l G reek T estam e n t C o m m en tary Neue Jahrbucher fü r deutsche Theologie Neue kirchliche Ze itschrift Norsk Teologisk Tijdsskrift Novum Testamentum S u p p le m e n t to N ovT N icene a n d P ost-N icene F ath ers La nouvelle revue theologique New Testament Abstracts N eu te sta m en tlic h e A b h a n d lu n g e n Das N eu e T estam e n t D eutsch N eu te sta m en tlic h e F o rsc h u n g en New T e sta m e n t L ibrary New Testament Studies T h e New T e sta m e n t for S piritual R eading New T e sta m e n t T ools a n d Studies Numen: International Review fo r the History o f Religions Neue Zeitschrift fü r Missionswissenschaft

OBO OBS OCD OGI

O IP OLP OLZ Or OrAnt OrChr OrSyr OTKNT

O TM O TS PAAJ R PA m h PC PCB

PEFQS P E n teu x PEQ PFay PG PGiess PG M P G re n f

PhEW PhRev pj PL PLond PM ich PN TC

O rb is biblicus e t o rien talis O ste rreich isc h e bib lisch e S tu d ien Oxford Classical Dictionary W. D itten b erg er, ed., Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae (Leipzig: H irzel, 1903-5 ) O rie n ta l In stitu te Publications O rie n ta lia lovaniensia p e rio d ic a Orientalische Literaturzeitung Orientalia (R om e) Oriens antiquus Oriens christianus L ’orient syrien O k u m e n isc h e r T a sc h en b u c h -K o m m en ta r zum N T O x fo rd T h eo lo g ical M o n o g rap h s O u d te sta m e n tisc h e S tu d ien Proceedings o f the American Academy o f Jewish Research A m h erst Papyri P roclam ation C o m m en taries M. Black a n d Η . H. Rowley, eds., Peake’s Commentary on the Bible Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement Enteuxeis Papyri (C airo) Palestine Exploration Quarterly Fayum Papyri Parologia graeca, ed. J. P. M igne G iessen Papyri K. P re isen d an z, ed., Papyri graecae magicae A n A lex a n d rian E rotic F ra g m e n t a n d O th e r G reek Papyri, ed. B. P. G ren fell Philosophy East and West Philosophical Review Palastina-jahrbuch Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. M igne G reek Papyri in th e B ritish M useum (L o n d o n ) M ichigan Papyri P elican N ew T e sta m e n t c o m m en taries

PO POxy ProcIBA PRS PR U PSTJ PTebt PTMS PTR PVTG PW

PW Sup QDAP

RA RA C RArch RB RB en RCB RE

REA R echB ib REg REJ RelArts RelS RelSoc RelSRev RES RestQ RevExp RevistB RevQ RevRel RevScRel RevSem RevThom

Abbreviations

XXI

RGG

Religion in Geschichte un d Gegenwart Revue d ’histoire ecclesiastique Revue d ’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de l'histoire des religions Rivista biblica Rheinisches M useum fü r Philologie R e g en sb u rg e r N eu es T e sta m e n t Review o f Religion Rivista di Storiae Letteratura Religiosa (T urin) Rivista degli studi orientali Revue des sciences philosophiques et theobgiques Recherches de science religieuse Revue theologique de Louvain Revue de theologie et de philosophie Reformed Theological Review La Revue de l'Universite L aval Revue de l ’universite Ottawa

P atro lo g ia orien talis O xyrhynchus Papyri Proceedings o f the irish Biblical Association Perspectives in Religious Studies Le Palais royal d ’Ugarit Perkins (School o f Theology) Journal T eb tu n is Papyri P ittsb u rg h T h eological M o n o g rap h Series Princeton Theological Review P se u d e p ig ra p h a V eteris T estam e n ti graece Pauly-Wissowa, RealEncyklopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft S u p p le m e n t to PW Quarterly o f the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Revue d ’assyriologie et d ’archeologie orientale Reallexikon fü r Antike und Christentum Revue archeologique Revue biblique Revue B e n ed ictin e Revista de cultura biblica Realencyklopadie fü r protestantische Theologie und Kirche Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes R ech erch es bibliques Revue d ’egyptologie Revue des etudes juives R eligion a n d th e Arts Religious Studies Religion and Society Religious Studies Review Repertoire d ’epigraphie semitique Restoration Quarterly Review and Expositor Revista Biblica Revue de Qumran Review fo r Religious Revue des sciences religieuses Revue semitique Revue thomiste

RH E R H PR RHR RivB RM RN T RR R SLR RSO R SP T R SR RTL RTP RTR RUV RUO SacPag SA H

Sal SANT SAQ

SAWB

SB SBB SBFLA SbGU SBJ SBLASP

SBLDS

Sacra Pagina Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaflen (phil.-hist. Klasse) Salmanticensis S tu d ien zum A lten u n d N e u e n T e sta m e n t S am m lu n g au sg ew ah lter k irch en - u n d d o g m e n g esc h ich tlic h er Q u ellen sc h rifte n Sitzungsberichte der (koniglich preussischen) Akademie der Wissenschaft en zu Berlin (phil.-hist. Klasse) S ources b ib liq u es S tu ttg a rte r bib lisch e b eitrag e Studii biblici franciscani liber annuus Sammelbuch griechischen Urkunden, ed. F. Preisigke L a sainte bible de Jerusalem Society o f Biblical L iteratu re A bstracts a n d S em in ar P ap ers SBL D issertatio n Series

xxii

SBLMasS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSCS SBLTT SBM SBS SBT SC ScEccl ScEs SCR Scr ScrB SD SE

seA

Sef SeinSend Sem SemiotBib SHAW

SH T SHVL

SJLA SJT SM SR SNT SNTSMS SNTU

SO SOTSMS SPap

A bbreviations SBL M asoretic Studies SBL M o n o g rap h Series SBL S ources fo r Biblical Study SBL S ep tu a g in t a n d C og n ate Studies SBL T exts a n d T ran slatio n s S tu ttg a rter biblische M o n o g ra p h ie n S tu ttg a rter B ibelstudien S tudies in Biblical T heology S ource C h re tie n n e s Sciences ecclesiastique Science et esprit Studies in Comparative Religion Scripture Scripture Bulletin S tudies a n d D o cu m en ts Studia E vangelica 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6 (= T U 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88 [1964], 102 [1968], 103 [1968], 112 [1973]) Svensk exegetisk arsbok Sefarad S a n Sendung Semitica Semiotique et Bible S itzungsberichte h e id e lb e rg e n A kadem ie d e r W issenschaften S tudies in H istorical T heology Skrifter U tgivna Av Kungl. H um anistika V etenskapßam fu n d e t i L u n d S tudies in Ju d a ism in L ate A ntiquity ScottishJournal of Theology Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni S tu d ien zum N e u e n T e sta m e n t Society fo r New T e sta m e n t S tudies M o n o g rap h Series S tu d ien zum N e u e n T e sta m e n t u n d se in er U m w elt Sym bolae osloenses Society fo r O ld T e sta m e n t Study M o n o g rap h Series tj Studia papyrologica

SPAW

SPB SR SSS ST STA StBibT STDJ STK Str-B

S tudB ib S tu d N eo t SU N T SVTP SWJT SymBU

T a n tY ΤΑΡΑ TB TBC TBl ΤΒϋ TC TD TDNT

T extsS TF TGl Th ThA ThBer THKNT

T hV iat TJ

S itzu n g sb erich te d e r p reu ssisch e n A k ad em ie d e r W issenschaften S tu d ia p o stb ib lica Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses Sem itic Study Series Studia theologica Svensk teologisk arsskrift Studia biblica et theologica S tudies o n th e T exts o f th e D esert o f J u d a h Svensk teologisk kvartalskrif t H. S track a n d P. B illerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 4 vols. (1926-28) S tu d ia bib lica S tu d ia n e o te sta m e n tic a S tu d ien zu r U m w elt des N e u e n T estam e n ts S tu d ia in V eteris T estam e n ti p se u d e p ig ra p h a Southwestern Journal o f Theology Sym bolae b iblicae up salien ses T antur Yearbook Transactions o f the American Philological Association Theologische Beiträge T o rc h Bible C o m m en taries Theologische Blatter T h eo lo g isch e Bu c h e re i T h eo lo g ical C o llectio n (SPCK) Theology Digest G. K ittel a n d G. F ried rich , eds., Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament, 10 vols., ET (1964-76) T exts a n d S tudies Theologische Forschung Theologie u n d Glaube Theology Theologische Arbeiten Theologische Berichte T h eo lo g isch e r H a n d k o m m e n ta r zum N e u e n T e sta m e n t T h e o lo g ia V iato ru m Trinity Journal Toronto Journal o f Theology

Abbreviations

TLZ T N TC TP TPQ TQ TRev TRu TS TSAJ TSFB TSK TT TTKi TToday TTS TTZ TU TW AT

TW NT

TynB TZ U CL

Theologische Literaturzeitung T yndale New T e sta m e n t C o m m en taries Theologie und Philosophie (ThPh) Theologis ch-Praktische Quartalschrift Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Revue Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies T exte u n d S tu d ien zum A ntiken J u d e n tu m Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin Theologische Studien und k ritiken Teologisk Tidssk rift Tidsskrif t fo r Teologi o g Kirke Theology Today T rie r th eo lo g isch e S tu d ien Trierer theologische Zeitschrift T ex te u n d U n te rsu c h u n g e n G. J. Botterw eck an d H. R inggren, eds., Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament G. K ittel a n d G. F ried rich , eds., Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift

UUA

U niversitas C atholica L ovaniensis Ugantische Forschungen U niversity o f F lorida H u m an itie s M o n o g rap h U n te rsu c h u n g e n zum N e u e n T e sta m e n t Una Sancta Union Seminary Quarterly Review C. H. G o rd o n , Ugaritic Textbook U ppsala u niversitetsarsskrift

VC VCaro VD VetC VF VKHNT

Vigiliae christianae Verbum caro Verbum domini Vetera Christianorum Verkundigung und Forschung K. A land, ed., Vollstandige

UF U FH M UNT US USQR UT

VoxEv VS VSpir VT V TSup

WA WBC WC WD WDB WF W HAB WM ANT

wo WTJ W UNT

w W ZKM WZKSO

ZA ZAW ZDMG ZDPV ZEE ZHT ZKG ZKNT ZKT ZM R ZNW

xxiii Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament Vox E vangelica (L o n d o n ) V erb u m salutis Vie spirituelle Vetus Testamentum V etus T estam e n tu m , S u p p lem en ts M. L u th e r, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (= “W eim ar” edition) W o rd Biblical C o m m en tary W estm in ister C o m m en tary Wort u n d Dienst Westminster Dictionary o f the Bible W ege d e r F o rsc h u n g Westminster Historical Atlas o f the Bible W issenschaftliche M o n o g ra p h ie n zum A lten u n d N e u e n T e sta m e n t Die Welt des Orients Westminster Theological Journal W issenschaftliche U n te rsu c h u n g e n zum N e u e n T e sta m e n t Word and World Wiener Zeitschrift fü r die Kunde des Morgenlandes Wiener Zeitschrift fü r die Kunde Su d- un d Ostasiens Zeitschrift fü r Assyriologie Zeitschrift fü r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrif t des deutschen Palastina-Vereins Zeitschrif t für evangelische Ethik Zeitschrift fü r historiche Theologie Zeitschrift fü r Kirchengeschichte Z a h n ’s Kommentar zum N T Zeitschrift fü r katholische Theologie Zeitschrift f ü r Missionskunde u n d Religionswissenschaft Zeitschrift fü r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

A bbreviations

xxiv ZRGG Z ST

Zeitschrift fü r Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift fü r systematische Theologie

ZTK

Zeitschrift f ü r Theologie un d Kirche Zeitschrif t fü r wissenschaftliche Theologie

ZW T

D. Abbreviations for Books o f the Bible, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha

OLD Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh J udg Ruth 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Kgs 2 Kgs 1 Chr

TESTAMENT 2 Chr Dan Ezra Hos Neh Joel Esth Amos Job Obad Ps(Pss) Jonah Prov Mic Eccl Nah Cant Hab Zeph Isa Hag Jer Lam Zech Ezek Mai

NEW TESTAMENT Matt 1 Tim Mark 2 Tim Luke Titus John Philem Acts Heb Rom Jas 1 Cor 1 Peter 2 Cor 2 Peter Gal 1 John Eph 2 John Phil 3John Col Jude 1 Thess Rev 2 Thess

APOCRYPHA 1 Esd 1 Esdras Ep je r S Th Ch 2 Esd 2 Esdras 4 Ezra 4 Ezra Tobit Tob Sus Judith Bel Jd t Pr Man Add Esth Additions to Esther Wisdom of Solomon 1 Macc Wis Sir Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of 2 Macc Jesus the son of Sirach) 3 Macc Baruch 4 Macc Bar

Epistle of Jeremy Song of the Three Children (or Young Men) Susanna Bel and the Dragon Prayer of Manasseh 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees

E. Abbreviations o f the N am es o f Pseudepigraphical and Early patristic Books Adam and Eve Life o f Adam and Eve Apocalypse o f Abraham (1st Apoc. Abr.

Sib. Or. T. 12 P atr.

to 2nd cent, a.d.) 2 -3 Apoc. Bar. Syriac, Greek Apocalypse of Baruch Apocalypse o f Moses Apoc. Mos. (see T. Mos.) As. Mos. Ethiopic, Slavonic, Hebrew 1 - 2 -3 Enoch Enoch Epistle o f Aristeas Ep. A rist. fubilees Jub. Martyrdom o f Isaiah Mart. Isa. Odes o f Solomon Odes Sol. Psalms o f Solomon Pss. Sol.

T. Abr. T. Judah T. Levi Apoc. Pet. Ep. Pet. Gos. Gos. Gos. Gos.

Eb. Eg. Heb. Naass.

Sibylline Oracles Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs Testament o f Abraham Testament o f Judah Testament o f Levi, etc. Apocalypse o f Peter Epistle o f Peter to James (Kerygmata Petrou) Gospel o f the Ebionites Gospel o f the Egyptians Gospel o f the Hebrews Gospel o f the Naassenes

Abbreviations Gos. Pet. Gos. Thom. Prot. Jas. Bam. 1-2 Clem. Did. Diogn. Herm. Man. Sim. Vis. Ign. Eph. Magn. Phil. Pol.

Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas Protevangelium ofJames Barnabas 1-2 Clement Didache Diognetus Hermas, Mandates Similitudes Visions Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius, Letter to the Polycarp

Rom. Smyrn. Trail. Mart. Pol. Pol. Phil. Iren. Adv. Haer. T en. De Praesc. Haer. Ps. - Clem. Hom. Ps. - Clem. Recog.

XXV

Ignatius, Letter to the Romans Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians Martyrdom of Polycarp Polycarp to the Philippiam Irenaeus, Against All Heresies Tertullian, On the Proscribing of Heretics Pseudo-Clementine Homilies Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions

F. Abbreviations of Names of Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts CD Hev Mas Mird Mur P Q 1Q, 2Q, 3 Q etc.

QL lQapGen 1QH lQIsaab 1QpHab 1QpMic 1QM

Cairo (Genizah text of the) Damascus (Document) Nahal Hever texts Masada texts Khirbet Mird texts Wadi Murabba `at texts Pesher (commentary) Qumran

1QS 1QSa 1QSb 3Q15 4QFlor

Num bered caves of Qumran, yielding written material; followed by abbreviation of biblical or apocryphal book Qumran literature Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Qumran Cave 1 First or second copy of Isaiah from Qumran Cave 1 Pesher on Habakkuk from Qumran Cave 1 Pesher onMicah from Qumran Cave 1 Milhamah (W ar Scroll)

4QMess ar 4QPrNab 4QShirShab 4QTestim 4QTLevi 4QPhyl 11QMelch 11QtgJob 11QTemple

Serek hayyahad (Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline) Appendix A (Rule of the Congregation) to 1QS Appendix B (Blessings) to 1QS Copper Scroll from Qumran Cave 3 Florilegium (or Eschatological Midrashim) from Qumran Cave 4 Aramaic “Messianic” text from Qumran Cave 4 Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran Cave 4 Angelic Liturgy from Qumran Cave 4 Testimonia text from Qumran Cave 4 Testament of Levi from Qumran Cave 4 Phylacteries from Qumran Cave 4 Melchizedek text from Qumran Cave 11 Targum of job from Qumran Cave 11 Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11

A bbreviations

XXVI

G.

Abbreviations o f Targumic Material

Tg. Onq. Tg. Neb. Tg. Ket. Frg. Tg. Sam. Tg. Tg. Isa. Pal. Tgs. Tg. Neof.

H.

Targum Onqelos Targum o f the Prophets Targum of the Writings Fragmentary Targum Samaritan Targum Targum o f Isaiah Palestinian Targums Targum Neofiti I

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Tg. Ps.-J. Tg. Yer. I Targum Yerusalmi I* Tg. Yer. I I Targum Yerusalmi II* Yem. Tg. Yemenite Targum Tg. Esth. 1, I I First or Second Targum o f Esther

*optional title

Abbreviations o f O ther Rabbinic Works

Abot R. Nat. Ag. Ber Bab. Bar. Der. Er. Rab. Der. Er. Zut. Gem. Kalla Mek. Midr.

Abot de Rabbi N athan Aggadat Beresit Babylonian Baraita Derek Eres Rabba Derek Eres Zuta Gemara Kalla Mekilta M idras; cited with usual

abbreviation for biblical book; but Midr. Qoh. = Pal. Pesiq. R.

M idras Qohelet Palestinian Pesiqta Rabbati

Pesiq. Rab Kah. Pesiqta de Rab Kahana Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Pirqe R. El. Rabbah (following Rab.

abbreviation for biblical book: Gen. Rab. [with periods] = Genesis sem. Sipra Sipre Sop. S. `O lam Rab. Talm. Yal.

Rabbah) semahot Sipra Sipre Soperim Seder ` Olam Rabbah Talm ud Yalqut

I. Abbreviations o f Orders and Tractates in Mishnaic and R elated Literature 'A bot ` rak. A `A bod. Zar. B. Bat. Bek. Ber. Besa Bik. B. Mes. B. Qam. Dem. `E d. `E rub. G it. H ag Hal. Hor. H ul. Kelim Ker.

'A bot ` rakin A `A boda Zara Baba Batra Bekorot Berakot Besa (= Yom Tob) Bikkurim Baba Mesi ' a Baba Qamma Demai `E duyyot `E rubin Gittin Hagiga H alla Horayot H ullin Kelim Keritot

Ketub. Kil. M a ‘as. Mak. Maks. Meg. M e‘il. Menah. Mid. Miqw. M o ‘ed M o ‘ed Qat. M a ‘as. S. Nasim Nazir Ned. Neg. Nez. Nid. Ohol.

Ketubot K il'ayim Ma'serot M akkot Μ aksιrin (= Masqin) Megilla M e‘ila Menahot M iddot M iqw a’ot M o‘ed M o‘ed Qatan M a ‘aser Seni Nasim Nazir Nedanm Nega (im Neziqin Niddah Oholot

Abbreviations

‘Or. Para Pe ’a Pesah. Qinnim Qidd. Qod. Ros. H as Sanh. Sabb. Seb. Sebu. Seqal. Sota

‘Orla Para Pe ’a Pesahim Qinnim Qiddusin Qodasin Ros H assana Sanhedrin Sabbat Sebi ‘it Sebu ‘ot Seqalim Sota

Sukk. T a ‘an. Tamid Tem. Ter. Tohar. T. Yom ‘Uq. Yad. Yebam. Yoma Zabim Zebah Zer.

XXVI1

Sukka T a ‘anit Tamid Temura Terumot Toharot Tebul Yom ‘Uqsin Yadayim Yebamot Yoma (= Kippurim) Zabim Zebahim Zera‘im

J. A bbreviations o f N ag H am m ad i T ra ctate s Acts Pet. 12 Apost. Allogenes Ap. Jas. Ap. John Apoc. Adam 1 Apoc. Jas. 2 Apoc. Jas. Apoc. Paul Apoc. Pet. Asclepius Auth. Teach. Dial. Sav. Disc. 8—9 Ep. Pet. Phil. Eugnostos Exeg. Soul Gos. Eg. Gos. Phil. Gos. Thom. Gos. Truth Great Pow. Hyp. Arch. Hypsiph. Interp. Know.

Acts o f Peter and the Twelve Apostles Allogenes Apocryphon o f j ames Apocryphon o f John Apocalypse o f Adam First Apocalypse o f James Second Apocalypse o f James Apocalypse o f Paul Apocalypse o f Peter Asclepius 2 1 -2 9 Authoritative Teaching Dialogue o f the Savior Discourse on the Eighth and N inth Letter o f Peter to Philip Eugnostos the Blessed Exegesis on the Soul Gospel o f the Egyptians Gospel o f Philip Gospel o f Thomas Gospel o f Truth Concept o f our Great Power Hypostasis o f the Archons Hypsiphrone Interpretation o f Knowledge

Marsanes Melch. Norea On Bap. A On Bap. B On Bap. C On Euch. A On Euch. B Orig. World Paraph. Shem Pr. Paul Pr. Thanks Prot. Jas. Sent. Sextus Soph.Jes. Chr. Steles Seth Teach. Silv. Testim. Truth Thom. Cont. Thund. Treat. Res. Treat. Seth Tri. Trac. Trim. Prot. Val. Exp. Zost.

Marsanes Melchizedek Thought o f Norea On Baptism A On Baptism B On Baptism C On the Eucharist A On the Euchanst B On the Origin o f the World Paraphrase o f Shem Prayer o f the Apostle Paul Prayer o f Thanksgiving Protevangelium o f j ames Sentences o f Sextus Sophia o f Jesus Christ Three Steles o f Seth Teachings o f Silvanus Testimony o f Truth Book o f Thomas the Contender Thunder, Perfect M ind Treatise on Resurrection Second Treatise o f the Great Seth Triparite Tractate Trimorphic Protennoia A Valentinian Exposition Zostrianos

Commentary Bibliography Allan,J. A. TheEpistle of Paul theApostle to the Galatians. TBC. London: SCM, 1951. Ambrosiaster. Commentarium in Epistulam Beati Pauli ad Galatas (PL 17:357–94). Amiot, F. S. Paul: Epitre aux Galates. Paris: Beauchesne et ses Fils, 1946. Augustine. Commentarium in Epistulam ad Galatas (PL 35:2105-48). Barclay, W. The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians. Daily Study Bible. Rev. ed. E dinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1976. Betz, H. D. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. H erm eneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Beyer, W. Der Briefan die Galater. Rev. P. Althaus. NTD. Gottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Bligh, J. Galatians: A Discussion of St. P aul’s Epistle. L ondon: St. Paul, 1969. Blunt, A. W. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. C larendon Bible. Oxford: C larendon, 1925. Boice, J. M. “G alatians.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 10, M . F. E. G aebelein. G rand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. 407-508. Bonnard, P. L’Epitre de Saint Paul aux Galates. 2nd ed. CNT. N euchatel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1972. Bousset, W. “D er Brief an die G alater.” In Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 2nd ed. G öttingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1908. 2:28-72. Bring, R. Commentary on Galatians. Tr. E. W ahlstrom. Philadelphia: M uhlenberg, 1961. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. NIGTC. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1982. Burton, E. deW. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. E dinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1921. Calvin, J. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Tr. T. H. L. Parker, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. W. T orrance and T. F. T orrance, Vol. 11. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1965. 3-119. Chrysostom, J. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians and Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Oxford: Parker, 1840 (PG 61:611-82). Cole, R. A. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. TNTC. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1965. Cousar, C. B. Galatians. Interpretation. Atlanta:John Knox, 1982. DeWolf, L. H. Galatians: A Letterfor Today. G rand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Duncan, G . S. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. MNTC. L ondon: H o d d e r & Stoughton, 1934. Eadie, J. A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. E dinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1869. Ellicott, C. J. A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. P aul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Andover: D raper, 1860. Emmet, C. W. St. P aul’s Epistle to the Galatians. T he R eader’s Com mentary. New York: Funk 8c Wagnalls, 1912. Erasmus, D. Collected Works of Erasmus. Vol. 42: Paraphrases on Romans and Galatians. Ed. R. D. Sider. T oronto: University of T oronto Press, 1984. Findlay, G. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. 3 rd ed . E xpositor’s Bible. L ondon: H o d d er 8c Stoughton, 1891. Fitzmyer, J. A. “T he L etter to the Galatians.” In The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968. 2:236-46. Fung, R. Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. NICNT. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1988. Guthrie, D. Galatians. NCB. L ondon: Marshall, M organ & Scott, 1973. Hendriksen, W. The Epistle to the Galatians. New T estam ent Com mentary. G rand Rapids: Baker, 1969. Hilgenfeld, A. Der Galaterbrief übersetzt, in seinengeschichtlichenBeziehungenuntersuchtu n d erklärt. Leipzig: Breitkopf & H ärtel, 1852. Jerome. Commentarium in Epistulam ad Galatas (PL 26:307-438). Knox, J. “Galatians, L etter to th e .” In IDB (1962) 2:338-43. Lagrange, M.-J. Saint Paul, Epître aux Galates. 2nd ed. Paris: Gabalda, 1925. Lietzmann, H. An die Galater. 4th ed. HNT 10. T ü b in g en : MohrSiebeck, 1971. Lightfoot, J. B. Saint P aul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 10th ed. 1890; rep r: London: Macmillan, 1986. Lip siu s, R. A. Briefean die Galater, Römer, Philipper. 2 n d ed. Freiburg: Mohr-Siebeck, 1892. Loisy, A. L 'Epître aux Galates. Paris: Nourry, 1916. Luther, M. Luthers Werke, Vol. 2 (1519 and 1523 editions); Vols. 401and 402a (1538 edition). Weimar: Bohlaus, 1884, 1911, 1914.— — — — . Luther’s Works, Vols. 26 an d 27. Ed. J. Pelikan. St. Louis: Concordia, 1963-64.— — — — . A Commentary on St. P aul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Tr. P. S. Watson, based on the M iddleton edition of the English version of 1575. L ondon: Jam es Clarke, 1953. Lyonnet, S. Les Epîtres de Saint Paul aux Galates, a u x Romains. Paris: Cerf, 1953. Machen, J. G. Machen’s Notes on Galatians, ed. J. H. Skilton. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian &

XXX

G eneral B ibliography

Reform ed, 1977. McDonald, H. D. Freedom in Faith: A Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. O ld T appan, NJ: Revell, 1973. Mussner, F. Der Galaterbrief. H T K N T 9. Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: H erder, 1974. N eil, W. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians. Cam bridge Bible Com mentary. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1967. Neill, S. Paul to the Galatians. New York: Association Press, 1958. Oepke, A. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. 3rd ed., ed. J. Rohde. THKNT. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973. Origen. Ex Films Origenis in Epistulam Galatas (PG 14:1293-98). Osiek, C. Galatians. New T estam ent Message. W ilm ington, DE: M ichael Glazier, 1980. Pelagius. Expositions of the Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. Ed. A. Souter. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1922. Ramsay, W. M. A Historical Commentary on St. P aul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 2nd ed. L ondon: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1900. Ridderbos, Η. N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. Tr. H. Zylstra. NICNT. G rand Rapids: E erdm ans, 1953. Schlier, H. Der Brief an der Galater. K E K 7, 10t h ed. G ö ttin g e n : V an d enhoeck & R uprecht, 1949. Sieffert, F. Der Brief an die Galater. KEK 7, 9th ed. G ö ttin g en : V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1899. Stamm, R. T., and Blackwelder, O. F. “T he Epistle to the Galatians.” In IB, Vol. 10. New York: A bingdon, 1953. Stott, J. R. W. The Message of Galatians. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1968. Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem. Ed., tr., an d intro. E. Evans. Oxford: C larendon, 1972 (PL 2:239-524), esp. Book 5. Theodore o f Mopsuestia. Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of St. Paul. 2 vols., ed. Η. B. Swete. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1880-82 (PG 66:911-22). Theodoret o f Cyrrhus. Commentarii in omnes Pauli Epistulas. Oxford: Parker, 1852 (PG 82:505-58). Victorinus. Marii Victorini Afri commentarii in epistulas Pauli. Ed. A. Locher. Leipzig: T eubner, 1972. Watkins, C. H. St. Paul’s Fightfor Galatia. London: Jam es Clarke, 1914. Williams, A. L. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians. Cam bridge G reek T estam ent. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Zahn,T. Der Briefdes Paulus an die Galater. 3 rd ed . K om m entar zum N euen T estam ent. Leipzig: D eichert, 1922.

General Bibliography Askwith, E. H. The Epistle to the Galatians: A n Essay on Its Destination and Date. New York: Macmillan, 1899. Aurray,P. “S .Je ro m e e t S. A ugustin—La controverse a u sujet d e l’incident d ’A ntioche.” RSR 29 (1939) 594-610. Aus, R. D. “T hree Pillars an d T h ree Patriarchs: A Proposal C oncerning Gal 2:9.” ZNW 70 (1979) 252-61. Bacon, B. W. “P ete r’s T riu m p h at A ntioch.” JR 9 (1929) 204-23. Bahr, G. J. “Paul and L etter W riting in the First C entury.” CBQ 28 (1966) 4 6 5 -7 7 .— — — . “T he Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” JBL 87 (1968) 27-41. Bammel, E. “Gottes ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ (Gal. III.15-17) u n d dasjiidische R echtsdenken.” NTS 6 (1960) 313-19. — — — . “Νόμο? Χρίστου.” In Studia Εν angelica III, ed. F. L. Cross. TU 8 8 . Berlin: Akademie, 1964. 12-28. — — — . “Galater 1, 23.” ZNW 59 (1968) 10812. — — — . “πτωχός·.” TDNT 6:888-915. Bandstra, A. J. The Law and the Elements of the World: A n Exegetical Study in Aspects of P aul’s Teaching. Kampen: Kok, 1964. Barclay, J. M. G. “M irror-R eading a Polem ical L etter: G alatians as a Test C ase.” JSN T 31 (1987) 73-93. — — — . Obeying the Truth: A Study of P aul’s Ethics in Galatians. E dinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. Barclay, W. Flesh and Spirit: A n Examination of Galatians 5:19-23. L ondon: SCM, 1962; G rand Rapids: Baker, 1976. Barrett, C. K. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. L ondon: SPCK, 1947. — — — . “Paul and the ‘Pillar’ Apostles.” In Studia Paulina. FS J. de Zwaan, ed. J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van U nnik. H aarlem : Bohn, 1953. 1-19. — — — . “T itus.” In Neotestamentica et Semitica. FS M. Black, ed. E. E. Ellis an d M. Wilcox. E dinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1969. 1-14. — — — . The Signs of an Apostle. London: Epworth, 1970.— — — .

General Bibliography

XXXI

“T he Allegory of A braham , Sarah, and H agar in the A rgum ent o f Galatians.” In Rechtfertigung. FS E. Käsem ann, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pohlm ann, and P. Stuhlm acher. T ü b in g en : MohrSiebeck, 1976. 1 - 1 6 .————. “Shaliah, and A postle.” In Donum Gentilicium. F S D . Daube, ed. C. K Barrett, E. Bammel, and W. D. Davies. L ondon: O xford University Press, 1978. 88 102. ————. Freedom and Obligation: A Study of the Epistle to the Galatians. London: SPCK, 1985. Barth, M. “T he Kerygma of G alatians.” Int 21 (1967) 131-46. ————. “T he Faith of the Messiah.” HeyJ 10 (1969) 363-70. Bauckham, R. J. “Barnabas in G alatians.” JSN T 2 (1979) 61-70. Bauer, W. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Tr. an d ed. R. A. Kraft an d G. Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. 61-76. Bauernfeind, O. “Die Begegnung zwischen Paulusu n d Kephas, Gal 1:18-20.” ZNW47 (1956) 2 6 8-76.————. “τρέχω, δρόμο?, πρόδρομο?.” TDN T 8:226-35. Baur,F.C. “D ie C hristuspartei in d e r ko rin th isch en Gemeinde: D er Gegensatz des petrinischen u n d paulinischen C hristentum s in d er ältesten K irche.” Tübinger Zeitschrift f ür Theologe (1831) 61-206. ————. Paul: His Life and Works. 2 vols., tr. E. Zeller from Paulus, derApostel Jesu Christi (Stuttgart: Becher & Muller, 1845). L ondon: Williams & N orgate, 1875,1:245-57. Beare, F. W. “T he Sequence of Events in Acts 9-15 and the Career o f P eter.” JBL62 (1943) 293-306. Behm,J . “ανάθημα, άνάθομα, κατάθεμα.” TDNT 1:354-55. ————. “καρδία.” TDNT 3:605-13. Beker,J. C. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Belleville, L. L. “‘U n d er Law’: Structural Analysis an d the Pauline C oncept of Law in Galatians 3.21-4.11.” JSN T26 (1986) 53-78. Berger, K. “A postelbrief u n d apostolische Rede: Zum Form ular frü hchristlicher Briefe.” ZAW65 (1974) 190 -2 3 1 .————. “Almosen für Israel: Zum historischen K ontext d er paulinischen K ollekte.” N T S 23 (1977) 180-204. Bertram, G. “νή πιο?.” TD N T4:91223. Best, E. One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. London: SPCK, 1955. Betz, H . D. “G eist, F reih eit u n d Gesetz: D ie Botschaft des Paulus an die G em einden in G alatien.” ZTK71 (1974) 78-93 (ET “Spirit, Freedom , and Law: P aul’s Message to the Galatian C hurches,” SEÅ 39 [1974] 145-60). ————. “T he Literary Com position and Function of P aul’s L etter to the G alatians.” N TS 21 (1975) 3537 9 .————. “In Defense of the Spirit: Paul’s L etter to the Galatians as a D ocum ent o f Early Christian A pologetics.” In Aspects of Religious Propaganda inJudaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. Schü ssler Fiorenza. N otre Dame, IN: University of N otre Dame Press, 1976. 99-114. Betz, Ο. “σ τίγ μ α .” T D N T 7:657-64. Bjerkelund, C. Parakalô: Form, Funktion und Sinn der Parakalô-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen. Bibliotheca T heologica Norwegica 1. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967. Blackman, E. C. Marcion and His Influence. L ondon: SPCK, 1948. Bläser, P. P. Das Gesetz bei Paulus. M ünster: A schendorff, 1941. Bonsirven, J. “Exégèse allegorique chez le s rabbins tannaites.” RSR2S (1933) 5 2 2 -2 4 .————. Exégèse rabbinique et exégèse paulinienne. Paris: Beauchesne, 1939. Bornkam m, G. “T he Revelation o f Christ to Paul on the Damascus Road and P aul’s D octrine of Justification an d Reconciliation: A Study in Galatians I.” Tr. J. M. Owen, in Reconciliation and Hope. FS L. L. Morris, ed. R. Banks. Exeter: Paternoster, 1974. 90-103. Bradley, D. G. “T he TO PO S as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis.” JBL72 (1953) 238-46. Bring, R. Christus und das Gesetz:Die Bedeutung des Gesetzes des Alten Testaments nach Paulus und seine Glauben an Christus. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Brinsm ead, B. H . Galatians as Dialogical Response to Opponents. SBLDS 65. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982. Brown, R. E., and M eier, J. P. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist, 1982. Bruce, F. F. “Galatian Problems. 2: N orth or South Galatians?” BJRL52 (1970) 2 4 3 -6 6 .————. “F urther T houghts on P aul’s Biography: Galatians 1:11— 2:14.” In Jesus und Paulus. FS W. G. K üm m el, ed. E. E. Ellis a n d E. Grässer. T ü b in g en : MohrSiebeck, 1975. 2 1 - 2 9 .————. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1977. ————. “T he Curse of the Law.” In Paul and Paulinism. FS C. K. Barrett, ed. M. D. H ooker and S. G. Wilson. L ondon: SPCK, 1982. 27-36. Büchsel, F. “άλληγορέω.” TDNT 1:260-63. Buck, C. H. “T he Date of Galatians.” J B L 70 (1951) 113-22. Buck, C. H ., and Taylor, G. Saint Paul: A Study in the Development of His Thought. New York: S cribner’s Sons, 1969. 82-102. Bultm ann, R. Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe. FRLANT13. G öttingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. B uri,F. Clemens Alexandrinus und

x x x ii

G eneral B ibliography

der paulinische Freiheitsbegriff. Z ürich: N iehm ans, 1939. Burkitt, F. C. Christian Beginnings. L ondon: University of L ondon, 1924. Burton, E. deW. Spirit, Soul, and Flesh. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1918. Byrne, B. “Son of God”— “Seed of Abraham A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the jewish Background. A n Bib 83. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979. C aird, G. B. “C hronology o f th e N T .” IDB. New York: A bingdon, 1962. 1:599-607. ————. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. London: Duckworth, 1980. C alder,W .M . “A doption and Inheritan ce in Galatia.”J T S 31 (1930) 37274. Callan, T. “Pauline Midrash: T he Exegetical B ackground o f Gal 3:19b.” j BL 99 (1980) 549-67. Campbell, T. H. “P aul’s ‘Missionary Journeys’ as R eflected in His L etters.” JBL 74 (1955) 80-87. C arrington, P. “P eter in A ntioch.” A T R 15 (1933) 1 - 1 5 .————. The Early Christian Church. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1957. Chase, F. H. Chrysostom: A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation. Cam bridge: D eighton, Bell, 1887. C hilton, B . D. “Galatians 6:15: A Call to Freedom before God.” Exp Tim 89 (1 9 7 7 -7 8 ) 311– 1 3 . Clark, K. W. “T he M eaning o f ένεργόω and καταργόω in the New T estam en t.” JBL 54 (1935) 93-101. Clarke, W. K. L. “St. P au l’s ‘Large L etters.’” E xp Tim 24 (1913) 285. Clemens, J. S. “St. P aul’s H andw riting.” Exp Tim 24 (1913) 380. C orbett, E. P. J. Classical Rhetoricfor the Modem Student. New York: O xford, 1965,1971. C orbett, E. P . J., ed. Rhetorical Analyses of Literary Works. New York: O xford, 1969. Cosgrove, C. H . “A rguing like a M ere H um an Being: Galatians 3:15-18 in Rhetorical Perspective.” NTSS4 (1988) 536-49. Cranfield, C. E. B. “St. Paul and the Law.” S JT 17 (1964) 43-68. Crownfield, F. C. “T he Singular Problem of the Dual Galatians.”JBL 63 (1945) 491-500. Cullmann, O. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. Tr. F. V. Filson. L ondon: SCM, 1953. ————. The Christology of the New Testament. Tr. S. C. G uthrie and C. A. M. Hall. Philadelphia: W estm inster, 1962. Cuming, G. J. “Serviceendings in the Epistles.” N TS 22 (1975) 110-13. D ahl, N . A. “D er N am e Israel: Z u r Auslegung von Gal 6 , 16.”Judaica 6 (1950) 1 6 1 -7 0 .————. “T he A tonem ent—An A dequate Reward for the Akedah? (Ro 8:32).” In Neotestamentica et Semitica. FS M. Black, ed. E. E. Ellis an d M. Wilcox. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969. 15-29. ————. “P aul’s L etter to the Galatians: Epistolary G enre, C ontent, and S tru ctu re.” U n published SBL Paul S em inar pap er, 1974. ————. Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. M inneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Danby, H ., tr. The Mishnah. L ondon: O xford University Press, 1933. D aniélou, J. Origen. Tr. W. Mitchell. L ondon & New York: Sheed & W ard, 1955. D aube, D. “Rabbinic M ethods of In terpretation and H ellenistic R hetoric.” HUCA 22 (1949) 239-64. ————. “A lexandrian M ethods of Interpretation and the Rabbis.” In Festschrift Hans Lewald. Basel: H elbing & L ichtenbahn, 1953. 27-44. ————. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. L ondon: A thlone, 1956. Davies, W. D. Paul and RabbinicJudaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. ————. “A N ote on Josephus, Antiquities 15.136.” H TR 41 (1954) 1 3 5 -4 0 .————. “Paul an d the D ead Sea Scrolls: Flesh an d Spirit.” In The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl. New York: H arper, 1957. 1 5 7 -8 2 .————. “Paul and the People of Israel.” N T S24 (1977) 4 - 3 9 .— — — — . “Paul an d the Law: Reflections on Pitfalls in Interpretation.” In Paul and Paulinism. FS C. K. Barrett, ed. M. D. H ooker and S. G. Wilson. L ondon: SPCK, 1982. 4-16. D eidun, T. J. New Covenant Morality in Paul. AnBib89. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981. D eissm ann, A. Die neutestamentliche Formel “In Christo Jesu.” M arburg: Elwert, 1892. ————. Bible Studies. Tr. A. Grieve. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. ————. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Tr. L. R. M. Strachan. London: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1909. Delacey, D. R. “Paul in Jeru salem .” N T S 20 (1983) 82-86. Delling, G. “καιρό?.” TDNT 3:455-62. ————. “ττληρόω, πλήρωμα.” T D N T 6:286-306. ————. “στοιχόω, συστοιχβω, σ τοιχβΐον.” TD N T7:666-87. D errett, J. D. Μ. Law in the New Testament. L ondon: D arton, Longm an & T odd, 1970. DeVries, C. E. “P aul’s ‘C utting’ Remarks about a Race: Galatians 5:1-12.” In Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. FS M. C. Tenney, ed. G. F. H aw thorne. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1975. 115-20. Dibelius, M. A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. London: Nicholson & Watson, 1936. ————. From Tradition to Gospel. Tr. B. L. Woolf. New York:

General Bibliography

x x x iii

Scribners, 1965.— — — — . A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Rev. H. Greeven, tr. M. A. Williams. H erm eneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Dinkier, E. “D er Brief an die Galater.” IF 1-3 (1953-55) 182-83. Dion, P. E. “T he A ram aic‘Family L etter’ an d Related Epistolary Forms in O th er O riental Languages and in H ellenistic G reek.” Semeia22 (1981) 59-76. Dix, G. Jew and Greek: A Study in the Primitive Church. London: Dacre, 1953. Dixon, P. Rhetoric. L ondon: M ethuen, 1971. D odd, C. H. The M ind of Paul: A Psychological Approach. Manchester: Jo h n Rylands Library, 1934 (=BJRLl7 [1933] 91-106; idem, New Testament Studies [Manchester: M anchester UP, 1953] 6 7 -8 2 ).————. The Mind of Paul: Change and Development. Manchester: Jo h n Rylands Library, 1934 (= BJRL18 [1934] 69-110; idem, New Testament Studies [Manchester: M anchester UP, 1953] 8 3 -1 2 8 ).————. Gospel and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; New York: Columbia University Press, 1951.————. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. ————. "EΝΝΟΜΟΣ Χ ΡΙΣ Τ Ο Ι.” In Studia Paulina. FSJ. de Zwaan, ed. W. C. van U nnik a n d j . N. Sevenster. Haarlem: Bohn, 1953. 96-110 (repr. idem, More New Testament Studies [Manchester: M anchester University Press, 1968] 134-48). D onaldson, T. L. “T he ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13-14.” N T S 32 (1986) 9 4 -1 1 2 .————. “Zealot an d Convert: T he O rigin of P aul’s Christ-Torah A ntithesis.” CBQ 51 (1989) 655-82. Doty, W. G. “T he Classification of Epistolary L iterature.” CBQ 31 (1969) 1 8 5 -8 9 .————. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. Downey, G. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: P rinceton University Press, 1961. ————. Antioch in the Age of Theodosius the Great. N orm an, OK: University o f O klahom a Press, 1961. ————. Ancient Antioch. Princeton: P rinceton University Press, 1963. D ran e,J.W . Paul, Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles. London: SPCK, 1975. D unn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. SBT 2:15. L ondon: SCM, 1970. ————. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: A n Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Chnstianity. L ondon: SCM; Philadelphia: W estm inster, 1977. ————. Christology in the Making. London: SCM, 1980. ————. “T he Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11-18).” J S N T 18 (1983) 7 - 1 1 .————. “T he New Perspective on P aul.” BJRL 65 (1983) 95-122. ————. “Works o f the Law and the Curse o f the Law (Galatians 3 .1 0 -1 4 ).” N T S 31 (1985) 523-42. D upont, J. “P ierre et Paul a A ntioche et a Jerusalem .” RSR45 (1957) 42-60,225-39. ————. “La Revelation du Fils de Dieu en faveur de Pierre (Mt 16,17) e t d e Paul ( G a l, 16).” RSR 52 (1964) 4112 0 . ————. “T he Conversion of Paul and Its Influence on His U nderstanding of Salvation by Faith.” In Apostolic History and the Gospel. FS F. F. Bruce, ed. W. W. Gasque an d R. P. M artin. Exeter:Paternoster, 1970. 176-94. E aston, B . S. “N ew Testam entEthicalLists.”/£ L 5 1 (1932) 1-12. Eckert, J. Die urchristliche Verkü ndigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbnef. M iinchener Universitats-Schriften, K atholisch-theologische Facultat. Regensburg: Pustet, 1971. Eger, O. “Rechtsworter u n d Rechtsbilder in den paulinischen B riefen.” ZNW 18(1917) 105-8. Elliott, J. K. “T he Use o f βτερο? in the New T estam ent.” ZNW60 (1969) 140-41. Ellis, E. E. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. E dinburgh: Oliver & Boyd; G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1957. ————. “Paul an d His O pponents: T rends in the Research.” In Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults. FS M. Smith, ed.J. N eusner. 4vols. Leiden: Brill, 1975. 1:264-98. Em m et, C. W. “T he Case for the T rad itio n .” In The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles. 5 vols. Ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake. L ondon: Macmillan, 1922. 2:265-97. Exler, F. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography. W ashington, D.C.: Catholic University o f America, 1923. Faw, C. E. “T he Anomaly of Galatians.” B R 4 (1960) 25-38. Feret, Η . M. Pierre et Paul a Antioche et aJerusalem: L e ‘conflict’des deux apostres. Paris: Cerf, 1955. Filson,F.V . Three Crucial Decades. L ondon: Epworth, 1963. Fitzm yer,J. A. “St. Paul and the Law.” TheJu rist 27 (1967) 18-36. ————. “Some N otes on Aramaic Epistolography.” JB L9S (1974) 201-25. Foerster, W. “D ie 8 oKouvT£” in Gal. 2.” ZNW 36 (1937) 2 8 6 -9 2 .————. “Abfassungszeit u n d Ziel des G alaterbriefes.” In Apophoreta. FS E. H aenchen, ed. W. Eltester an d F. H. Kettler. Berlin: T opelm ann, 1964. 1 3 5 -4 1 .————. “κ λη ρονόμο.” 7ΡΛΓΓ3:767-85. Fridrichsen,A . The Apostle and His Message. Uppsala: A lm quist & Wiksells, 1947. Friedrich, G. “Lohmeyers These

XXXIV

G eneral B ibliography

ü b e r ‘Das paulinische B riefpräskript’ kritisch beleu ch tet.” ZNW 46 (1955) 272-74. Fuller, D. P. Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1980. Fuller, R. H . A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London: Duckworth, 1966. 23-26. Funk, R. W. “T he Enigm a of the Fam ine Visit.” JBL 75 (1956) 1 3 0 -3 6 .————. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God: The Problem of Language in the New Testament and Contemporary Theology. New York: H arper & Row, 1966. 250-74. ————. “T he Apostolic Parousia: Form an d Significance.” In Christian History and Interpretation. FS J. Knox, ed. W. R. Farm er, C. F. D. M oule, an d R. R. N iebuhr. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1967. 249-68. Furnish, V. P. Theology and Ethics in Paul. Nashville & New York: A bingdon, 1968. G aechter, P. “Petrus in A ntiochia (Gal 2:11-14).” ZKT 72 (1950) 177-212. Gamble, H . The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1977. 57-83. G ardiner, E. N. Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals. Oxford: C larendon, 1955. G aston, L. “Paul and the T o ra h .” In Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. A. T. Davies. New York: Paulist, 1979. 4 8 -7 1. ————. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University o f British Colum bia Press, 1987. Geyser, A. S. “T he Earliest Nam e of the Earliest C h u rch .” In De Fructu Oris Sui. FS A. van Seim s, ed. I . H . Eybers, e ta l. Leiden: Brill, 1971. 58-66. G oldin, J. “N ot by Means o f an Angel an d N ot by Means of a M essenger.” In Religions in Antiquity. FS E. R. G oodenough, ed. J. N eusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968. 412-24. G oppelt,L . “τύπος κτλ.” TDVT 8:246-59. G ordon, T .D . “A N ote on ΠΑΙΔΑΓΩΓΟΣ in Galatians 3.24-25.” VTA 35 (1989) 150-54. G rafe, E. Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz. Leipzig: M ohr, 1893. G rant, R. M. “H ellenistic Elem ents in Galatians.” A T R 34 (1952) 2 2 3 -2 6 .————. The Letter and the Spirit. L ondon: SPCK, 1957. ————. “Jewish C hristianity at A ntioch in the S econd C en tu ry .” In Judeo-Christianisme. FS J. D aniélou. R S R 60 (1972) 97-108. G unther, J. J. St. P aul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings. NovTSup 35. Leiden: Brill, 1973. G utbrod, W. “νόμος.” TD N T 4:1022-85. Hall, D. R. “St. Paul an d Fam ine Relief: A Study in Galatians 210.” ExpTim 82 (1971) 309-11. H ansen, G .W . Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. JSNTSup 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. H anson, A. T. Studies in P aul’s Technique and Theology. London: SPCK, 1974. ————. The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St. Paul. JSNTSup 17. Sheffield: JSO T Press, 1987. H anson, R. P. C. Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture. L ondon: SCM; Richm ond, VA: Jo h n Knox, 1959. H arrison, E. F. Introduction to the New Testament. G rand Rapids: E erdm ans, 1964. 257-64. Harvey, A. E. “T h e O p position to P au l.” In Studia Evangelica I V, ed. F. L. Cross. TU 102. Berlin: A kadem ie, 1968. 319-32. H aussleiter, J. Der GlaubeJesu und der christliche Glaube. Leipzig: D orffling & Franke, 1891. ————. “Was versteht Paulus u n te r christlichen G lauben?” In Theologische Abhandlungen. FSH . Crem er. Gü tersloh: Bertelsm ann, 1895. 159-81. Hawkins, J. G. “T he O p p o n en ts of Paul in Galatia.” Ph.D. diss., Yale, 1971. Hay, D. M. “P aul’s Indifference to A uthority.” JBL 88 (1969) 3 6 -4 4 .————. “W hat Is Proof? H istorical V erification in Philo, Josephus, and Q uintilian.” SBLASP17:2 (1979) 87-100. H ays, R . B. TheFaith of Jesus Christ: A n Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11. SBLDS 56. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. H ebert, A. G. “‘Faithfulness’ and ‘Faith.’” Th 58 (1955) 373-79. H em er, C. J. “Acts and Galatians R econsidered.” Themelios 2 (1977) 81-88. H engel, M. “Christologie u n d neutestam entliche C hronologie.” In Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament. FS O. Cullm ann, ed. H. Baltensweiler an d B. Reicke. Zü rich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972. 43-67 (ET “Christology and New T estam ent C hronology,” in idem , Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983] 30-47). ————. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. T r. J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1 974.————. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. T r. J. Bowden. L ondon: SCM, 1 9 7 7 .————. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Tr. J. Bowden. L ondon: SCM, 1979. H ester, J. D. Paul’s Concept of Inheritance: A Contribution to the Understanding of Heilsgeschichte. E dinburgh and L ondon: Oliver & Boyd, 1968. Hill, D. “Salvation Proclaimed: IV. Galatians 3:10-14: Freedom an d A cceptance.” ExpTim93 (1982)

General Bibliography

XXXV

196-200. H irsch, E. “Zwei Fragen zu Gal 6 .” ZN W 29 (1930) 192-97. H offmann-Aleith, E. Das Paulusverstandnis in der alten Kirche. Berlin: T opelm ann, 1937.————————. “Das Paulusverstandnis des Johannes Chrysostomus.” ZNW 38 (1939) 181-88. H olm berg, B. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. ConB 11. Lund: G leerup, 1978. H o o k er, M .D. “Π ΙΣ Τ ΙΣ XPIΣΤΟΤ.” N T S 35 (1989) 321-42. H ort, F. J. A. Judaistic Chnstianity. London: M acmillan, 1894. H ow ard, G. “Notes and Observations on the ‘Faith of Christ.’” H T R 60 (1967) 459-65. ————. “T he ‘Faith of C hrist.’” ExpTim 85 (1974) 212-15. ————. “Was Jam es an Apostle? A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. i. 19.” NovT19 (1977) 6 3 -6 4 .————. Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology. SNTSMS 35. Cambridge: C am bridge University Press, 1979. H ü b n er, H . Law in P aul’s Thought. Studies of the New T estam ent and Its W orld. Tr. J. C. G. Greig. E dinburgh: T. Sc T. Clark, 1984. H u n ter, A. M. Paul and His Predecessors. 2nd ed. L ondon: SCM, 1961. H u rd , J. C. T he Orig in o f 1 Corinthians. New York: Seabury, 1965. ————. “Pauline Chronology and Pauline Theology.” In Christian History and Interpretation. FSJ. Knox, ed. W. R. Farm er, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. N iebuhr. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1967. 2 2 5 -4 8 .————. “T he Sequence o f P aul’s L etters.” CJT 14 (1968) 189-200. H urtado, L. W. “T he Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians.” J S N T 5 (1979)— — — 4 6-62. Jerem ias,J. “P aul and ja m es.” ExpTim66 (1955) 3 6 8 -7 1 .————. “Chiasmus in d e n P aulusbriefen.” ZNW 49 (1958) 1 4 5 -5 6 .————. “T h e Key to P auline T heology.” ExpTim 76 (1965) 27-30. ————. The Central Message of the New Testament. London: SCM; New York: Scribner’s, 1965.————. Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte. G ö ttin g en : V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1966 (ET o f “A dam ,”in idem , The Prayers of Jesus. SBT 2:6. L ondon: SCM, 1967. 1 1 - 6 6 ) . ————. “Paulus als H illelit.” In Neotestamentica et Semitica. FS M. Black, ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox. Edinburgh: T. Sc T. Clark, 1969. 88-94. Jew ett, R. “T he Form and Function of the H om iletic B en ed ictio n .” A TR 51 (1969) 1 3 - 3 4 .————. “T he Agitators an d the G alatian C o n g reg atio n .” N TS 17 (1971) 198-212. ————. A Chronology of P aul’s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Johnson, S. E. “Asia M inor and Early Christianity.” In Chnstianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults. FS M. Smith, ed.J. N eusner. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1975. 2:77-145. Jones, A. Η. M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford: C larendon, 1937. Kamlah, E. Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament. WUNT 7. T übingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1964. Käsem ann, E. New Testament Questions of Today. T r. W.J. Montague. London: SCM, 1969.————. “T he Pauline Theology of the Cross.” Int 24 (1970) 151-77. Keck, L. “T he Poor am ong the Saints in the New T estam ent.” ZAW 56(1965) 1 0 0 -2 9 .————. “T he Poor am ong the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Q u m ran .” Z N W 57 (1966) 54-78. Kennedy, G. A. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.————. TheA rt ofRhetonc in theRoman World: 300 b. c.— a .d . 300. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. ———— . New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of N orth Carolina Press, 1984. Kennedy, H. A. A. The Theology of theEpistles. L ondon: Duckworth, 1919. Kepple, R. J. “An Analysis of A ntiochene Exegesis of Galatians 4:24-26.” WTJ 39 (1977) 239-49. Kessler, M. “A M ethodological Setting for Rhetorical Criticism.” Semitics 4 (1974) 22-36. ————. “An Introduction to Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: P rolegom ena.” Semitics 7 (1980)— — — — 1-27. Kilpatrick, G. D. “Gal 2, 14 όρθοποδουσιν.” In Neutestamentliche Studien. FS R. Bultmann. BZNW 21. Berlin: T öpelm ann, 1957. 269-74.————. “Galatians 1:18 ΙΣΤΟΡΗΣΑ I ΚΗΦΑΝ.” In New TestamentEssays. FST. W. M anson, ed. A.J . B. Higgins. Manchester: University of M anchester Press, 1959. 144-49. Kim, C. H. The Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation. SBLDS 4. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1972. ————. “T he Papyrus Invitation.”JBL 94 (1975) 391-402. K im , S. The Origin ofP aul’s Gospel. WUNT 2:4. T ü b in g en : Mohr-Siebeck; G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1984. Kittel, G. “π ισ τις ’ Ιησού Χριστοί) bei Paulus.” TSK79 (1906) 4 1 9-36.————. “άββά.” TDNT 1:5 - 6 .— — — — . “άκοτύω.” TDNT 1:216-21. K lausner,J. FromJesus to Paul. Tr. W. F. Stinespring. New York: Macmillan, 1943. Knox, J. Chapters in a Life of Paul. Nashville: A bingdon, 1950. Knox, W. L. St. Paul and the Church of Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1925. Koester, H. “GNOMAI

XXXVI

G eneral B ibliography

DI APHOROI: T he O rigin and N ature o f Diversification in the History o f Early Christianity.” H TR 58 (1965) 279-318. Koskenniemi, H. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Helsinki: Suom alaien T iedeakatem ie, 1956. Kraeling, C. H . “T he Jewish Com m unity at Antioch.”JBL 51 (1932) 130-60. K ram er, W. Christ, Lord, Son of God. Tr. B. H ardy. SBT 50. L ondon: SCM, 1966. K reller, H . Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen a u f Grund der gräco-ägyptischen Papyruskunden. Aalen: Scientia, 1919, 1970. K üm m el, W. Introduction to the New Testament. Tr. A. J. Mattill, Jr. L ondon: SCM, 1965.— — — — . “‘Individualgeschichte’ u n d ‘W eltgeschichte’ in G alater 2, 15-21.” In Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. FS C. F. D. Moule, ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley. Cam bridge: C am bridge University Press, 1973. 157-73. Ladd, G. E. “Paul and the Law.” In Soli Deo Gloria. FS W. C. Robinson. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1968. 50-67. Lake, K. The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul: Their Motive and Origin. L ondon: Rivingtons, 1911. ————. “T he Apostolic Council of Jeru salem .” In The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles. 5 vols. Ed. F. J. Foakes Jack so n a n d K. Lake. L ondon: M acmillan, 1922. 5:195-212. L am brecht,J. “T he Line o f T h o u g h t in Gal. 2.14b-21.” N TS 24 (1978) 484-95. Lam pe, G. W. H . “T he Reasonableness of Typology.” In Essays in Typology, ed. G. W. H. Lam pe an d K. J. W oollcom be. London: SCM, 1957. 9-38. Lauterbach, J. Z. “A ncient Jewish Allegorists.” JQR 1 (1911) 291-333,503-31. Lawson, J. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus. L ondon: Epworth, 1948. Lieberm an, S. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs, and Manners of Palestine in the I Century BCE — TV Century CE. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the LaterRoman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. L ietzm ann, H. A History of the Early Church. Tr. B. Woolf. New York: M eridian Books, 1961. Ljungman, H . Das Gesetz erfüllen: Matth. 5, 17ff. und 3, 15 untersucht. LUÅ 50:6. Lund: G leerup, 1954. ————. Pistis: A Study of Its Presuppositions and its Meaning in Pauline Use. Lund: G leerup, 1964. Lohm eyer,E . “Problem e paulinischer Theologie: I. Briefliche Grussü berschriften.” ZAW 26 (1927) 158-73. Lohse, E. “U rsp ru n g u n d P räg u n g d e s christlichen A postolats.” TZ 9 (1953) 259-75. Longenecker, R. N. Paul, Apostle of Liberty. New York: H arp er & Row, 1964; G rand Rapids: Baker, 1976. ————. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. SBT 2:17. London: SCM, 1970; G rand Rapids: Baker, 1981. ————. “A ncient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N. L ongenecker and M. C. Tenney. G rand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. 281-97. ————. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1975. 1 9 -5 0 , 1 0 4 -3 2 .————. “T he ‘Faith o f A braham ’ T hem e in Paul, Jam es, and Hebrews: A Study in the Circum stantial N ature of New T estam ent T eaching.” JETS 20 (1977) 203-12. ————. “T he Acts of the Apostles.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 9, ed. F. E. G aebelein. G rand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. 207-573. ——— — . “T he Pedagogical N ature of the Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7.” JETS 25 (1982) 53-61. ————. “O n the Form , F unction, and A uthority o f the New T estam en t L etters.” In Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson a n d j . D. W oodbridge. G rand Rapids: Z ondervan, 1983. 101-14. ————. New Testament Social Ethics for Today. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1984. ————. “T he N ature of P aul’s Early Eschatology.” N TS 31 (1985) 85-95. ————. “A ntioch of Syria.” In Major Cities of the Biblical World, ed. R. K. H arrison. Nashville: Nelson, 1985. 8-21. Luedem ann, G. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Tr. F. S. Jones. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Lührm ann, D. “Gal 2:9 u n d die katholischen Briefe: B em erkungen zum K anon u n d zur regula fidei." ZNW 72 (1981) 65-87. Lull, D . J. The Spirit in Galatia: P aul’s Interpretation of PNEUMA as Divine Power. SBLDS 49. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1 980.————. “‘T he Law Was O ur Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25.” JBL 105 (1986) 481-98. Lü tgert, W. Gesetz und Geist: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes. Gü tersloh: Bertelsm ann, 1919. Luther, M. “T he F reedom of a C hristian,” Luther’s Works. American ed. Vol. 31, tr. W. A. Lam bert, rev. H. J. Grimm. Philadelphia: M uhlenburg, 1957, 327-77. Lyall,F. “Rom an Law in the W ritings of Paul—A doption.” JB L 88 (1969) 458-66. M acgregor, W. M. Christian Freedom. L ondon: H o d d e r & Stoughton, 1914. Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. M alherbe, A. J. Social Aspects of Early

General Bibliography

xxxvii

Chnstianity. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. ————. Moral Exhortation: A GrecoRoman Sourcebook. Library of Early Christianity 4. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.————. Ancient Epistolary Ther i sts. SBLSBS 19. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Martyn, J. L. “A LawO bservant Mission to Gentiles: T he Background of Galatians.” M QR 22 (1983) 221-36. M aurer, C. “μ ετα τίθη μ ι.” TDNT 8:161-62. McCullough, W. S. A Short History of Syriac Chnstianity. T oronto: University of T oronto Press, 1982. M cNamara, M. “‘to de (Hagar) Sina oros estin en te Arabia’ (Gal. 4:25a): Paul and P etra.” M S 2 (1978) 24—41. M eecham, H. G. Lightfrom Ancient Letters: PHvate Correspondence in the Non-Literary Papyri of Oxyrhynchus of the First Four Centuries and Its BeaHng on New Testament Language and Thought. L ondon: Allen 8c Unwin, 1923. Meeks, W. A., and Wilken, R. L. Jews and ChHstians in Antioch in theFirstFour Centuries of the Common Era. SBLSBS 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978. M enoud, P. H. “Revelation and Tradition: T he Influence of Paul’s Conversion on His Theology.” Int 7 (1953) 131-41. Merk, O. “D er Beginn der Paränese im G alaterbrief.” Z N W 60 (1969) 83-104. Metzger, B . M. “A ntioch-on-the-O rontes.” BA 11 (1948) 69-88. Michaelis,W . ‘Judaistische H eidenchristen.” Z N W 30 (1931) 83-89. Michel, O. Paulus und seine Bibel. Gü tersloh: Bertelsm ann, 1929.————. “οικοδομάω.” TDNT5:1 3 6 -4 4 .————. “οικονόμος.” TDNT 5:149-51. Milligan, G. The New Testament Documents: Their Origin and Early History. London: Macmillan, 1913. Milne, H . J. M. Greek Shorthand Manuals: Syllabary and Commentary. L ondon: O xford University Press, 1934. M offatt,J. A n Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. 3rd ed. E dinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1918. 83-107. M olland, E. The Conception of the Gospel in Alexandrian Theology. Oslo: Dybwad, 1938. Momigliano, A. The Development of Greek Biography. Cam bridge, MA: H arvard University Press, 1971. M oreau, J. Die Welt der Kelten. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1958. M oule, C. F. D. A n Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1959. ————. Worship in the New Testament. Ecum enical Studies in W orship 9. L ondon: L utterw orth, 1 9 6 1 .————. O b lig a tio n in the Ethic o f P aul.” In Christian History and Interpretation. FS J. Knox, ed. W. R. Farm er, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. N iebuhr. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1967. 389-406. ————. “Fulfilment-W ords in the New Testam ent: Use and A buse.” NTS 14 (1968) 293320. Mulka, A. L. “Fides quae per caritatem operatur.” CBQ28 (1966) 174-88. Mullins, T. Y. “Petition as a Literary Form .” NovT 5 (1962) 46-54. ————. “Disclosure as a Literary Form in the New T estam ent.” NovT 7 (1964) 44-50. ————. “G reeting as a New Testam en t Form .” JBL 87 (1968) 418-26. ————. “Formulas in New T estam ent Epistles.” JBL 91 (1972) 3 8 0 -9 0 .————. “Visit Talk in the New T estam ent L etters.” CBQ 35 (1973) 35058. ————. “B enediction as a New T estam ent F orm .” AUSS 15 (1977) 59-64. Munck, J. “Paul, the Apostles, and the Twelve.” ST 3 (1951) 96– 1 1 0 .————. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Tr. F. Clarke. Richm ond, VA: Jo h n Knox, 1 9 5 9 .————. ‘Jewish Christianity in Post-Apostolic Tim es.” N T S 6 (1960) 103-16. M ussner, F. “H agar, Sinai, Jeru salem .” TQ 135 (1955) 56-60. ————. Theologie der Freiheit nach Paulus. Freiburg: H erder, 1976. Nauck, W. “Das ουν-paräneticum .” ZNW 49 (1958) 134-35. N ijenhuis, J. “T he G reeting in My Own H an d .” B T 19 (1981) 225-58. O ’Brien, P. T. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. NovTSup49. Leiden: Brill, 1977. O ep k e , A. “βάτττω, β α π τ £ ω .” TDNT 1:52945. ————. “ev.” T D N T 2:537-43. ————. “ένδύω.” T D N T 2:319-20. O ’Neill, J. C. The Recovery of P aul’s Letter to the Galatians. L ondon: SPCK, 1972. O rchard, B. “T he Ellipsis between Galatians 2 , 3 and 2 , 4.” Bib 54 (1973) 469-81. P ack , R . A. The Greek and Latin Literary Textsfrom Greco-Roman Egypt. 2nd ed. A nn Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965. Pagels, E .H . The GnosticPaul: GnosticExegesisofthePauline Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. P arker, T. H. L., tr. Calvin’s New Testament CommentaHes, Vol. 11. London: SCM; G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1971. Peake, A. S. Paul and theJewish Chnstians. M anchester: M anchester U niversity Press, 1929. P fitzner, V. C. Paul and the Agon Motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature. NovTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Pieper, K. “A ntiochien am O rontes in apostolischen Zeitalter.” TGI 22 (1930) 710-28. Räisän e n ,H . Paul and the Law. W U N T 29. T ü b ingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1 9 8 3 .————. “Galatians 2.16 an d P aul’s Break with Ju d aism .” N TS 31 (1985) 543-53. Ramsay, W. M. The Church in the Roman Empire before a .d . 170.

xxxviii

G eneral B ibliography

L ondon: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1 8 9 3 .————. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. O xford: C larendon, 1895. ————. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. 14th ed. London: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1920.————. The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the PresentDay. L ondon: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1913. 372-92. Reicke, B. “T he Law an d This W orld A ccording to Paul: Some T houghts C oncerning Gal 4:1-11.” JBL 70 (1951) 259-76. ————. “D er geschichtliche H in terg ru n d des Apostelkonzils u n d d e r Antiochia-Episode.” In Studia Paulina. FSJ. de Zwaan, ed. J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van U nnik. H aarlem : Bohn, 1953. 172-87. Rengstorf, K. Η. “απόστολος.” TDNT 1:407-45. ————. “ζυ γ ό ς.” TDNT 2:896-901. R eum ann,J. “‘Stewards of G od’: Pre-Christian Religious Application of οικονόμος in G reek.” J B L 77 (1958) 339-49. Richardson, P. Israel in the Apostolic Church. SNTSMS 10. Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1969. 7 4 -1 0 2 .————. P a u l’s Ethic of Freedom. Philadelphia: W estm inster, 1979. ————. “P auline Inconsistency: 1 Cor 9:19-23 an d Gal 2 :11-14.” N TS 26 (1980) 347-61. Roberts, C. H. “A N ote on Galatians 2:14.” JT S 40 (1939) 55-56. ————. Greek Literary Hands, 350 b. c.- a .d . 400. Oxford: C larendon, 1956. R obinson, D. W. B. ‘T h e Circumcision of Titus, and Paul’s ‘Liberty.’” ABR 12 (1964) 24-42. ————. “D istinction betw een Jewish and G entile Believers in G alatians.” ABR 13 (1965) 2 9 -4 4 . ————. “‘Faith of Jesus C hrist’—A New T estam ent D ebate.” R TR 29 (1970) 71-81. R obinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM, 1976. 55-57. Roller, O. Das Formularderpaulinischen Briefe:Ein Beitrag zurLehre vom antiken Briefe. Stuttgart: K ohlham m er, 1933. Ropes, J. H. The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians. Cam bridge, MA: H arvard University Press, 1929. Rossell, W. H . “New T estam ent A doption— G raeco-Roman or Semitic?” JBL 71 (1952) 233-34. Round, D. The Date of St. P aul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1906. Sampley, J. P. “‘Before God, I Do N ot L ie’ (Gal. 1.20): P aul’s Self-Defence in the Light of Rom an Legal Praxis.” N TS 23 (1977) 47782. Sanday, W. “T he Early Visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem .” The Expositor, 5th series, 3 (1896) 253-63. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. ————. “O n the Q uestion o f Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism .” In Donum Gentilicum. FS D. D aube, ed. E. Bammel, C. K. Barrett, and W. D. Davies. Oxford: C larendon, 1978. 103-26. ————. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Sanders, J. T. “T he Transition from O pen in g Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline C orpus.” JBL 81 (1962) 348-62. Schelkle, K. H. Paulus Lehrer der Vä ter. Dü sseldorf: Patmos, 1956. Schmithals, W. “Die H eretiker in G alatien.” ZAW 47 (1956) 25-67 (rev. ET “T he H eretics in G alatia,” in Paul and the Gnostics, 13—6 4 ) .————. Paul and James. Tr. D. M. Barton. SBT 46. London: SCM, 1965. ————. The Office of Apostle in theEarly Church. Tr. J. E. Steely. Nashville: A bingdon, 1969. ————. Paul and the Gnostics. T r. J. E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. Schnider, F., and Stenger, W. Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular. NTTS 11. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Schoenberg, M. W. “HUIOTHESI A: The W ord and the Institution.” Scripture 15 (1963) 11523. Schoeps, H. J. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Tr. H. Knight. Philadelphia: W estm inster, 1961. Schrage, W. Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischenParänese. Gü tersloh: M ohn, 1961.————. Ethik desNeuen Testaments. G öttingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982 (ET The Ethics of the New Testament. Tr. D. E. G reen. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). Schrenk, G. “Was b ed eu tet ‘Israel G ottes’?” Judaica 5 (1949) 8 1 9 4 .————. “D er Segenw unsch n a c h d e r Kampfepistel.” Judaica26 (1950) 170-90. Schubert, P. “Form and Function of the Pauline L etters.” JR 19 (1939) 365-77. ————. Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings. BZNW 20. Berlin: T ö p elm an n , 1939. S chürm ann, H. “‘Das Gesetz des C hristus’ (Gal 6 , 2): Jesu V erhalten u n d W ort als letztgültige sittliche N orm nach Paulus.” In Neues Testament und Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg: H erder, 1974. 282-300. Schiitz,J. H. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. SNTSMS 26. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1975. Schweizer, E. “Zum religionsgeschichtlichen H interg ru n d der ‘S endungsform el’ Gal 4, 4f., Rm 8,3f., Jo h 3, 16f., 1 Jo h 4,9.” Z N W 57 (1966) 199-210. ————. “πνεύμα, πνευματικός.” T D N T 6:332-451. ————. “υιός κτλ.” TDNT 8:334-92.————. “υιοθεσία.” TDNT8.399.————. “Paul’s Christology

General Bibliography

XXXIX

an d Gnosticism.” In Paul and Paulinism. FS C. K. Barrett, ed. M. D. H ooker an d S. G. Wilson. L ondon: SPCK, 1982, 1 1 5 -2 3 .————. “Slaves of the Elem ents an d W orshipers o f Angels: Gal 4 :3 , 9 and Col 2 :8 , 18, 20.” J B L 107 (1988) 455-68. Scott, C. A. A. Christianity According to St. P aul Cam bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press, 1961. Seesem an, H . “Das Paulusverständnis des Clem ens A lexandrinus.” T SK 107 (1936) 312-46. Selby, D .J. Toward the Understanding of St. Paul Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962. Sherk, R. K. Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore: Jo h n s Hopkins, 1969. Snodgrass, K. “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law.’’JSNT 32 (1988) 93-113. Souter, A. A Study of Ambrosiaster. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1905.————. The Character and History of Pelagius’ Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul. L ondon: O xford University Press, 1 9 1 6 .————. The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. Oxford: C larendon, 1927. Stähelin, F. Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Leipzig: T eubner, 1907. Stählin, G. “προκοπή, προκύπτω.” T D N T 6:703-19. Stein, R. H . “T he Relationship of G alatians2:Ι ΙΟ and Acts 15:1-35: Two N eglected A rgum ents.” JETS 17 (1974) 239-42. Stendahl,K . Paul amongJews and Gentiles, and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Stowers, S. K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Library of Early Christianity 5. Philadelphia: W estminster, 1986. Stuhlm acher, P. “Zur paulinischen Christologie.” ZTK 74 (1977) 449-63 (ET O n Pauline Christology,” in idem , Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 169-81). Suggs, M. J. “T he Christian Two Way T radition: Its Antiquity, Form, and F unction.” In Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. FS A. P. Wikgren, ed. D . E . Aune. N ovT Sup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972, 60-74. Sykutris,J. “E pistolographie.” I n PW, S upplem ent 5, 218-19. T albert, C. H . “Again: P aul’s Visits to Jeru salem .” NovT 9 (1967) 26-40. Taubenschlag, R. The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 b. c.— 640 a .d . 2 n d ed. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955,109-207. Taylor, G . M. “T he Function of III ΣΤΙΣ XPIΣΤΟΤ in Galatians.”JBL 85 (1966) 58-76. Thom as, J. “Formgesetze d es Begriffskatalogsim N eu e n T estam ent.” T Z 24 (1968) 15-28. T o rran ce, T . F. “O n e Aspect of the Biblical C onception o f Faith,”ExpTim 68 (1957) 111-14. T rudinger, L. P. “ΕΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ TON ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ OYK EI ΔΟΝ ΕΙ ΜΗ ΙΑΚΩΒΟΝ: A N ote on Galatians i. 19.” NovT 17 (1975) 200-202. T urner, C. H . “G reek Patristic C om m entaries on the Pauline Epistles.” In Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, rev. F. C. G rant and Η. H. Rowley. New York: Scribner, 1963, 484-531. T u rn er, E. G. Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. P rinceton: P rin ceto n University Press, 1971. Tyson, J. B. “P aul’s O pponents in G alatia.” NovT 10 (1968) 241-54. ————. “‘Works ofLaw’ in Galatians.”JB L 92 (1973) 423-31. V ielhauer, P. “Gesetzesdienst u n d Stoicheiadienst im Galaterbrief.” In Rechtfertigung. FS E. Kä sem ann, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pohlm ann, a n d P. Stuhlm acher. T übingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1976. 543-55. Vögtle, A. Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament. NTAbh 16. M ünster: A schendorff, 1936. W allace-Hadrill, D. S. Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1982. W alton, F. R. “T he M essenger o f God in H ecataeus of A bdera.” H TR 48 (1955) 255-57. W eder, H . Das Kreuz Jesu bei Paulus: Ein Versuch ü berden Geschichtsbezugdes christlichen Glaubens nachzudenken. FRLANT 125. G öttingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1981. W endland, P. Die urchristlichen Literaturformen. H N T 1:3. T ü b ingen: M ohr, 1912. 339-45. W erner, J. DerPaulinismus des Irenaeus. Leipzig: H inrichs, 1889. W esterholm , S. “L etter and Spirit: The F oundation of Pauline Ethics.” N T S 30 (1984) 229-48. ————. O n Fulfilling the W hole Law (Gal. 5:14).” SEA 51-52 (1986-87) 2293 7 .————. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1988. White, J. L. “Introductory Form ulae in the Body o f the Pauline L etter.” JBL 90 (1971) 91-97. ————. The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle. SBLDS 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1972. ————. The Form and Structure of the Official Petition: A Study in Greek Epistolography. SBLDS 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1 972.————. “Epistolary Form ulas and Cliches in the G reek Papyrus Letters.” SBLASP 1 4 (1978) 289-319. ————. “T he Greek D ocum entary L etter T radition: T hird Century b .c.e. to T hird Century c.e.” Semeia 22 (1981)

xl

G eneral B ibliography

89-106. ————. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ————. “A ncient G reek L etters.” In Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, ed. D. E. A une. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. 85-106. W hite, J. L., an d Kensinger, K. “Categories of G reek Papyrus L etters.” SBLASP 10 (1976) 79-91. W ibbing, S. D ie Tugend-und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran Texte. Berlin: T öpelm ann, 1959. W ickert, U. Studien zu den Pauluskommentaren Theodors von Mopsuestia. Berlin: T öpelm ann, 1962. W ikenhauser, A. Pauline Mysticism: Christ in the Mystical Teaching of St. Paul. Tr. J. C unningham . New York: H erd er & H erd er, 1960. Wilckens, U. “στυλό?.” TDNT 7:732-36. Wilcox, M. “‘U pon the T re e ’— D eut 21:22-23 in the New T estam ent.” JBL 96 (1977) 85-99. ————. “T h e Prom ise o f the ‘Seed’ in the New T estam ent and the T argum im .” JSN T 5 (1979) 2-20. Wiles, M. F. The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church. Cambridge: C am bridge University Press, 1967. Williams, S. K. “T he H earing of Faith: ΑΚΟΗ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ in Galatians 3.” N TS 35 (1989) 82-93. Wilson, R. McL. “Gnostics in Galatia?” In Studia Evangelica IV, ed. F. L. Cross. TU 102. Berlin: Akademie, 1968. 358-67. W innett, F. V., an d R eed, W. L. Ancient Recordsfrom North Arabia. T oronto: University of T oronto Press, 1970. W inter, J . G. “A nother Instance o f όρθοττοδβΐν.” H TR 34 (1941) 161-62. W oollcom be, K . J. “Biblical O rigins an d Patristic D evelopm ent of Typology.” In Essays in Typology, ed. G. W. H. Lam pe an d K. J. W oollcombe. London: SCM, 1957. 39-75. Yaron, R. Gifts in Contemplation of Death in Jewish and Roman Law. Oxford: C larendon, 1960. Young, N. H. “Paidagōgos: T he Social Setting of a P auline M e tap h o r.” N ovT 29 (1987) 150-76. Ziem ann, F. De Epistularum Graecarum Formulis. Berlin: Hass, 1912. 362-65. Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Inquiry. SNTSMS 20. Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1972.

Introduction

All o f o u r NT m anuscripts arrange the Pauline letters roughly according to length, from the longest to the shortest: Romans, 1 and 2 C orinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Tim othy, Titus, and Philem on. W here Hebrews was th o u g h t to be by Paul, it was included either after his letters to various churches and before those to individuals (i. e., after 2 Thessalonians and before 1 Timothy, as in C odex A; cf. A thanasius’Festal Letter 39 o f a .d. 367) o r after Rom ans and before 1 C orinthians, evidently because of its length (as in p46) . T he sixty-three tractates o f the Jewish M ishnah are arranged in their six divisions (Sĕd ārîm) according to descending o rd e r o f size, and this seems to have been the original criterion for the arran g em en t o f P aul’s letters as well. T he M uratorian C anon, however, gives two different arrangem ents for the Pauline letters. T he first lists only the m ajor missionary letters: “first of all to the C orinthians . . . th en to the Galatians . . . and th en to the R om ans.” T he second, which follows im m ediately on the heels of the first, reads: “T he blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor Jo h n [sic] , writes by nam e only to seven churches in the following order: to the C orinthians the first, to the Ephesians the second, to the Philippians the third, to the Colossians the fourth, to the Galatians the fifth, to the Thessalonians the sixth, to the Rom ans the seventh.” T he M uratorian C anon then goes on to say th at “he wrote to the C orinthians and to the Thessalonians once m ore for their re p ro o f” and “to Philem on one, and to Titus one, and to Tim othy two, out of goodwill and love.” But these two listings seem to be prim arily them atic in nature, and so cannot set aside the norm al o rd er o f the MSS. F urtherm ore, the M uratorian C anon may date later than a.d. 200, as usually supposed. Likewise, the catalogue of O T and NT w ritings in se rte d betw een P h ile m o n a n d H ebrew s in C odex D (C odex C larom ontanus)—w here the Pauline letters are listed as Romans, 1 and 2 C orinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Tim othy, Titus, Colossians, and Philem on, with Philippians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians missing—does n o t overrule the o rd er o f the letters in the C odex itself. At least it does n o t bring into question the traditional o rd er of the four m ajor m issionary letters of Paul. (O n M arcion’s arrangem ent, see below.) Yet whatever its place in the lists of antiquity, the letter to the Galatians takes program m atic prim acy for (1) an u n d erstanding of P aul’s teaching, (2) the establishing o f a Pauline chronology, (3) the tracing o u t of the course of early apostolic history, and (4) the determ ination of m any NT critical and canonical issues. It may even have been the first w ritten of P aul’s extant letters. Possibly as well, excluding the confessional portions incorporated th ro u g h o u t the NT, it antedates everything else w ritten in the NT. It is necessary, therefore, to u n d erstan d Galatians aright if we are to un d erstan d Paul and the rest of the NT aright.

Introduction

xlii T

he

I m pact

of

G a l a t ia n s

on

C h r is t ia n

th o u g h t and

A c t io n

Bibliography Patristic Materials T ertullian. Adversus Marcionem. Ed., tr., and intro. E. Evans. Oxford: C larendon, 1972 (PL 2:239-524). ————. Adversus Valentinianos (PL 2:523-96). Evangelium Thomae. Ed. an d tr. A. G uillaum ont, Η. C. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till, Y.`Abd al Masih. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Evangelium Ventatis. Ed. and tr. M. M alinine, Η. C. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till. Z ürich: Rascher, 1961. T he Nag H am m adi Library. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Ed. J. M. Robinson. Leiden: Brill; San Francisco: H arp er & Row, 1977. Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses. Ed. W. W. Harvey. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1857 (PG 7:1263-1322). H ippolytus. Refutationis Omnium Haeresium. In Opera 3, ed. P. W endland. Leipzig: H inrichs, 1916. C lem ent o f A lexandria. Stromata I- V I. I n GCS,Vol. 2 , ed. O . Stählin. 1905-36. Berlin: Akademie, 1960. ————. In LCL, tr. G. W. Butterw orth. London: H einem ann, 1919. O rigen. Commentariorum in Epistulam S. Pauli ad Romanos (PG 14:833-1292). ————. Ex Libris Origenis in Epistulam Galatas (PG 14:1293-98). ————. Le commentarie d ’ Origene sur Rom III.5-V. 7 (Greek text). Ed. J. Scherer. Cairo: Institut français d ’archaologie orientale, 1 9 5 7 .————. Contra Celsum. Tr., intro., and notes H. Chadwick. Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1953.————. On First Principles. Tr., intro., and notes G . W. Butterw orth. New York: H arper & Row, 19 6 6 .————. “Fragm ents on Rom ans.” Ed. Η. Ram bsbotham , J T S 13 (1912) 210-24, 357-68, and 14 (1913) 10-22. ————. The Writings of Origen. Tr. F. Crombie, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 10, 23. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869. ————. Selections from the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen. Tr. R. B. Tollinton. L ondon: SPCK, 1929. Chrysostom, John. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians and Homilies on the Epistle to theEphesians. Oxford: Parker, 1840 (PG 61:6 1 1 -8 2 ).————. Chrysostom and His Message: A Selection from the Sermons of St. John Chrysostom of Antioch and Constantinople. Ed. S. Neill. London: Lutterw orth, 1962. ————. The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom on the First Epistle of S. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. P art II. Oxford: Parker, 1839. T h eo d o re o f M opsuestia. Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of St Paul. 2 vols., ed. Η. B. Swete. Cam bridge: C am bridge University Press, 1880-82 (PG 66:911-22). T h eo d o ret o f Cyrrhus. Commentarii in omnes Pauli Epistulas. Oxford: Parker, 1852 (PG82:505-58). G reek Com mentaries. Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben. Ed. K. Staab. M ünster: Aschendorffe, 1933. Victorinus. Marii Victorini Afri commentarii in epistulas Pauli. Ed. A. Locher. Leipzig: T eubner, 1972. A m brosiaster. Commentarium in Epistulam Beati Pauli ad Galatas (PL 17:357-94). Jerom e. Commentarium in Epistulam ad Galatas (PL 26:307438). Augustine. Commentarium in Epistulam ad Galatas (PL 35:2105—48). Pelagius. Expositions of the Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. Ed. A. Souter. Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1922. Reformation Writings Erasmus, D. Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol.42: Paraphrases on Romans and Galatians. Ed. R. D . Sider. T oronto: University of T oronto, 1984. L uther, M. Luthers Werke,V ol. 2 (1519 an d 1523 editions of Galatians); Vols. 401and 402a (1538 edition). W eimar: Bohlaus, 1 884, 1911, 1 9 1 4 .————. Luther’s Works, V ols. 2 6 a n d 27. Ed. J. Pelikan. St. Louis: Concordia, 196364. Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Tr. T. H. L. Parker ( Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. D. W. T orrance and T. F. T orrance, Vol. 11). G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1965. 3-119.

Introduction

xliii

Contemporary Authors Blackman, E. C. Mar cion and His Influence. Buri, F. Clemens Alexandrinus. Chase, F. H. Chrysostom. D aniélou,J. Origen. G rant, R . M. The Letter and the Spirit. H anson, R. P. C. Allegory and Event. Hoffmann-Aleith, E. Das Paulusverstandnis in der alten Kirche. ————. “Das Paulusverständnis des Johannes Chrysostomus.” ZNW 38 (1939) 181-88. Lawson, J. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus. Lightfoot, J. B. “T he Patristic C om m entaries on This Epistle.” In Galatians (1890), 227-36. M olland, E. The Conception of the Gospel in Alexandrian Theology. Pagels, E. H. The Gnostic Paul. Parker, T. H . L. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. Schelkle, K. H. Paulus Lehrer der Väter. Seeseman, H . “Das Paulus erstandnis des Clemens A lexandrinus.” TSK 107 (1936) 312-46. Souter, A. A Study of Ambrosiaster. ————. The Character and History of Pelagius’ Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul. ————. The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. T urner, C. H . “G reek Patristic C om m entaries on the Pauline Epistles.” In Hastings’Dictionary of the Bible, rev. F. C. G rant and Η. H. Rowley. New York: Scribner, 1963. 484-531. W atson, P. S. “E d ito r’s Preface.” In M. L uther, A Commentary on St. P aul’s Epistle to the Galatians, tr. based on the M iddleton edition of the English version of 1575. London: Jam es Clarke, 1953. 1-15. W erner, J. DerPaulinismus des Irenaeus. W ickert, U. Studien zu den Pauluskommentaren Theodors von Mopsuestia. Wiles, M. F. The Divine Apostle.

Historically, Galatians has been foundational for m any forms of Christian doctrine, proclam ation, and practice. And it rem ains true today to say that how one understands the issues and teaching of Galatians determ ines in large m easure what kind of theology is espoused, what kind of message is proclaim ed, and what kind of lifestyle is practiced. 1 1. Marcion M arcion of Sinope (a village of the region of Pontus in n ortheastern Asia M inor along the southern shore of the Black Sea), som etim e around a.d. 140, com piled a truncated canon of the NT that contained only ten letters of Paul and the Gospel according to Luke—all with omissions and alterations to suit his understanding of Christianity. M arcion read Paul’s letters in the following order: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans (Ephesians?), Colossians, Philippians, and Philem on (cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.2-21, who is our earliest witness for M arcion’s order; see also Epiphanius, Haer. 42.9). So at the head of his Apostolikon (“Apostolic W ritings”) stood Galatians, which served as the interpretive key to the Christian religion vis-a-vis Judaism . As M arcion understood it, Galatians was directed against judaism and everything Jewish. It declares the abolition of the Jewish law and repudiates the C reator God of the Jewish Scriptures, who, according to M arcion, is an entirely o ther deity than the God whom Paul proclaim ed. Thus as M arcion read Galatians, he saw 1:6-9, for example, as setting up a sharp contrast between Paul’s preaching and the tenets of Judaism , with the angel from heaven of 1:8 who preached an o th er gospel being a m essenger of this Jewish C reator God whom Paul opposed. H e in terp reted the Hagar-Sarah allegory of 4:21-31 as representing two distinctly different “revelations” (not ju st “testam ents”), the form er being the Jewish religion that Paul directs his converts to cast out. And he insisted that Paul ’s words of 6:14, that through the cross of Christ “the world has been crucified to m e and I to the w orld,” have reference to the renunciation of the Jewish God and the Jewish law (cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.2-4). N or did the Jerusalem apostles fare any better, for they were “too close

xliv

Introduction

kindred with Judaism ” (ibid. 5.3.1). As M arcion viewed m atters, the Jerusalem apostles and Paul proclaim ed two entirely different gospels, which is why Paul says in 2:11-14 that he censured Peter at Antioch for n o t walking uprightly according to the tru th o f the Christian gospel (ibid. 5.3.6-7). 2.Tertullian

T ertullian o f Carthage (the ancient city-state p o rt on the n o rth coast o f Africa, nine miles northeast of m odern Tunis) published in a.d. 208 the third edition of his Adversus M arcionem (the first edition probably appeared in a .d. 198, with the third being the only extant edition o f the w ork), which sets o ut in Book 5, sections 2-4, T ertullian’s understanding of Galatians in opposition to that of M arcion. T ertullian agreed with M arcion on the im portance o f Galatians vis-a-vis Judaism : “We too claim th at the prim ary epistle against Judaism is that addressed to the Galatians” (ibid. 5.2.1). But he went on to insist that M arcion was terribly wrong to ren o u n ce the C reator God and to set aside the Jewish Scriptures, for both the abolition o f the law and the establishm ent of the gospel derive from the C reator’s own ordinance and are rooted in the prophecies o f the Jewish Scriptures. So T ertullian argued that it is the same God as preached in the gospel who had been known in the law, though “the rule of co n d u ct” is n o t the same. Specifically, T ertullian insisted that Galatians m ust be understood to teach that the Christian renunciation o f the law stems from the C reator’s own will and came about th rough the work of the C reator’s Christ. As for the Jerusalem apostles, he saw them as basically one with Paul in soteriology and Christology, though he says that their faith in those early days was “u nripe and still in d oubt regarding the observance o f the law,” ju st as P aul’s practice was inconsistent at times (e.g., in c irc u m c isin g T im o th y , A cts 16:3), th o u g h o n ly “f o r c irc u m s ta n c e s ’ s a k e .” As fo r th e

“false b ro th ers” of 2:4-5, they were Jewish Christians who perverted the gospel by their reten tio n o f the old rule of conduct. Tertullian held, however, that their endeavors came to an end when Peter, Jam es, and Jo h n officially recognized the legitimacy o f the Pauline mission by giving to Paul and Barnabas (presum ably at the Jerusalem Council) “the right h an d o f fellowship.” So Tertullian, on the basis of his reading o f Galatians, taught that the law was m eant by God for the early instruction o f his people, b u t that with the fulfillm ent o f his redem ptive purposes in the com ing of Christ, God abolished the law that he him self had appointed (“B etter he than som eone else!”)— though God also confirms the law (i. e., the m oral law) in society to the extent that he m ust (ibid. 5.2.1-4). Tertullian’s views on God as having both abolished and confirmed the law, however, m ust be read with care. For only here does he speak in an unqualified m anner of God’s having abolished the law. Usually he distinguishes between (1) the cerem onial aspect o f the law that was abolished, and (2) the m oral aspect that was confirm ed and h eightened by Christ (cf. De P udicitia 6.3-5; De M onogam ia 7.1; De O ratione 1.1) . As for M arcion’s deletions in Galatians (deleting 1:18-24; 2:6-9a; 3:69; and parts o f 3 :1 0 -12, 14a, 15-25; 4:27-30, with extensive alterations in 4:21-26), Tertullian exclaimed: “Let M arcion’s eraser be ashamed of itself” (Adv. Marc. 5.4.2). And as for M arcion’s treatm ent of Paul generally, Tertullian’s argum ent throughout Book 5 of Adversus Marcionem is presented in confirmation of the thesis set out at the beginning of the work: “the m ost barbarous and m elancholy thing about Pontus [dismal as the region is of itself] is that M arcion was born th e re ” (ibid. 1.1.4).

Introduction

xlv

3 . The Gnostics

Gnostics within the early C hurch also looked to Paul, often revering him as the gnostic initiate and teacher p a r excellence. Gnosticism appeared in m any forms and am ong many groups in the second and third centuries— the Sethians, O phites or Naassenes, Simonians, Basilidians, Marcosians, Marcellians, C arpocrations, and C erinthians being some of the better known. Probably m ost significant and closest to catholic Christianity were the Valentinians, who claim ed succession to the apostle Paul through Theudas, a disciple of Paul, who instructed Valentinus. Valentinus him self seems to have been a m an of considerable brilliance, with great eloquence and a considerable following, who about a.d. 140 was a candidate for the office o f bishop at Rome (cf. Tertullian, A dv. Valentinianos 4). His gnostic inclinations may have been known at the time and been p art o f the reason for his failing to gain th at post, or he may have epoused such views only later. At any rate, som etime during the middle-to-late second century, Valentinus and his disciples Ptolemy, H eracleon, and T heodotus developed a system of gnostic-Christian speculation th at we know about from extant fragm ents of their writings, from refutations of their position by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, C lem ent of Alexandria, and O rigen, and from those Nag H am m adi texts that are generally considered to be V alentinian, particularly the Gospel o f Truth. T he Valentinians accepted Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Hebrews as having been w ritten by Paul—perhaps also 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philem on, bu t certainly n o t 1 and 2 Tim othy or Titus (which denounce heresies that sound too m uch like Gnosticism ). While there is no evidence that they looked on Galatians as being m ore im portant than the other letters of Paul, they thought very highly of Galatians for a num ber of reasons. Chiefly, they took P aul’s denials in chaps. 1-2 that his apostleship and gospel came by m eans o f hum an agency and his insistence that they came rath er by revelation (1:1, 11-12; cf. 2:2) as support for their distinction between tradition and revelation. F urtherm ore, they understood Paul’s treatm ent of the relations be tween Jews and Gentiles in chaps. 3-4 as a parable having to do with relations between the called and the elect—that is between “psychics” and “pneum atics.” Like M arcion, the Valentinians contrasted the God of the Jews, who is the God of the psychics, with the God of the Christians, that is of the pneum atics, and lum ped the Jerusalem apostles and their preaching with the form er, since they were still u n d e r the influence o f Jewish opinions. They differed from M arcion, however, in that while he jettiso n ed the religion of Israel and the proclam ation o f the Jerusalem apostles, they accepted all this as valid on a psychic level, b u t sought to go beyond what had been received from tradition so as to glory in what was true on a pneum atic level as received by direct revelation and the private teachings of Paul. Thus, for example, the Hagar-Sarah allegory of 4:21-31 presents two “sonships”: the first, a psychic sonship, which is in reality no b etter than slavery, and the second, the pneum atic sonship, which is free from the traditions of the past and lives by prom ise and revelation. Both sonships, the Valentinians said, are valid, but the second is far better! So when the Valentinians read Gal 5 with its stress on freedom from the law and the supremacy of the Spirit, they understood Paul to be teaching their position of what it m eans to be a pneum atic and n o t a psychic Christian. And when in Gal 6 Paul speaks of his converts as pneum atics (“spirituals,” πνευματικοί) and n o t as merely psychics (w 1-5), and then concludes by calling them “the Israel

xlvi

Introduction

of G od” (v 16), they found their theology to be explicitly confirm ed (cf. E. H. Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, 101-14). O pponents o f Gnosticism within the C hurch included Irenaeus (A d v . H aer.), Hippolytus ( R efutationis O m nium H aeresium ), T ertullian (A d v. V alentinianos), C lem ent of A lexandria (esp. Stromateis 7; Excerpta et Theodoto ), and O rigen (cf. his many anti-Valentinian com m ents in treating the Pauline letters). M uch o f the argum ent o f the church fathers was to the effect th at Christianity as proclaim ed am ong the Gentiles is really in continuity with all that God did redem ptively in the past, and that it truly carries on the apostl es’ message. So in opposition to the Gnostics’ claim o f being in apostolic succession because they were carrying on Paul’s private and oral teachings, the church fathers laid stress on the apostolic centers of the Gentile world, where presumably the apostolic witness would be most alive, arguing that in these centers there is no rem em brance of anything having been proclaim ed by the apostles other than what can be found in their writings as contained in the NT. Irenaeus and Tertullian even went so far as to claim that Gal. 2:5 should be read, “We did give in to them for a time, so that the truth of the gospel m ight rem ain with you,” thereby omitting the negative ουδέ contained in our better manuscripts (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.13.3; Tertullian, A dv. Marc. 5.3). O n this basis they asserted that Paul did, in fact, submit to the authority of the Jerusalem apostles, and so they sought to refute the gnostic distinction between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles. 4

The A lexandrian Fathers

We do n o t have any Greek com m entaries on Galatians from either of the two great Christian teachers of A lexandria at the end of the second century and the beginning o f the third: C lem ent and Origen. Jerom e in com m enting on Gal 5:13 tells us that O rigen produced fifteen books and seven hom ilies on Galatians, b u t only fragm ents o f two or three of these have been preserved in Latin dress (see Pam philus’ Apology and Je ro m e ’s Com m entarium in E pistulam ad Galatas). T here are, however, num erous references and allusions to Galatians in these two church fathers’ oth er extant writings, and from these it is possible to piece together som ething o f their understanding of the letter. C lem ent of A lexandria was an adult convert to Christianity and after a long spiritual pilgrimage settled in Alexandria as a pupil of Pantaenus, whom he succeeded as head of the Catechetical School during a.d. 190-202. H e left Alexandria in a.d. 202 when severe persecution of Christians broke out u n d e r Septimius Severus, and died in Asia M inor about a.d. 214. While C lem ent’s extant works are fewer and m ore theological in nature than those of his successor, there can be no d o u b t as to how he viewed P aul’s teaching in Galatians. Most succinct is the following quotation from “The Rich M an’s Salvation”: Now the works o f the law are good—who will deny it? For “the com m andm ent is h o ly ” [Rom 7:12], b u t only to the extent of being a kind of training, accom panied by fear and preparatory instruction, leading on to the suprem e law-giving and grace of Jesus [cf. Gal 3:24]. O n the o th er h and, “Christ is the fulfilm ent [i.e., the πλήρωμα, n o t TcXosJ o f the law u n to righteousness to every one who believes” [Rom 10:4], and those who perfectly observe the F ath er’s will he makes n o t slaves, in the m an n er of a slave, b u t sons and bro th ers and jointheirs [cf. Gal 3:26-4:7] (Clem ent, Qui s D ives Salvetur) 9.2; see Strom ateis 4.130.3

Introduction

xlvii

for the o th er occasion w here C lem ent uses πλήρωμα in com m enting on Rom 10:4). H ere C lem ent reveals som ething of his understanding of P aul’s teaching in Galatians: as to the nature of the law, it is “good” and “holy”; as to the purpose of the law, it was to be “a kind of training, accom panied by fear and preparatory instruction”; as to the focus of the law, it is to be found in its “leading on to the suprem e law-giving and grace of Jesus”; as to C hrist’s work in relation to the law, “Christ is the fulfilm ent of the law”; as to the C hristian’s status before God, it is one o f being righteous apart from the law (no longer slaves u n d e r the law bu t “sons and brothers and joint-heirs”); and as to the C hristian’s responsibility to God, it is to believe and perfectly observe the F ather’s will. O rigen (a .d. 185-254), the pious and precocious son of the Greek gram m arian and Christian m artyr Leonides, who becam e head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the age of eighteen in a .d. 203, published during his lifetime a prodigious nu m b er of critical, exegetical, theological, apologetic, and practical writings. T here is extant am ong all these materials, however, no com m entary on Galatians. Yet we are n o t left to w onder how O rigen u nderstood Galatians or what im pact it m ade on him , for there are num erous hints and several direct statem ents on these m atters in the m any Greek fragm ents we have of his com m entaries on Matthew, Jo h n , and Romans, in the few Latin portions of his Galatians com m entary preserved by Pam philus and Jerom e, and in the two h u n d re d or so extant hom ilies we have from O rigen on various biblical passages. In addition, in De Pnncipiis O rigen spells o u t quite explicitly his principles of biblical interpretation. In Contra Celsum, which was written near the end of his life, O rigen uses Gal 5:17 in support of his sharp distinction between the flesh and the spirit, with primacy, o f course, being given to the spirit: “It is impossible for a m an, who is a com pound being, in which ‘the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh,’ to keep the feast [i. e., the L ord’s Day, Preparation, Passover, Pentecost, or any other] with his whole nature; for either he keeps the feast with his spirit and afflicts the body, which through the lust of the flesh is unfit to keep it along with the spirit, or else he keeps it with the body, and the spirit is unable to share in it” (8.23; cf. 4.52 where O rigen applauds N um enius the Pythagorean who said: “T he soul [ψυχή] is the work of God, while the nature of the body is different. And in this respect there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man; for the m atter [υλη] is the same, and their corruptible part is alike”) . Earlier in De Pnncipiis O rigen m ade this same distinction using Gal 5:17 in support as well (1.3.4; 3.2.3; 3.4.1-5). So it seems safe to say, though w ithout his Galatians com m entary, that Galatians with its flesh-spirit dichotom y was foundational for O rig en ’s thought. Likewise, the Hagar-Sarah allegory of 4:21-31 seems to have been foundational for O rig en ’s exegetical m ethod, for in Contra Celsum i t is that passage which he uses to justify his allegorical or spiritual exegesis: Scripture frequently makes use o f the histories of real events in o rder to present to view m ore im portant truths, which are b u t obscurely intim ated; and of this kind are the narratives relating to the “wells” and to the “m arriages” and to the various acts of “sexual intercourse” recorded of righteous persons, for which,

xlviii

Introduction

however, it will be m ore reasonable to offer an explanation in the exegetical writings referring to those very passages. But that wells were constructed by righteous m en in the land of the Philistines, as related in the book of Genesis, is m anifest from the wonderful wells which are shown at Ascalon, and which are deserving o f m ention on account of their structure, so foreign and peculiar com pared to that of o ther wells. M oreover, that both young m en and female servants are to be understood m etaphorically, is n o t ou r doctrine merely, bu t one which we have received from the beginning from wise m en, am ong whom a certain one [Paul] said, when exhorting his hearers to investigate the figurative m eaning: “Tell me, you that read the law, do you n o t hear the law? For it is w ritten th at A braham had two sons: the one by a bon d maid, the o th er by a free woman. But he who was of the bon d wom an was born after the flesh; he of the free woman was by prom ise. W hich things are an allegory, for these are the two covenants: the one from M ount Sinai, which genders to bondage, which is Agar.” And a little after, “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the m oth er o f us all.” And any one who will take up the Epistle to the Galatians may learn how the passages relating to the “m arriage” and the “intercourse with the maid-servants” have been allegorized— the Scripture desiring us to im itate no t the literal acts o f those who did these things, but, as the apostles of Jesus are accustom ed to call them , the spiritual (4.44). And in th at same work, Gal 2:15 is used to buttress his view o f Paul vis-a-vis the Jerusalem apostles th a t h e was “m ightier than they” (ibid. 7.21) and Gal 2:12 to su p p o rt his u n d erstan d in g o f th e natu re o f the Jerusalem apostles’ actions th at they h ad “n o t yet learn ed from Jesus to ascend from the law th at is regulated according to the letter to that which is in terp re ted according to the spirit” (ibid. 2.1). In his Romans com m entary, O rigen deals extensively with P aul’s teaching on the law—a subject o f great im portance, of course, for Galatians as well. H e notes th at n o t every reference to law in P aul’s writings has the Mosaic law in view, and so insists th at distinctions m ust be m ade in P aul’s usage if we are to u nderstand his m eaning ( Comm, ad Rom. on Rom 3:19 [PG 14:958]). He lists six ways in which the word “law” is used and illustrates them from P aul’s letters: (1) the Mosaic law according to the letter (Gal 3:10, 19, 24; 5:4); (2) the Mosaic law according to its spiritual sense (Rom 7:12,14); (3) natural law (Rom 2:14); (4) Mosaic history (Gal 4:2); (5) the prophetic books (1 Cor 14:21); and (6) the teachings of Christ (1 Cor 9:21)— though this latter sense is suggested only somewhat tentatively (“Fragm ents on R om ans,” JTS 13 [1912] 216-18 [on Rom 2:21-25] and 14 [1913] 13 [on Rom 7:7]). With regard to distinguishing between the Mosaic law and natural law, O rigen posits th at the presence or absence o f the article with νόμος* is o f help, th o u g h he never claims this to be an invariable rule ( Comm. ad Rom. on Rom 3:21 [PG 14:959]). M ore particularly, w hen com m enting on P aul’s teaching regarding the C hristian’s relation to the law, O rig en — in concert with Tertullian, Irenaeus, and the A lexandrians generally— separates the law into two parts: (1) the cerem onial laws o f Leviticus, which in terp re ted according to the flesh have com e to an end with Christ, and (2) the m oral requirem ents of the law, which have been retained and am plified by Christ (ibid. on Rom 8:3 and 11:6; cf. T ertullian, De Pudicitia 6.3-

Introduction

xlix

5; De M onogam ia 7.1; De Oratione 1.1; Irenaeus, A d v. Haer. 4.16.4; Apostolic Constitutions 6.20). And when relating law and gospel, while not w ithout an understanding o f the gospel as the fulfillm ent of the law, “his m ain em phasis,” as M aurice Wiles points out, “was placed on the m ore static and less dynamic conception of the already presen t b u t hid d en spiritual m eaning of the law” ( The D ivin e Apostle, 65). For exam ple, com m enting on Rom 6:14 O rigen interprets “you are n o t u n d e r law b u t u n d e r g race” as a contrast betw een the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, w ithout any atten tio n being given to historical developm ents eith er within or between the testam ents ( Comm, ad Rom. on Rom 6:1 [P G 14:1035]). It is, in fact, this separation o f law into its cerem onial and m oral parts and this type of static u n d erstan d in g o f relations betw een th e testam ents th a t characterizes O rig e n ’s thinking. And it is no exaggeration to say th at these same features have been in g ra in e d in m o st succeeding treatm ents of Galatians, with only a few exceptions. 5 . The A ntiochian Fathers

At Antioch of Syria, however, an o th er brand of Christian interpretation arose: one th at owed m uch to O rigen for its critical spirit and gram m atical precision, but stood in opposition to many of the Alexandrian exegetical tenets. Jo h n Chrysostom (a.d. 345-407), who becam e famous in his native Antioch as a great Christian leader and outstanding p reacher (“Jo h n the G olden M outh”) and who then served as A rchbishop o f C onstantinople during a.d. 398-407, is one of the m ost im portant, particularly with regard to Galatians. For while his treatm ent of all the o th er NT writings is in the form of hom ilies on various passages, som etim e during the last decade o f his life he wrote a com m entary on Galatians that moves from verse to verse in extended fashion. Chrysostom’s Galatian com m entary cannot have been written earlier than a .d. 395, for, com m enting on Gal 1:16, he refers his readers to his earlier discussion on the change of P aul’s nam e from Saul to Paul, and that discussion is in H om . de M ut. Nom. 3, which can be dated a.d. 395. Some argue that the Galatians com m entary m ust have been written before a.d. 398, the date when Chrysostom becam e A rchbishop at C onstantinople, because its character is suited to oral delivery, which would characterize better his Antioch residence. (Chrysostom also wrote an OT com m entary on the first six chapters o f Isaiah.) T heodore o f Mopsuestia (died a.d. 429), a contem porary and colleague of Chrysostom, is also im portant. He was born in Tarsus, bu t lived in Antioch and becam e bishop of the ecclesiastical see of Mopsuestia. He wrote com m entaries on all o f Paul’s letters, of which only fragm ents rem ain in Greek, though there are Latin translations for those on Galatians through Philem on. Likewise of im portance is T h eo d o ret (a.d. 393-460), a native of Antioch and disciple of T heodore, who later becam e Bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria. Because of their terseness of expression, good sense, and absence of faults, his com m entaries on Paul have often been credited as being superior to all o th er patristic expositions of Scripture. But, asj. B. Lightfoot observed, “they have little claim to originality, and he who has read Chrysostom and T heodore of Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in T heodoret which he has n o t seen before” (“Patristic C om m entaries,” 230). With regard to the m ajor introductory questions of the day— that is, regarding the identity of the opponents, the nature of their teaching, and the situation Paul faced at Galatia— Chrysostom says quite clearly:

1

Introduction Some o f the Jews who believed, being held down by the prepossessions of Judaism , and at the same tim e intoxicated by vain-glory, and desirous of obtaining for themselves the dignity o f teachers, cam e to the Galatians, and taught them th at the observance of circum cision, sabbaths, and new-moons, was necessary, and that Paul in abolishing these things was n o t to be borne. For, said they, P eter and Jam es and Jo h n , the chiefs o f the Apostles and the com panions o f Christ, forbade them not. Now in fact they did n o t forbid these things, b u t this was n o t by way of delivering positive doctrine, b u t in condescension to the weakness o f the Jewish believers, which condescension Paul had no n eed o f w hen preaching to the Gentiles; b u t w hen he was in Ju d ea, he em ployed it him self also [cf. Acts 21:20-26]. But these deceivers, by w ithholding the causes bo th of P aul’s condescension and that of his b re th ren , m isled the sim pler ones, saying that he was n o t to be tolerated, for he ap p eared b u t yesterday, while Peter and his colleagues were from the first— th at he was a disciple of the Apostles, b u t they of Christ; th at he was single, b u t they many, and pillars of the C hurch. They accused him too of acting a part, saying: “this very m an who forbids circum cision observes the rite elsewhere, and preaches one way to you and an o th er way to o th ers” ( Commentary on Gal 1:1-3).

In so stating, Chrysostom was only drawing together the lines o f early patristic understanding, in opposition to M arcion and the Gnostics. Likewise, in his constant correlation of Gal 2:1-10 and the Jerusalem Council (cf. ib id . on Gal 1:17; 2:1-12; and 2:17) and his parallels betw een Galatians and 2 C orinthians (e.g., ibid. on 1:10, correlating 2 Cor 11:23 with Galatians), Chrysostom appears to be only repeating a settled opinion am ong all in terp reters of his day: that Galatians was w ritten toward the close o f P aul’s m issionary travels in the eastern p art of the Rom an em pire, som ewhere aro u n d a .d. 56-57. B ut while C hrysostom an d his A ntiochian colleagues ag reed with the A lexandrian Fathers on the introductory issues of p ertin en ce to Galatians, exegetically and theologically they differed widely. For while the A lexandrians (and T ertullian), in opposition to M arcion, did everything they could to assure th at P aul’s opposition to the law was kept to a m inim um — and so ten d ed to view the relations between the testam ents in som ewhat static fashion— the A ntiochian church fathers em phasized historical developm ent and redem ptive fulfillm ent, and so un d ersto o d P au l’s teaching differently regarding such m atters as gospel and law an d the C hristian’s relation to the law. Likewise, the A ntiochian church fathers stood diam etrically opposed to allegorical exegesis and d enied the legitimacy o f dividing th e law into two u n eq u al p a rts— the cerem onial law, which came to an en d with Christ and the m oral law, which was reaffirm ed by Christ. And while they acknowledged th at Paul used the word “law” differently in his writings to refer at times to natural law or to the whole OT, as well as to the Mosaic law, they ten d ed n o t to appeal to these distinctions in explicating difficult passages, b u t p referred to in te rp re t such passages along th e lines o f only one sense p er passage for the word “law.” So, for exam ple, w hereas O rigen held that P aul’s use o f “law” changed frequently and w ithout notice in Rom 7, Chrysostom insisted th at Rom 7 m ust be u n derstood in term s of the Mosaic law throughout, with ideas about natural law a n d /o r a paradisal com m and to be ruled out altogether (see esp. Hom. in Rom. 12.6 on Rom 7:12; though in treating Rom 2:14-

Introduction

Ii

15 Chrysostom distinguished am ong w ritten law, natural law, and law as revealed in ac tio n ). T hem es o f developm ent and fulfillm ent com e to the fore at m any places in the A ntiochian church fathers’ treatm en t of Galatians. For exam ple, though he refused to separate gospel and law as opposing forces, Chrysostom was no t p rep ared to see the law as an ethical guide for Christians. Thus on P aul’s statem ent, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer u n d e r the supervision of the law; for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:25-26), Chrysostom writes: T he Law, then, as it was our tutor, and we were kept shut up u n d er it, is n o t the adversary b u t the fellow-worker of grace. But if when grace is com e it continues to hold us down, it becom es an adversary; for if it confines those who ought to go forward to grace, then it is the destruction o f our salvation. If a candle which gave light by night kept us, when it becam e day, from the sun, it would n o t only n o t benefit, it would injure us. And so does the Law, if it stands between us and greater benefits. Those then are the greatest traducers of the Law who still keep it, ju st as the tutor makes a youth ridiculous by retaining him with him self when time calls for his departure ( Commentary on Gal 3:25-26). And though he failed to apply the verse either to the anti-Semitism prevalent in his day or to male chauvinism, in a rem arkable serm on delivered at C onstantinople toward the en d of his life Chrysostom in terp reted Gal 3:28 as having relevance for the question o f slavery. Thus while agreeing with Christians of his day that slavery is “the penalty o f sin and the punishm ent of disobedience,” Chrysostom went on to assert: But when Christ came he annulled even this, for in Christ Jesus “there is no slave n o r free.” T herefore, it is n o t necessary to have a slave; bu t if it should be necessary, then only one or at m ost a second. . . . Buy them and after you have taught them some skill by which they may m aintain themselves, set them free (Homily 40 on 1 C orinthians 10). In so speaking, Chrysostom was knowingly breaking away from a com m on Christian view th at since slavery arose because of sin it could only be eradicated in the eschaton when God deals finally with sin. Based on a m ore dynamic understanding of redem ption, Chrysostom argued for an application of the gospel to the question o f slavery in the present—n o t ju st reserving such m atters for the future (cf. my New Testament Social Ethics fo r Today , 6 0 -6 5 ). It is fair to say, then, that the Antiochian church fathers, while n o t denying continuity to the redemptive activities of God throughout history, had a livelier sense of historical developm ent and redem ptive fulfillm ent than did their A lexandrian counterparts. And because of their m ore dynamic approach to Scripture, they treated questions concerning gospel and law, relations between the testam ents, and the C hristian’s attitude toward the law differently from the Alexandrians. 6. Other L a tin a nd Greek Commentators

Many others wrote com m entaries on Galatians in the post-Nicene period. The im portant critical and exegetical issues, however, were taken to have been largely

lii

Introduction

settled in the second and third centuries, with the result that m ost of these later works simply built on what had gone before. Four great Latin com m entaries deserve m ention: one by Am brosiaster (Hilary), which was written som etim e during a .d. 366-84; one byje ro m e about a .d. 387; one by Augustine about a .d. 394; and one by Pelagius som etime before a .d. 410. T he com m entary of Marius Victorinus is earlier, written about a.d. 360, b u t it is n o t in the same class as these four am ong Latin com m entaries. Jero m e refers to a num ber of com m entaries he consulted in writing his own com m entary, b u t singles out O rigen’s as having been especially im portant and the one he followed m ost closely. Je ro m e ’s work on Galatians is characterized by extensive learning, acute criticism, and some fanciful and even perverse in terp retations, coupled with lively and vigorous exposition (so Lightfoot, “Patristic C om m entaries,” 232). In the m ain, however, it comes off as a reconstituted A lexandrian treatm ent of the letter. The com m entary ascribed to Am brosiaster (so called because it was wrongly credited to Ambrose and has been com m only p rinted with his writings) is one of the best of the Latin com m entaries. But it too is heavily d ep e n d en t on Alexandrian tenets. A ugustine’s com m entary claims no knowledge of the writings o f others on Galatians, and the work evidences th at to be the case. While im portant for its spiritual insights and great thoughts at num erous places, as a critical com m entary it falls far short. And Pelagius’ com m entaries on P aul’s letters, though perceptive and vital in the portions we have, were purged of what were considered to be their heretical features, so we are unable to ju d g e either their sources or their distinctive contributions. All o th er com m entaries on Galatians in the Middle Ages are derivative writings. Those in Greek by J o h n of Damascus (c. a.d. 750), Ecum enius (10th cent.), and Theophylactus (late 11th cent.) are largely dependent on Chrysostom and T heodore of Mopsuestia, as is also the anonymous Catena (date uncertain) published by Cram er in 1842. Those by the m any Latin writers of this period are equally unoriginal, being derived from Am brosiaster (Hilary),Jerom e, Augustine, and Pelagius—and through Jerom e, in particular, rooted in an A lexandrian approach to the in terpretation o f Galatians. 7. The Protestant Reformers D uring the P rotestant Reform ation, Galatians took on h eig h ten ed im portance. In 1517 Erasmus published his Paraphrase on Romans, which was followed in 1518 or 1519 by his Paraphrase on Galatians. These paraphrases seem to have been done as a kind o f relief from his work as a critical editor and as preparations for full-scale com m entaries, though Erasmus never got aro u n d to writing com m entaries. T he paraphrases on Rom ans and Galatians were im m ediately p opular on the co n tin en t and later in Britain. “For the in terp retatio n of R om ans and Galatians,” a s j . B. Payne, A. Rabil, Jr., and W. S. Smith, Jr., observe, “Erasm us’ favourite interpreters were clearly O rigen and jero m e , respectively” ( Collected Works of Erasmus, 42:xviii). Erasm us’ A lexandrian proclivities are clearly evident in his freq u en t insistence that Paul rejected n o t the whole law b u t only its cerem onial parts— thereby viewing the cerem onial law as com ing to an en d in Christ and the m oral law as reaffirm ed by Christ—and in his argum ents for the spiritual law of C hrist as taking the place of the cerem onial law o f Moses. In opposition to the cerem onialism o f his day, Erasmus read Galatians m ore in term s o f the contrast

Introduction

liii

between personal and formal expressions of religion than in term s of eschatological redem ption. M artin L uther (1483-1546) lectured repeatedly on Galatians at the university of W ittenburg, where he was professor of biblical exegesis. In 1519 he published a com m entary on Galatians that was largely d ep e n d en t on Jerom e and Erasmus. T h en in 1523 he p roduced an abbreviated and revised form of that 1519 work, which in its omissions and revisions began to d ep art from both Jero m e and Erasmus (see Luthers Werke, 2:436-758; Luther’s Works, 27:151-410). D uring the fall of 1531, Luther gave another series of lectures on Galatians. That series was taken down in full by three of his students and published in 1535. It was then republished with revisions in 1538 as his definitive exposition of Galatians (Werke, 401 and 402a; Works, 26 and 27a). In this later com m entary L uther frequently opposesjerom e on m atters o f exegesis and interpretation, occasionally taking issue with Erasmus as well. In effect, though seemingly w ithout being aware of it himself, L u th er’s 1538 com m entary stands firmly in an Antiochian tradition of interpretation. L uther loved Galatians, finding in it a source of strength for his own life and an armory of weapons for his reform ing work. He called it “my own epistle, to which I have plighted my troth; my Katie von B ora” ( Werke, 401:2; Katie von Bora, of course, was L u th er’s wife). W hen ju st two years before his death the com plete Latin edition of his works was being prepared, L uther com m ented: “If they took my advice, they would p rin t only the books containing doctrine, like Galatians” (Werke, 401:2) In his 1538 com m entary on Galatians, L uther stresses the doctrine of justification by faith, fighting against opponents on two fronts. H e opposed, of course, scholastic theology and the Papists in their equation of gospel and law. But he also argued against the radical reform ers of his day (the Enthusiasts or Schwärmer, as he called them ) in their separation of the letter and the spirit and of flesh and spirit. T he form er he saw as m odern equivalents to the Judaizers and against them argued for the contrast between gospel and law—though, it m ust be noted, w ithout denying continuity in G od’s redem ptive activity th ro u g h o u t history or negating the ultim ate unity of purpose in both. The latter, however, he saw as contem porary dualists and allegorists, and insisted that they failed to understand P aul’s use of flesh and spirit aright. In 1527, when com m enting on C hrist’s words “This is my body,” L uther— against the Enthusiasts and with an allusion to Gal 5:20—had said: Everything is and is called spirit and spiritual that proceeds from the Holy Spirit, no m atter how corporeal, external and visible it may be. And everything is flesh and carnal that proceeds w ithout the Spirit from the natural powers of the flesh, no m atter how inward and invisible it may be. Thus St. Paul in Rom ans 7 calls the carnal m ind “flesh,” and in Galatians 5 he reckons am ong the works of the flesh “heresy, hatred, envy,” etc., which are entirely inward and invisible (Werke, 23:203). And this emphasis continues in his Galatians com m entary of 1538. O n m atters having to do with the identity of the opponents at Galatia, the nature o f their teaching, and the situation Paul faced, L uther was quite traditional, accepting positions arrived at by the church fathers and those who p receded him. All that he did that was new in these areas was to identify the Papists as the Judaizers

liv

Introduction

o f his day and to spell out P aul’s teaching on justification vis-a-vis their position. Likewise, L uther was traditional in equating Gal 2:1-10 with the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, and so viewing Galatians as having been w ritten late in P aul’s career. Exegetically, however, L uther broke with his Latin tradition by arguing for the contrast between gospel and law, on the one hand, and for the union of flesh and spirit and letter and spirit, on the other. In so doing, he was in line with an A ntiochian tradition of exegesis and interpretation, in contradistinction to the A lexandrian church fathers and the Latin com m entators. Jo h n Calvin (1509-64) is often thought of as a m an of only one book, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, which he com pleted in 1536 at the age of twentyseven. But Calvin was also a pastor and a statesm an, who delivered serm ons and wrote letters— and who, in carrrying out his pastoral duties in Geneva, becam e a prolific writer o f com m entaries. In addition to com m entaries on the OT, he wrote com m entaries on all the books o f the NT except 2 and 3 Jo h n and Revelation. His com m entary on Galatians was published in 1548 when he was thirty-nine. With regard to critical issues Calvin, like Luther, was thoroughly traditional. For exam ple, Calvin held that the claim of the Judaizers to represent the apostles at Jerusalem was false, for they, in contradistinction to the Jerusalem apostles, both (1) u n d ercu t P aul’s authority as an apostle, and (2) taught that observance of the Jewish cerem onies was still necessary—so attacking n o t ju st Paul b u t also the truth o f the gospel (see Calvin’s introductory “T he T hem e of the Epistle to the Galatians,” in The Epistles of Paul, 3-7). Also, following his predecessors, Calvin believed th at the Galatian Christians to whom Paul wrote were located som ewhere in the n o rth ern regions of the Rom an province o f Galatia (cf. the opening statem ent o f Calvin’s Galatian commentary: “It is well known in what parts of Asia the Galatians lived and what were the boundaries of their co u n try ” [ibid., 3]), and so presum ably evangelized during the latter p art of P aul’s missionary activity. Yet, interestingly, Calvin identifies the Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1-10 with the fam ine visit o f Acts 11:27-30, and n o t with Acts 15:1-30 as m ight be expected. For on Gal 2:1, Calvin says: “This [visit] can hardly be regarded definitely as the journey m entioned by Luke in Acts 15:2. T he course of the history leads us to the contrary conclusion” (ibid., 24). He then goes on to argue for the identification of this visit with the fam ine visit. Exegetically, Calvin deplored allegorizing the text in search of deeper, m ore spiritual m eanings. Rather, he argued for the “literal sense”— that is, the plain and single m eaning o f the words as understood in their historical context. O n P aul’s use o f άλληγορούμενα in Gal 4:24, which was being used to validate allegorical exegesis, Calvin writes: O rigen, and m any others along with him , have seized this occasion of twisting Scripture this way and that, away from the genuine sense. For they inferred that the literal sense is too m eagre and poor and that beneath the bark of the letter there lie deep er mysteries which cannot be extracted b u t by ham m ering out allegories. And this they did w ithout difficulty, for the world always has and always will prefer speculations which seem ingenious to solid doctrine. With such approbation the licence increased m ore and m ore, so that he who played this gam e o f allegorizing Scripture n o t only was suffered to pass unpu n ish ed but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no m an was thought

Introduction

lv

clever who lacked the cunning and daring to transfigure with subtlety the sacred W ord o f God. This was undoubtedly a trick of Satan to im pair the authority of Scripture and remove any true advantage out of the reading of it. God avenged this profanation with a ju st ju d g m en t when H e suffered the pure m eaning to be b u ried u n d er false glosses. Scripture, they say, is fertile and thus bears m ultiple m eanings. I acknowledge th at Scripture is the m ost rich and inexhaustible fount of all wisdom. But I deny th at its fertility consists in the various meanings which anyone may fasten to it at his pleasure. Let us know, then, that the true m eaning of Scripture is the natural and simple one, and let us em brace and hold it resolutely. Let us not merely neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those p reten d ed expositions which lead us away from the literal sense (ibid., 84-85). Likewise, in contradistinction to the medieval habit of m odernizing history, Calvin refused to contem porize the text for the sake of relevance. H e was convinced that a faithful exposition of the apostolic message in its first-century dress was what was necessary and m ost significant for the issues confronting Christians in the sixteenth century. And while, as in the Institutes, he viewed m an as consisting of two parts, a soul and a body, and spoke o f the soul as “the nobler p art of h im ” (1.15.1-8), in his Galatians com m entary Calvin stands in opposition to an Alexandrian separation of flesh and spirit and to the radical reform ers’ separation of letter and spirit (see his statem ents in the Galatians com m entary on Gal 5:17, with references to his earlier com m ents on Romans 8). Yet while Calvin was in many ways Antiochian in his historical and exegetical sensibilities, he was basically A lexandrian in his theological orientation, in his understanding of the relation of the testam ents, and in his treatm ent of the interaction between gospel and law in the Christian life. Frequently, in fact, having dealt historically and exegetically with a text, and having com e to a dilem m a in the interpretation, he solved the issue on a theological basis—not, at all times, inappropriately, b u t often m uch too quickly. And while exegetically he tried to keep separate the first and the sixteenth centuries, in applying the message of a passage the “th e n ” and the “now” often becam e so intertw ined as to becom e one and the same. “T he sixteenth century was, above all things,” as T. H. L. Parker rem inds us, “the age of the Bible” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vii). N ot only Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin, b u t also M elanchthon, Zwingli, Beza, Musculus, Pellican, Brenz, B ugenhagen, Bullinger, Bucer, M ercerus, and a host of others call for attention. Much m ore research needs to be done on each of these com m entators before they can be treated in any such summary fashion as we have done for those above. N onetheless, Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin set the tone for m uch of what followed in com m entary writing in the succeeding centuries, with distinctly new approaches n o t being proposed until the m odern critical period. 8. The Modern Critical Period T he m odern critical period of Pauline studies began with F erdinand Christian Baur, who in 1831 first proposed his Hegelian understanding of the course of early Christian history (“Die C hristuspartei in der korinthischen G em einde: Der Gegensatz des petrinischen u n d paulinischen Christentum s in der ältesten Kirche,”

Ivi

Introduction

Tübinger Zeitschrift f ür Theologie [1831] 61-206; see also his Paul: His Life and Works, 2 vols, tr. E. Zeller [London: Williams & N orgate, 1875] 1:105-45, 250-57). Baur saw Galatians as a polem ic by Paul against legalistic Jewish Christians from Jerusalem who were unim peded by the Jerusalem apostles—or, as B aur’s position was developed by his disciples, against the full authority of the Jerusalem church, including that o f Peter and Jam es. This understanding of early Christianity in general and of Galatians in particular was directly opposed byj. B. Lightfoot, whose 1865 com m entary on the letter set the standard for all com m entary writing from his day to the present (Saint Paul’sEpistle to the Galatians, 1st ed. [London: Macmillan, 1865]). In the 1890s William M. Ramsay challenged the traditional understanding of the provenance of Galatians, proposing instead what has becom e known as the South Galatian hypothesis ( The Church in the Roman Empire beforea .d . 170 [London: H odder 8c Stoughton, 1893]; The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia [Oxford: C larendon, 1895]; St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen [London: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1896]; A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians [London: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1899]). In 1919 W ilhelm Lütgert ( Gesetz und Geist: Eine Untersuchungzur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefs [Gutersloh: B ertelsm ann]), followed in 1929 by Jam es Hardy Ropes ( The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians [Cam bridge, MA: H arvard University Press]), in opposition to the unitary n ature of P aul’s Galatian opponents, argued a “Two F ront T heory” that postulated both judaizing legalists and pneum atic radicals as being addressed, though in different sections of the letter. In 1921 Ernest deW itt B urton set the m odel for what a true exegetical com m entary on Galatians should be (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. C lark]). In 1948 W. D. Davies set the p attern for the interpretation of Paul in term s of his background in Pharisaic Judaism , with those studies having profound im plications for the understanding of P aul’s use o f Jewish exegetical procedures and theological them es in Galatians (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism [London: SPCK]). In 1950 Jo h n Knox argued for the disengagem ent of Paul’s letters from the portrayals of Paul in Acts, with in terp reters being called on to understand Galatians in its historical circum stances, date, and teachings apart from Acts ( Chapters in a Life of Paul [Nashville: A bingdon]). In 1956 W alter Schmithals proposed a gnostic setting for the situation at Galatia (“Die H eretiker in G alatien,” ZNW 47 [1956] 25-67, which, as revised in 1965, now appears as “T he Heretics in Galatia,” in Paul and the Gnostics, tr. J. E. Steely [Nashville: A bingdon, 1972] 13-64). In 1971 R obert Jew ett proposed a Zealot backg ro u nd (“T he Agitators and the Galatian C ongregation,” N TS 17 [1971] 198-212). D uring the 1960s and 1970s a great deal of study on the epistolary structures of first-century letters was undertaken, m uch of which has direct bearing on the structure of Galatians. In 1975 and 1979 H ans D ieter Betz stressed the rhetorical forms o f the Greco-Roman world, particularly the “apologetic letter” genre of forensic rhetoric, as providing the basic interpretive key to Galatians (“T he Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 [1975] 353-79; idem , Galatians: A Commentary on P aul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia [H erm eneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979]). And th roughout the past quarter-century, Galatians has becom e p ro m inent in various liberation theologies—w hether of a Latin Am erican or South Am erican variety (e.g., G. Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1973] 158-61), or black liberation (e.g., J. H. Cone,

Introduction

lvii

Black Theology and Black Power [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979] 39, 60,125), or w om en’s liberation (e. g., R. Scro ggs, “Paul and the Eschatological W om an,” JAAR 40 [1972] 283-303). M uch o f what follows will deal directly with the issues raised and the approaches taken as cited above for the m odern critical period. I must, therefore, leave the discussion o f each of these m atters to those fuller treatm ents (see particularly the discussions of “A uthorship,” “Addressees,” “D ate,” “O pponents and S ituation,” and “Epistolary and Rhetorical S tructures”). All I have attem pted to do here by m eans o f a selective reading of the history of in terp retatio n is (1) to m ake the p o in t th at P aul’s letter to the Galatians has been and continues to be foundational for m any form s of Christian thought, proclam ation, and practice, (2) to highlight certain distinctive ways in which Galatians has been treated in the past so as to alert the read er to crucial issues th at m ust be dealt with in interpretation, and (3) to w het the re a d e r’s appetite for a fresh study of the letter itself. P aul’s Galatians is, in fact, like a lion tu rn ed loose in the arena o f Christians. It challenges, intim idates, encourages, and focuses ou r attention on w hat is really essential as little else can. How we deal with the issues it raises and the teachings it presents will in large m easure determ ine how we think as Christians and how we live as C hrist’s own. A u t h o r s h ip

Bibliography Bahr, G. J. “Paul and Letter W riting in the First Century.” CBQ 28 (1966) 4 6 5-77.————. “T he Subscriptions in the Pauline L etters.” JBL 87 (1968) 27-41. Baur, F. C. Paul: His Life and Works, 1:245-57. Burton, E. deW. Galatians, lxv-lxxi. Deissmann, A. Light from the Ancient East Doty, W. G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Funk, R.W. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God, 250-74. ————. “T he Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance.” In Christian History and Interpretation. FS J. Knox, ed. W. R. Farm er, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. N iebuhr. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1967. 249-68. Koskenniemi, H. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Longenecker, R. N. “A ncient A m anuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N. L ongenecker and M. C. Tenney. G rand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. 2 8 1 -9 7 .————. “O n the Form, Function, and A uthority of the New T estam ent L etters.” In Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson an d j. D. W oodbridge. G rand Rapids: Zondervan, 19 8 3 . 101-14. Milligan, G. Documents, 21-30, 241-47. Milne, H. J. M. Greek Shorthand Manuals. O’Neill, J. C. Recovery. Pack, R. A. Greek and Latin Literary Texts. Roberts, C. H. Greek Literary Hands, 350 b. c.— a .d 4 0 0 . Oxford: C larendon, 1956. Roller, O. Das Formular. Schubert, P. “Form and F unction of the Pauline Letters.” JR 19 (1939) 365-77. Sherk, R. K. Roman Documentsfrom the Greek East. Turner, E. G. Greek Manuscripts. Wendland, P. Die urchristlichen Literaturformen, 339-45. White, J. L. The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter.

1. Author T he m ost uncontroverted m atter in the study of Galatians is that the letter was written by Paul, the Christian apostle whose ministry is portrayed in the Acts o f the Apostles. The letter begins by nam ing him as its author (1:1). Furtherm ore, the nature o f its theological argum ent, its distinctive use of Scripture in support of that argum ent, the character of its im passioned appeals, and the style of writing all p oint

lviii

Introduction

to Paul as its author. If Galatians is n o t by Paul, no NT letter is by him, for none has any better claim. Marcion, the Gnostics, the A lexandrian church fathers, the A ntiochian church fathers, the Protestant Reformers, and alm ost all scholars since have accepted P aul’s authorship without question, with many seeing Galatians as the program matic basis for all Pauline thought and the touchstone for all Christian theology. T here is, in fact, no recorded opposition to P aul’s authorship of Galatians until the n in eteen th century. Even the T übingen scholar F. C. Baur accepted Galatians as by Paul and built his case for early Christianity on “the four great Epistles of the Apostle which take precedence of the rest in every respect, namely, the Epistle to the Galatians, the two Epistles to the Corinthians, and the Epistle to the R om ans” (the so-called Hauptbnefe), for, insisted Baur, “there has never been the slightest suspicion of unauthenticity cast on these four epistles, and they bear so incontestably the character o f Pauline originality, that there is no conceivable g round for the assertion of critical doubts in their case” (Paul: His Life and Works, 1:246). And the vast majority o f scholars today agree. N ot everyone, of course, has concurred. In the n in eteen th century B runo Bauer outdid F. C. Baur in the application of “T endency Criticism ” and even denied that the Hauptbnefe were written in the first century (Kritik derpaulinischen Briefe [Berlin: H em pel, 1852]). He argued that since Galatians is so full of obscurities, contradictions, im probabilities, and non sequiturs, it could hardly have been written by Paul. O thers o f his day followed him , am ong whom were A. D. Lom an, A. Pierson, S. A. Naber, R udolf Steck, Daniel Volter, W. C. van M anen, C. H. Weisse, and Jacob C ram er (for diverse discussions of those denying authenticity, see E. deW. Burton, Galatians, lxix-lxxi; J. C. O ’Neill, Recovery, 3-10). The tw entieth century has also witnessed similar denials (e.g., L. G. Rylands, A Critical Analysis of the Four Chief Pauline Epistles [London: Watts, 1929]; F. R. McGuire, “Did Paul W rite Galatians?” HibJ 66 [1967-68] 52-57). But such denials are widely considered today to be aberrations in the history of NT study, and rightly so. J.— — — C. O ’Neill has lately revived both B runo B auer’s criticisms and C. H. Weisse’s interpolation theory, and so proposes that Galatians should be seen as a strictly antiJudaic writing to which a num ber o f glosses have been added (Recovery). Starting from the thesis that Paul was “a coherent, argumentative, pertinent W riter”who wrote with m ethod, order, and clarity (ibid., 1-2), O ’Neill identifies over thirty passages in Galatians that appear to him to be disparate from P aul’s central anti-Judaic argum ent and assigns them to a later editor. The paraenetic section o f 5:13-6:10, for example, which is the longest of the supposed interpolations, O ’Neill believes “has nothing in particular to do with the urg en t problem Paul was trying to m eet in his original letter” (ibid., 67)—in fact, it shows quite clearly in its opposition to antinom ianism that it has no vital connection with the concerns of the letter. As O ’Neill sees it, ‘T h e present text of Galatians contains such obscurity, inconsequence, and contradiction that some solution m ust be found. If the choice lies between supposing th at Paul was confused and contradictory and supposing that his text has been com m ented upon and enlarged, I have no hesitation in choosing the second” (ibid., 86). So O ’Neill sets forth what he calls “an O ld A pproach”: that Galatians consists o f an original anti-ju d a ic writing by Paul to which has been added over thirty glosses at the time the letter was edited for publication, and that these later interpolations can be recognized by their disparate character.

Introduction

lix

The disparities that O ’Neill sees in Galatians have, of course, been the building blocks for W. Lütgert and J. H. Ropes in their “Two-Front Theory” and for Walter Schmithals in his Jewish-Christian gnostic approach. N either of these positions, however, is widely accepted today. Yet it m ust be said th at L ü tg ert, Ropes, and Schmithals, each in his own way, have dealt with the data of Galatians in a m uch m ore responsible fashion than does O ’Neill. For O ’Neill simply dismisses the data on which their views are based, and then dismisses their positions because they are founded on passages he rejects. Later in our discussion of the opponents at Galatia, as well as at various places in the commentary proper, we will deal with the views of L ütgert, Ropes, and Schmithals. Suffice it here to say with Kümmel regarding O ’Neill’s position, “The older, frequently represented hypotheses of interpolation or compilation of Gal are nowadays scarcely discussed, and this is no doubt correct” (Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., tr. H. C. Kee [Nashville: Abingdon, 1975] 304). 2. Amanuensis W hat, however, m ost com m entators have n o t taken into account w hen dealing with the authorship of Galatians is the probable presence of an amanuensis in the com position of the letter—for th at m atter, of most, if n o t all, of the NT letters. T he extant nonliterary Greek papyri, the bulk of which (some 40,000 to 60,000) were found during the 1890s in the Fayum of Egypt, indicate quite clearly that an am anuensis or secretary was frequently, if n o t commonly, used in the writing of letters in the years before, during, and after the first Christian century. And there are reasons to believe that the writers of the NT followed this custom as well. Literary m en of the day may have preferred, as did Q uintilian (c. a.d. 35-95), n o t to use an am anuensis for their personal correspondence. O r they may have agreed with Cicero (106-43 b .c.) that dictation to a secretary was an expedient necessitated only by illness or the press of duties. But the papyrus m aterials show that the com m on practice for m ore ordinary m en was to use an am anuensis to write out their letters, after which the sender him self would often, though n o t always, add in his own handw riting a word of farewell, his personal greetings, and the date (cf. my “Ancient A m anuenses,” 281-97; idem , O n the Form ,” 101-14). W riting skills am ong am anuenses undoubtedly varied. A third-century a .d. Latin paym ent schedule reads: “To a scribe for best writing, 100 lines, 25 denarii; for second-quality writing, 100 lines, 20 denarii; to a notary for writing a petition or legal docum ent, 100 lines, 10 denarii” (EdictumDiocletiani depretiis rerum venalium, col. vii, 39-41). T he Greek biographer Plutarch (c. a.d. 46-120) credited Cicero (106-43 b .c .) with the invention of a system of Latin shorthand, relating how Cicero placed scribes in various locations in the senate cham ber to record the speeches and taught them in advance “signs having the force of many letters in little and short marks” (Parallel Lives 23, on Cato the Younger)—though it may have been Tiro, the freedm an of Cicero, who was actually the originator, for inventions of slaves were often credited to their masters. The reference by Seneca (4 b .c.- a .d. 65) to slaves having invented am ong their other notable accomplishments “signs for words, with which a speech is taken down, however rapid, and the h and follows the speed of the to n g u e” (Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales 90.25) lends credence to Tiro, or som eone like him, as the originator, and suggests that at least by a.d. 63-64, when Seneca’s letters to Lucilius were written, a system of Latin shorthand was widely in use.

lx

Introduction

T he earliest com parable evidence for a system of G reek sh o rth an d is contained in POxy 724, d ated M arch 1, a .d. 155 (“the fifth o f P ham enouth in the eighteenth year o f the em p ero r Titus Ailios H adrian A ntonius Augustus Eusebius”) , w herein a form er official o f Oxyrhynchus by the nam e of Panechotes binds his slave C haeram m on to a stenographer nam ed Apollonius for a term o f two years in o rd er to learn sh o rth an d from him . T hough P anechotes’ letter is a secondcentury writing, the developed system of sh o rth an d th at it assumes (which C haeram m on was to take two years to learn) presupposes an earlier workable system o f G reek shorthand, dating, at least, from the first C hristian century, and probably earlier. T he extent o f freedom that am anuenses had in drafting letters is impossible to determ ine from the evidence presently at hand. U ndoubtedly it varied from case to case. Am anuenses may have written their clients’ messages word for word or even syllable by syllable; they may have been given the sense of a message and left to work o u t the wording themselves; or they may have been asked to write on a particular subject in a sender’s nam e w ithout being given explicit directions as to how to develop the topic, especially if the sender felt his am anuensis already knew his m ind on the m atter. Scholarly opinion on this is sharply divided. O tto Roller, for example, believed that ancient am anuenses had a great deal o f freedom and th at dictation of a word for word variety was rare (Das Formular, 333), whereas F. R. M. H itchcock drew exactly the opposite conclusion (“T he Use of graphein ”JTS 31 [1930] 273-74). But whatever m ethod or m ethods may have been used in the writing o f any particular letter, the sender usually added a personal subscription in his own hand, thereby attesting to all th at was written. At times he even included in th at subscription a resum e o f what had been said in the body o f the letter, thereby acknowledging fu rther the contents and highlighting some of its details. T hough we possess no autograph of any of the NT letters, it may be assum ed that their authors followed cu rren t letter-writing conventions and so used am anuenses as well— though in these cases, the secretaries were probably m ore personal com panions than trained scribes. In 2 Thess 3:17 Paul says that it was his practice to add a personal subscription to his letters in his own handw riting, thereby attesting to w hat was written and assuring his converts of the lette r’s authenticity. Such a statem ent is in line with the epistolary practice o f the day and alerts us to the likely presence of o ther such subscriptions am ong his oth er letters, though it gives no guidance as to how to m ark them off. Likewise, the words of 1 Cor 16:21 and Col 4:18 (“I, Paul, write this greeting in my own h a n d ”) suggest that the subscriptions were distinguishable in handw riting from the m aterial th at preceded— necessitating, of course, the involvem ent of an am anuensis in w hat preceded. The “I, Tertius, who wrote this letter in the L o rd ” o f Rom 16:22 cannot be understood in any way o th er than that an am anuensis was involved to some extent in P aul’s letter to Christians at Rome (or, as some suggest, to believers at E phesus). And Gal 6:11, while allowing some uncertainty as to the precise extent o f the reference, recalls certain features in the subscriptions of Greco-Roman letters w hen it declares “See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own h an d !” Philem 19 may also be the beginning of such a personal subscription: “I, Paul, am writing this with my own h a n d .” O f the non-Pauline m aterials in the NT, 1 Peter and the Gospel of Jo h n are m ost plausibly seen as having been w ritten by am anuenses. As George Milligan observed, “In the case o f the First Epistle of St

Introduction

lxi

Peter, indeed, this seems to be distinctly stated, for the words διά Σιλουανοϋ, ‘by Silvanus,’ in c. v.12, are best understood as implying that Silvanus was n o t only the bearer, b u t the actual scribe of the Epistle. And in the same way an interesting tradition, which finds pictorial representation in many mediaeval m anuscripts of the Fourth Gospel, says that S t.John dictated his Gospel to a disciple of his nam ed P rochorus” (Documents, 22-23; cf. 160-61 and Plate V). Ju st how closely Paul supervised his com panions in their writing down of his letters is impossible from the data to say. As we have seen, the responsibilities of an am anuensis could vary, ranging all the way from taking dictation verbatim to “fleshing o u t” a general line of thought. P aul’s own practice probably varied with the circum stances en co u n tered and the com panions available. Assuming, as O tto Roller proposed, that am anuenses were often identified in the salutations of letters (particularly if they were known to the addressees), m ore m ight be left to the discretion o f Silas and Tim othy (cf. 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Thess 1:1) or to Tim othy alone (cf. 2 C or 1:1; Col 1:1; P h il 1:1; P h ile m 1) than to Sosthenes (cf. 1 C or 1:1) or T ertius (cf. R om 16:22)—and perhaps m uch m ore to Luke, who is referred to as being the only one with Paul during his final im prisonm ent (cf. 2 Tim 4:11). F urtherm ore, if in one case Paul closely scrutinized and revised a letter, at an o th er time he may have only read it over and allowed it to go out practically unaltered. Later we will speak m ore extensively about the epistolary features of Galatians. Suffice it h ere to say th at when we think of the authorship of P aul’s letters we should probably also think of various com panions of Paul acting as his secretaries an d writing o u t the m ajor portions of his letters at his direction. Perhaps P aul’s secretary for the writing of Galatians was one of the “b ro th ers” referred to in the salutation (1:2), and perhaps that secretary had m ore in p u t into the com position than m erely writing it down. O n such m atters we can only conjecture. W hat can be said with confidence, however, is (1) that Gal 6:11 im plies a distinction between the handw riting of the subscription and that of the body of the letter, with the involvem ent o f an am anuensis the m ost likely inference to be drawn, and (2) that the im passioned nature of Galatians suggests that P aul’s secretary, whoever he was, did little in this letter either to m oderate the apostle’s expressions (e.g., 5:12) or to buffer his em otions. A d d r essees

Bibliography Betz, H. D. Galatians, 1-5. Bruce, F. F. “Galatian Problems. 2. N orth or South Galatians?” BJRL 52 (1970) 243-66. ————. Galatians, 3-18. Burton, E. deW. Galatians, xvii-xliv. Fitzmyer, J. A. “T he L etter to the G alatians.” In JBC, 2:236-46. Hemer, C. J. “Acts and Galatians R econsidered.” Themelios 2 (1977) 81-88. Jones, A. Η. M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Lake, K. The Earlier Epistles, 253-65,309-16. Lightfoot, J. B. Galatians (1890) 1-35. Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Moffatt,J. Introduction, 83-107. Moreau, J. Die Welt der Kelten. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1958. Ramsay, W. M. The Church in the Roman Empire. ————. The Cities and Bishoprics. ————. St. Paul the Traveller. ————. Galatians. Robinson, J. A. T. Redating, 55-57. Stähelin, F. Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater. Stein, R. H. “T he Relationship of Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-35: Two Neglected A rgum ents.” JETS 17 (1974) 239-42.

lxii

Introduction

P aul’s letter to the Galatians is so called because it is addressed to “the churches in Galatia” (1:2), with those addressees later characterized as “foolish G alatians” (3:1). But who were the Galatians? W here did they com e from? W ere they Galatians ethnically, or were they called Galatians because they lived in the Rom an province o f Galatia? W here exactly in the province did they live? W hen in P aul’s missionary endeavors were they evangelized, and what contacts did Paul have with them afterwards? 1. Celts, Gauls, Galatians G reek writers com m only used Γαλάτσι (Galatians) and Κέλται or Kekrol (Celts) in te rc h a n g e a b ly , as d id L atin a u th o rs w ith Celtae (C elts), Galli (G a u ls ), and Galatae (G alatians). Originating in the Danube River basin of central Europe, the Celts migrated into Switzerland, southern Germany, and northern Italy, then into France and Britain, and finally southeastward into the Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. In Britain they were most commonly known as Celts; in France as Gauls and their territory there as Gallia; in Asia Minor as Galatians and their region as Galatia or Gallograecia (“the land of the Greek-speaking Gauls”). T he southeast m igration of the Gauls and their settlem ent in Asia M inor took place in several stages. In 281 b .c ., searching for new hom elands, they ravaged Thrace, M acedonia, and Thessaly, b u t in 279 b .c . were stopped at D elphi from going fu rth er into the heartland of Greece. In 278-277 b .c. some 20,000 Gauls crossed the H ellespont into Asia M inor at the invitation of Nicom edes, king of Bithynia, who w anted to use them as m ercenaries against his enemies. Settling aro u nd Ancyra, they m enaced neighboring populations and came close to overru n n in g all o f Asia Minor. About 232 b .c., after a series of battles, they were finally defeated by A tta lu s I, k in g of P e rg a m u m , a n d c o n f in e d to a r e g io n in n o r th e r n A sia M inor b o u n d ed by Bithynia and Paphlagonia to the north, by Pontus to the east, by Phrygia to the west, and by C appadocia and Lycaonia to the south— a region traversed by the rivers Halys and Sangarius. In 190 b .c . the Seleucid king A ntiochus III was defeated by Rome at Magnesia, and in 189 b .c . Galatia shared the same fate as the rest of Asia M inor and came u n d er Rom an authority. Governed by Rome, Galatia was at first classed a d ep e n d en t kingdom . But though they had stood with A ntiochus III against Rome, the Galatians came to appreciate the wisdom of being on good term s with Rome. So in 64 b .c ., because o f its friendship, Pompey rew arded Galatia by designating it a client kingdom . A bout 40 b .c., at the death of Deiotaros, king of Galatia, Mark Antony conferred the kingdom of Galatia, together with the eastern p art of Paphlagonia, on Kastor, the son-in-law of Deiotaros, and gave to Amyntas, the able secretary of the late Deiotaros, a new kingdom m ade up of portions o f Pisidia and Phrygia. But Kastor died in 36 b .c ., and at his death eastern Paphlagonia was given to his brother, while Galatia was tu rn ed over to Amyntas, who also retained his Phrygio-Pisidian inheritance. In the same year Amyntas received as well a part of Pamphylia. Later, in o rd er to bring together the separate territories of Galatia and Phrygio-Pisidia, Amyntas was given Lycaonia—or, at least, a large part of it. And after the battle of Actium, Augustus also gave him Cilicia Tracheia as a reward for his aid. W hen in 25 b .c. Amyntas was killed in battle with the H om onades from n o rth ern Taurus, his kingdom was reorganized as a Rom an province (Provincia Galatia) and governed by a praetorian legate (legatus pro praetore). It was also decreased some-

Introduction

lxiii

what in size, with the part of Pamphylia that Amyntas had controlled given back to Pamphylia and Cilicia Tracheia given to Archelaus. In 5 b .c ., however, a large part of Paphlagonia to the n o rth was added to Galatia, and three or four years later the province was extended farther to the northeast by the addition of some areas that h ad form erly belonged to Pontus—with this northeastern section of the province now being called, it seems, Pontus Galaticus, as distinguished from Pontus Polemonianus. Sometime shortly before or during the reign of Claudius (a.d. 41-54) the territory o f the H om onades in n o rth ern Taurus becam e a part of Galatia as well. In P aul’s day the Rom an province of Galatia stretched right through the heart o f Asia M inor, from Pontus on the Black Sea to Pamphylia on the M editerranean (cf. Pliny [a.d. 23-79], Historia Naturalis 5.147: “Galatia touches on Cabalia in Pam phylia”) . T he churches addressed by Paul, therefore, m ight theoretically have been located anywhere within these boundaries. The question is: W ere these churches situated in the old ethnic region of the original Galatian tribal lands in n o rth ern Asia Minor, where Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium were the chief cities, or were they located somewhere else in the province, perhaps in “Phrygia Galatica” where Antioch and Iconium were p rom inent cities and “Lycaonia Galatica” where Lystra and Derbe were villages? (Reference to “Phyrgia Galatica” and “Lycaonia Galatica” is b y way of analogy with “Pontus Galatica,” which is known to have been an official Rom an designation.) The form er view is what is called the N orth Galatian hypothesis. It takes Acts 16:6 and 18:23 as allusions to P aul’s ministry there. T he latter is the South Galatian hypothesis. It sees Acts 13:14-14:23 as an account of the establishm ent o f the Galatian churches and Acts 16:6 and 18:23 as referring to P aul’s fu rth er visits in the same area. In addition to Gal 1:2; 3:1 and Acts 16:6; 18:23, references to Galatia or the Galatian churches appear in the NT at 1 Cor 16 :1; 2 Tim 4:10; and 1 Peter 1:1. 1 Cor 16:1 undoubtedly has in m ind the same churches as addressed in Galatians, with their location d ep e n d en t on what is decided regarding the addressees of P aul’s Galatian letter. 2 Tim 4:10 is n o t readily identifiable, and its significance is com plicated by the variant reading Γαλλίαν for Γαλατίαν. 1 Peter 1 :1 seems to denote the province in general, since it is associated with the o ther Anatolian provinces o f Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. 2. North and South Galatian Hypotheses It is hardly surprising that patristic, medieval, and Reform ation com m entators assum ed that Galatians was written to Christians of Gaulish or Celtic descent whose churches were located in n o rth ern Asia M inor. A bout a .d. 74 Vespasian detached almost all o f Pisidia from Galatia, and about a.d. 137 Lycaonia Galatica was removed from Galatia and jo in ed to Cilicia and Isaurica to form an enlarged province o f Cilicia. T h en about a.d. 297 southern Galatia was u nited with various adjoining regions to becom e the new province of Pisidia, with Antioch its capital and Iconium its second city. So with the province of Galatia reduced to its original ethnological dim ensions, early com m entators generally assum ed that P aul’s addressees were located there. Only Asterius (d. a.d. 340), Bishop of Amaseia in Pontus, seems to have th o u g h t differently, for he identified “the Galatic region and Phrygia” of Acts 18:23 as “Lycaonia and the cities of Phrygia” (Homilia VIII in SS. Petrum et Paulum [PG 40:293D]). But there is no evidence that this identification was m ade by anyone else— though Ramsay saw in Asterius’s statem ent a persisting, yet adm ittedly

lxiv

Introduction

scantily attested, South Galatian tradition (“The ‘G alatia’ of St. Paul and the ‘Galatic T erritory’ of Acts,” in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica IV [Oxford: C larendon, 1896] 16ff.). In fact, until the n ineteenth century the N orth Galatian hypothesis held the field almost unchallenged. Besides Asterius, the only exceptions seem to have been (1) J o h n Calvin, who assum ed a N orth Galatian view b u t understood Galatians to have been written before the Jerusalem Council and equated Gal 2:110 with the fam ine visit of Acts 11:30 (on such a com bination of views, Bruce muses: “O ne wonders when he supposed the evangelization o f N orth Galatia to have taken place” [Galatians, 7]), and (2) J. J. Schmidt, who in 1748 advocated what m ight be called a Pan-Galatian hypothesis. Calvin, however, never m eant his statem ents as a challenge to the traditional view of his day; and a Pan-Galatian hypothesis, though accepted by such nineteenth-century scholars as J. P. Mynster, R. Com ely, E. Jacquier, and (for a time) T. Zahn, never really got off the ground. J. B. Lightfoot in 1865 sum m ed up the classical N orth Galatian hypothesis in definitive fashion, arguing that “Galatia” in both P aul’s letter and L uke’s Acts should be u n derstood in an ethnic and n o t a political sense, and that therefore Paul wrote to the churches of Ancyra, Pessinus, Tavium, and (perhaps) Juliopolis, the first three being cities of N orth Galatia (Juliopolis was in B ithynia), on his third missionary jo u rn ey (as depicted in Acts) som etim e around a .d. 57-58 from M acedonia or Achaia, after having written 1 and 2 C orinthians bu t before writing to Christians at Rome (cf. Galatians, 18-56). Lightfoot built his case as follows: 1. T hat since both Paul and Luke com m only use popular, geographical, and ethnic language when referring to people and regions, and n o t official, provincial, or political designations, we should understand “G alatia” in Gal 1:2; 3:1 and Acts 16:6; 18:23 as referring n o t to the Rom an province of that nam e b u t to the land of the Gauls and the people of that nam e; 2. T hat Paul’s account of a second visit to Jerusalem in Gal 2:1-10 m ost likely is to be correlated with L uke’s portrayal o f the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15; 3. T hat Acts 16:6 and 18:23 speak of two visits o f Paul to Galatia, with the language of these verses suggesting th at the Galatia in question is beyond Lycaonia and n o t to be equated with the cities of southern Galatia; 4. T hat Paul’s allusion to two visits in Gal 4:13 (cf. τό πρότερον) fits nicely the situation suggested by Acts 16:6 and 18:23; 5. T hat it would be strange for Paul, in trying to regain their allegiance, to address Christians of Phrygia and Lycaonia as Galatians, when, in fact, they were n o t Galatians ethnically bu t only so politically u n d e r Rom an rule; 6. T hat various ancient authors have referred to the Gauls as a fickle and superstitious people (esp. Caesar, De Bello Gallico 2.1; 4.5; 6.16; Cicero, De Divinatione 1.5; 2.36-37), which is how Paul characterizes his addressees as well; and 7. T hat the style and subject m atter of P aul’s letter to the Galatians is very com patible with letters known to have been written on Paul’s third missionary journey, particularly with the tone of 2 C orinthians (which it follows) and the con ten t of Romans (which it p reced es). But while Lightfoot is to be credited with giving definitive expression to the classical form o f the N orth Galatian hypothesis, there are contem porary form s o f the position that m ust be taken into account as well. C hief am ong these is th at of

Introduction

lxv

Jam es Moffatt, who in 1911 set out the position in a way m ost com m only held today (Introduction, 83-107). While agreeing with Lightfoot’s overall conclusions and his m ajor supporting argum ents, Moffatt discounted as irrelevant L ightfoot’s stress on (1) the fickleness o f the Gauls, an d (2) affinities between Galatians and the o th er Hauptbriefe. Likewise, in p art because o f his refusal to base any argum ent on relative order am ong the Hauptbriefe, Moffatt disagreed with Lightfoot on m atters of provenance and date (i.e., from M acedonia or Achaia, about a.d. 57-58), preferring rath er to argue from the “so quickly” (ούτως· ταχέως·) of Gal 1:6 that the letter was probably w ritten from Ephesus soon after Paul left Galatia a second time (Acts 18:23)—so somewhere aro u n d a.d. 53, a few years before the com position of the other Hauptbriefe. F urtherm ore, still influenced by P aul’s ούτως· ταχέως·, Moffatt suggested that the letter’s recipients were probably located in the western p art of Galatia and n o t around its capital Ancyra and the cities Pessinus and Tavium, as Lightfoot thought. O n this latter point, however, m ost N orth Galatianists today prefer to rem ain uncom m itted. As Moffatt saw it, the m ajor objections to a South Galatian view are: 1. T hat “it arbitrarily makes the burning question of circum cision for Gentile Christians em erge in an acute shape some time before the period of Acts 15—a view for which there is no evidence in Acts and against which the probabilities of the general situation tell heavily” (ibid., 92); 2. T h at “it involves the incredible idea that Paul circum cised Tim otheus (Acts 16:3) after he had written Gal 5:2” (ibid., 92); 3. T hat “if Luke had viewed Derbe, Lystra, and the rest of P aul’s earlier mission field as belonging to Γαλατία proper, it is inexplicable why the nam e should n o t occur in Acts 13-14” (ibid., 93); 4. T hat “Derbe and Lystra belonged to Lykaonia (Acts 14:6,11), n o t to Phrygia, so th at the South Galatian view, that Acts 16:6 is recapitulatory, breaks down at the outset” (ibid., 93); 5. T hat “if the opening of the South Galatian mission is so fully described in Acts 13-14, why is there no m ention of the illness which Paul specially m entions in Gal 4:13?” (ibid., 99); 6. T h at “the Galatians received Paul ώς· άγγελον θβοϋ,ώς· Χριστόν Ί ήσουν (Gal 4:14), in spite of his illness—a very different thing from hailing him in full health as the pagan H erm es (Acts 14:12)” (ibid., 99); 7. T hat “there is no t a h in t in the epistle of any persecution or suffering en d u red by him in his evangelisation of Galatia, whereas his South Galatian mission was stormy in the extrem e (Acts 13-14,2 Tim 3:11)” (ibid., 99); and, 8. T hat “if Paul h ad evangelised S. Galatia prior to the Council, it is n o t easy to u n d erstand why he did n o t say so in Gal 1:21” (ibid., 99; which objection, of course, assumes a “classical” South Galatian view of provenance and date). M ore significantly, M offatt’s m ain reasons for accepting a N orth Galatian view are as follows:1 1. T h at the comparative πρότβρον, “form er,” of Gal 4:13 indicates that “Paul had visited the Galatian churches twice,” and this fact corresponds nicely with Acts 16:6 and 18:23 (ibid., 84);

lxvi

Introduction

2. T hat the expressions την Φρυγίαν καί Γαλατικήν χώραν, “the country of Phrygia and Galatia,” o f Acts 16:6 and την Γαλατικήν χώραν καί Φρυγίαν, “the country of Galatia and Phrygia,” of Acts 18:23 m ust be understood as popular and geographical term s that denote “n o t one district b u t two,” and so cannot be equivalent to Phrygia-Galatia (ibid., 93); and 3. T hat because the purposes o f the visits are the same, “the identity o f Gal 2:110 with Acts 15 m ust be m aintained” (ibid., 100). In opposition to a N orth Galatian view, W. M. Ramsay, in a nu m b er of books and articles published in the 1890s (e.g., The Church in the Roman Empire; The Cities and Bishoprics; St Paul the Traveller; Galatians), set out a South Galatian view. Earlier, J. J. Schm idt in 1748 and j . P. Mynster in 1825, arguing a “Pan-Galatian” position, held th at the churches of South Galatia as presented in Acts 13-14 are included am ong those addressed by Paul in his letter (cf. W. G. K üm m el, Introduction to the New Testament, tr. A. J. Mattill, Jr. [London: SCM, 1965] 192). But their view failed to do justice to the evident hom ogeneity am ong the churches addressed and raised m ore difficulties than it solved. T he first scholar, in fact, to propose a distinctly South Galatian position was Georges P errot in 1867 (De Galatia provincia Romana [Paris: 1867] 43-44), whose views were adopted by Ernest R enan in 1869 (Saint Paul, Bk. III: The History of the Origins of Christianity [London: M athieson, 1869] 24-26, 63-64, 169-73). It was, however, W. M. Ramsay who did the original historical research on the question and who presented the South Galatian hypothesis in its definitive form. Ramsay’s treatm ent of the Galatian question began by focusing on “the history and character o f the people, and the geography o f the country” ( Galatians, 6). It is impossible h ere to summarize his data or to m arshall all his argum ents. Most im portant for o ur purposes are the following three conclusions: 1. T hat “so early as the second century b .c . the Phrygian origin of the larger half of the Galatian population [in n o rth ern Asia M inor] was forgotten by ordinary people of the surrounding countries; and the whole state was th o u g h t o f as Galatia and its people G alatians” (ibid., 84); 2. T hat when Galatia was expanded and becam e a province in 25 b.c., this became true as well for people in the south, for “the status of each non-R om an person in the Em pire was that of a ‘provincial’; and he was designated as a m em ber o f the Rom an Em pire, n o t by his nation, bu t by his Province” (ibid., 119); and 3. T h at since foreigners, enemies, and slaves were related ideas in Rom an theory, any courteous orator o r writer would certainly n o t address Antiocheans as Phrygians or Lystrans as Lycaonians—particularly, though n o t only, if there were Rom an citizens am ong them —b u t “would designate them either as Galatae, i.e., m em bers of the Rom an em pire as being m em bers of the Province Galatia, or as Coloni, citizens o f Rom an Coloniae, which would have been an even m ore honorific term ” (ibid., 120). T hen turning to Galatians and its relation to Acts, Ramsay argued: 1. T hat P aul’s visit to Jerusalem of Gal 2:1-10 is n o t to be correlated with the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, for their purposes are quite different and their

Introduction

lxvii

descriptions too disparate, b u t should be identified with the fam ine visit of Acts 11:30 (ibid., 293-301); 2. T hat “Paul writes as a Rom an and a citizen of the E m pire,” and so in all his letters “never uses wide geographical nam es except those of Roman provinces” (ibid., 314; also 147-64 and 314-21; idem , St. Paul the Traveller, passim ); and, 3. T hat Luke, who generally follows popular, geographical, and colloquial usage, would never as a Greek of the educated class use “Galatia” to denom inate the Rom an province, bu t would speak of geographical regions or ethnic groupings within a province (as he does in Acts 13—14 of “Pisidia,” “Phrygia” and “Lycaonia”) or would use some such buffer expression as “the Galatic Eparchy”—as he does in Acts 16:6 and 18:23 when he writes την Γαλατικήν χώραν (ibid., 315-16). Thus Ramsay argued that when Paul speaks of the Galatians (Gal 1:2; 3:1) he m eans the four churches in the south of the province of Galatia and that when Luke refers to “the Galatic territory” (Acts 16:6; 18:23) he m eans quite specifically provincial Galatia as opposed to ethnic Galatia. O n the related issues of w hen and where the Galatian letter was written, Ramsay assum ed in his earlier writings a date of a .d. 50 and a provenance som ewhere on P aul’s second missionary jo u rn ey —that is, shortly after the visit of Acts 16:6, with “the fo rm e r” (τό πρότερον) visit referred to in Gal 4:13 being th at depicted in Acts 13-14. This, o f course, raised the question as to why Paul in Galatians did n o t m ention a th ird visit to Jerusalem (i.e., the Jerusalem C ouncil visit of Acts 15), and Ramsay found that question som ewhat difficult. Usually he answered that it was because reference to a third visit was beside the p o in t o f P aul’s argum ent. He also suggested th at this Jerusalem visit found no place in P aul’s letter simply because it occurred after the Galatian churches were founded and P aul’s p oint in Gal 12 is th at the Jerusalem apostles gave him no directions when he first b ro u g h t the gospel to Galatia. Later, however, feeling the thrust of this objection, Ramsay revised his views as to date and provenance to argue th at Galatians was w ritten ju st p rior to the Jerusalem Council o f Acts 15 and probably from A ntioch in Syria (see his The Teaching of Paul, 372-92; also the preface added to the 14th edition of St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen [London: H o d d er & Stoughton, 1920], which is n o t included in the A m erican re p rin t of 1962 taken from the 3rd edition of 1897)— so m aking Galatians the earliest of P aul’s extant letters. In effect, then, the South Galatian hypothesis (as is true also for the N orth Galatian hypothesis) appears in two forms: what m ight be called the classical form o f the earlier Ramsay—th at is, to churches of South Galatia, w ritten about a.d. 50 on P aul’s second missionary jo u rn ey —and the contem porary form of the later Ramsay— th at is, to churches o f South Galatia, w ritten p rio r to the Jerusalem Council, about a.d. 49, from Syrian Antioch. E. deW. B urton was one of the m ost able supporters o f the first. After exegetical surveys of the data he argued: 1 1. T hat “the evidence of the Pauline epistles is, therefore, decidedly m ore favourable to a uniform ly Rom an use of geographical term s by the apostle and the view that by Galatia he m eans both in 1 Cor 16:1 and Gal 1:2, the Rom an province, than to a m ixed usage such as is found, for exam ple in Acts” ( Galatians, xxvii);

lxviii

Introduction

2. T hat it does n o t seem possible to suggest any o th er nam e for the churches of southern Galatia that would have been inclusive enough for Paul’s purpose, for “if the churches addressed were those of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium , and Antioch, which he founded on his first missionary journey, he could n o t well address their m em bers by any single term except G alatians” (ibid., xxix); and 3. T h at the Greek of Acts 16:6 and 18:23 m ust be read as referring n o t to two localities b u t to one, that is to “the Phrygic-Galatic territory,” for “the jo in in g o f the words Φρυγίαν and Γαλατικήν by και, with the article before the first one only, implies that the region designated by χώρα is one, Phrygian and G alatian” (ibid., xxxii). F. F. Bruce has been the m ost prolific supporter of the contem porary form o f the South Galatian hypothesis (see The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary [G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1951]; The Book of Acts: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes [NICNT; G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1954]; BJRL 52 [1970] 243-66; Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free; Galatians). 3. Some Observations on the Question of Destination M odern discussions o f the N orth and South Galatian hypotheses are often no t concerned with the historical m erits of the case, n o r even as seriously interested in the exegetical issues as they once were. Rather, the discussions today are usually carried on in term s o f internal chronological considerations alone—principally in term s o f where Gal 2:1-10 fits in the life o f Paul and vis-a-vis his visits to Jerusalem as given in Acts. Many, in fact, simply call the historical and exegetical considerations “mostly speculative” (e.g., H. D. Betz, Galatians, 5). But the issue of destination is too im portant for such a cavalier attitude. We will deal later with Gal 2:110 and the question of establishing a relative chronology. H ere, however, since we believe th at historical and exegetical m atters regarding the addressees m ust be treated first, we want to make some observations with regard to destination. Following that, we will suggest some biographical indices of im portance for identifying the letter’s recipients. Certain caveats, however, are in o rder before proceeding further. First o f all it need be recognized that though the question has im portant historical, exegetical, and interpretive ramifications, the deriving of either doctrinal insight or spiritual benefit from P aul’s letter to the Galatians is n o t d ep e n d en t on a final solution as to provenance. F urtherm ore, it m ust be insisted that it is impossible to correlate positions taken on this m atter with the theological stances of the various in terp reters, w hether liberal or conservative. Lightfoot as a N orth Galatianist and Ramsay and Burton as South Galatianists, for example, never in ten d ed such a correlation, and n eith er have their m ore able supporters. Likewise, it m ust be said that there is no necessary correlation between an acceptance of a South Galatian position and a high estimate of the historical reliability o f Acts, or between a N orth Galatian view and a m ore skeptical view of Acts. Ramsay and B urton, both South Galatianists, varied in their opinions o f Acts. R. H. Fuller, who adopts a southern Galatian destination for P aul’s letter, has a low view of the historical accuracy of Acts (Introduction, 23-26), w here as J. G. M achen, Η. N. Ridderbos, E. F. H arrison, and R. H. Stein have accepted a N orth Galatian hypothesis coupled with great respect for Acts (see j . G. M achen, Machen’s Notes, 86-94; Η. N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul

Introduction

lxix

to the Churches of Galatia, E. F. H arrison, Introduction, 257-64; R. H. Stein, JETS 17 [1974] 239-42). W hat, then, can be said regarding the Galatian question? T he issues are notoriously complex, and every in terp reter weighs the data somewhat differently. For my part, I find some of the argum ents both pro and con am biguous, inconclusive, or faulty. For example: 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

T h at n o rth ern Galatia was m ore inaccessible to Paul than southern Galatia—which disregards the Rom an road system and would be a problem only if Paul were a tourist and n o t an evangelist; T hat people of n o rth ern Galatia were culturally m ore im poverished and religiously less open to P aul’s message than those o f southern Galatia— which disregards the m ixing of populations, cultures, and religions in both areas and assumes a knowledge of what constitutes a p ro p er prolegom enon for the Christian gospel; T hat jews would have been present in the churches of the south, b u t were no t living in the n o rth —which is patently false; T hat P aul’s missionary strategy was to concentrate on the m ain cities of the em pire, and so he would have gone to cities of the south rath er than to those o f the n o rth —which ignores the insignificance o f Lystra and Derbe in the south com pared to Ancrya and Pessinus in the n o rth and forces on Paul a policy that even Acts suggests was n o t always the case; T hat affinities between Galatians and the o th er Pauline Hauptbriefe require all of them to have been written in the same period of missionary activity— which is d enied by many N orth Galatianists today and can be explained in oth er ways; T hat the Gauls of n o rth ern Galatia were fickle and superstitious, qualities that conform to P aul’s characterization of his addressees—which is a selective reading of history, relegating such rath er com m on hum an characteristics to only one people; T hat the delegation of Acts 20:4 h ad representatives from southern Galatia (Gaius and Tim othy), bu t none from n o rth ern Galatia—which is interesting, b u t inconclusive; T hat Luke’s interest in Acts is primarily, if n o t exclusively, in P aul’s mission in the south of the Galatian province—which, again, is interesting bu t no t conclusive; T hat the omission in Acts of P aul’s sickness m entioned in Gal 4:13 and the omission in Galatians o f any reference to being stoned at Lystra as reported in Acts 14:19 speak against equating the people of the south with the recipients o f the letter; and, T hat P aul’s statem ent of Gal 4:14 that the Galatians at first received him as an “angel o f G od” carries some rem em brance of the Lystran reception of Barnabas and Paul as Zeus and H erm es (Acts 14:11-13), or that his closing words in Gal 6:17, “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus,” has some reference to his being stoned at Lystra (Acts 14:19).

Ultimately, determ ination as to the Galatian addressees boils down to three sets o f issues: historical issues, exegetical issues, and chronological issues. T he latter of

lxx

Introduction

these will be dealt with in the section to follow. T he first two, however, m ust be com m ented on here. It is, however, quite impossible in the space available to reproduce the data or to represent adequately the argum entation involved, and so we m ust refer the reader to those who have done so, as cited above. For my part, I consider W. M. Ramsay’s research on the historical issues convincing in the main: that from 25 b .c . to at least a .d. 74, the Rom an province of Galatia included the cities of P aul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:14-14:23); that non-Rom ans in the Galatian province would have been known and addressed by Romans by their provincial designation and n o t by their race; and that “Paul writes as a Rom an and a citizen of the E m pire,” and so addresses his Galatian converts by their official, provincial nam e, whereas Luke generally follows popular, geographical, and colloquial usage (see esp. Ramsay’s St. Paul the Traveller, passim, and Galatians, 1-234). O n the exegetical issues, I find B urton’s treatm ent o f the data m ost responsible, and repeat his conclusions here for emphasis: 1. T hat “the evidence of the Pauline epistles is, therefore, decidedly m ore favourable to a uniformly Roman use of geographical terms by the aposde and the view that by Galatia he means both in 1 Cor 16:1 and Gal 1:2, the Roman province, than to a m ixed usage such as is found, for exam ple, in Acts”; 2. T h at it does n ot seem possible to suggest any o ther nam e for the churches o f southern Galatia that would have been inclusive enough for P aul’s purpose, for “if the churches addressed were those of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium , and Antioch, which he founded on his first missionary journey, he could no t well address their m em bers by any single term except G alatians”; and, 3. That the Greek of Acts 16:6 and 18:23 must be read as referring not to two localities but to one, that is “the Phrygic-Galatic territory,” for “the joining of the words Φρυγίαν and Γαλατικήν by καί, with the article before the first one only, implies that the region designated χώρα is one, Phrygian and Galatian” (Galatians, xxv-xliv). So on the basis of historical and exegetical considerations, I conclude in favor of a South Galatian understanding of the letter’s addressees. 4. Biographical Indices of Importance In addition to such matters, there are a n u m ber of biographical and theological indices in the Galatian letter that, while they cannot establish a case on their own, serve to substantiate a South Galatian position arrived at for m ore basic reasons. Later in discussing a relative chronology for P aul’s correspondence and the date o f the Galatian letter I will suggest some theological indices. H ere, however, I want to m ention four biographical indices that have some bearing on the question. O ur first biographical index has to do with Timothy. This may seem strange, for Timothy does not appear in the letter at all. Nevertheless, he has a bearing on the discussion by the very fact that he is not m entioned. Like the incident in the Sherlock Holm es story o f the dog that did n o t bark in the night, this silence is a curious fact that may speak louder than many o ther pieces of evidence in the case. According to Acts, Tim othy was a m ore or less constant com panion of Paul from Lystra at the start o f P aul’s second missionary jo urney (Acts 16:1-4) through to Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). Even if we disregard Acts and confine

Introduction

lxxi

ourselves to the evidence from Paul’s letters alone, a similar picture emerges: Timothy was actively involved in Paul’s missionary activities (cf. 1 Thess 1:1; 3:1, 6; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor 1:1,19; Rom 16:21) and present with Paul during his im prisonm ent(s) (cf. Phil 1:1; 2:19; Col 1:1; Philem 1). In fact, with the exception of Ephesians and Titus, Tim othy is m entioned in every Pauline letter b u t Galatians. Now if the recipients of the Galatian letter were residents of n o rth ern Galatia, it m ust be assum ed that Tim othy was as involved in their evangelization as he was in the founding of churches in the provinces of Asia, M acedonia, and Achaia. Yet Paul does n o t m ention him in Galatians. And that failure to m ention Tim othy (also, of course, Silas, though w ithout as strong circum stantial su p p o rt), along with his repeated references to Barnabas, argues strongly against a N orth Galatian hypothesis. N ot only so, b u t it also speaks against the classical form of the South Galatian hypothesis (which places the writing of Galatians after Acts 16:6), for it is virtually unthinkable that Paul would have addressed a letter to Christians in an area th at included Lystra w ithout sending news or m aking any m ention of their native son. Thus the absence of Tim othy in Galatians is strong circum stantial evidence in favor of the view that Paul wrote before Tim othy jo in ed the missionary party and th at the addressees of the letter lived in the southern portion of the province—necessitating that (to anticipate a later discussion) the letter was sent before Paul m ade his retu rn trip to the region as recounted in Acts 16:1-5. A second biographical index concerns Barnabas, who is m entioned three times in Galatians (2:1, 9, 13). T he fact that Barnabas is the m ain Pauline associate referred to in the letter may be taken as presum ptive evidence that he was known to the addressees—that is, to those evangelized by Paul and Barnabas on the mission to southern Galatia of Acts 13-14. Admittedly, (1) these references to Barnabas occur in the course of P aul’s account of events at Jerusalem and Syrian Antioch, w ithout any direct reference m ade to B arnabas’ being in Galatia, and (2) Barnabas is referred to in 1 Cor 9:6 w ithout any necessary suggestion th at he had ever been at Corinth. It is, however, not just the fact of Paul’s m ention of Barnabas in Galatians that is significant, but the m anner of his reference to him, particularly in 2:13. N orth Galatianists, of course, often correlate Gal 2:11-14 with the rift between Paul and Barnabas reported in Acts 15:36-41, and so understand the form er as Paul’s version of what led to the breakup of the missionary team after the Jerusalem Council. But it is extremely difficult to believe that shortly after the Jerusalem Council Barnabas would have so given in to these “m en from Jam es” as to u n d ercu t the decision of the council itself. O n the o th er hand, it is quite possible that som etim e before the council Barnabas vacillated in his actions at Syrian A ntioch and inadvertently becam e involved in a dam aging com prom ise—or, as Paul viewed it, in “hypocrisy.” T hough standing with Paul on the legitimacy of a direct mission to Gentiles during their work in southern Galatia, he may have becom e uncertain when he retu rn ed to Syrian Antioch regarding law observance for Jewish Christians and table fellowship o f Jews with Gentiles. So w hen Paul writes that “even B arnabas” (καί Βαρναβάς*) was led astray, that would have been very m eaningful to those who knew him well in southern Galatia and understandable before the Jerusalem Council. But to those o f n o rth ern Galatia, P aul’s “even B arnabas” com m ent would have seem ed strange and B arnabas’ defection after the council difficult to imagine. Titus is m entioned in Gal 2:1-5 as having accom panied Paul and Barnabas on their second visit to Jerusalem , and as there having becom e som ething of a test case.

lxxii

Introduction

O n a N orth Galatian view, this took place at the Jerusalem Council and Titus was one of the “some o ther believers” (τινάς* άλλους έξ αυτών) o f Acts 15:2. T here is m uch in this account that m ust be reserved for our discussion in the com m entary proper, particularly the textual issue in v 5 as to w hether Paul and Barnabas did or did n o t give in to the dem and o f the stricter Jewish Christians. If they did give in to such a request, o f course, even though n o t by com pulsion, it becom es difficult to square Paul’s words with the portrayal of Acts 15. But w hether they did or did not, it is h ard to believe that pressure for the circum cision of a single individual would have been m ounted in the m idst of a m eeting called to deal with the whole issue o f Jewish-Gentile relations. O ne would have thought that the principles involved would have been treated first and a decision reached before dem ands for the circumcision of a particular person were m ade—and, further, that with such a decision as reported in Acts 15:19-29, such a dem and on Titus would never have been m ade. O n the o th er hand, it is understandable that a conservative party of Jewish Christians m ight have decided at the time of the fam ine visit (Acts 11:30) to make Titus a test case. Thus the reference to Titus in Galatians provides us with a third biographical index of pertinence to the question of the letter’s destination, and suggests— though, assuredly, does n o t dem and—a South Galatian understanding. A fourth biographical index that can be cited has to do with Peter, and particularly P aul’s depiction of him in the Antioch episode of Gal 2:11-14. We know next to n o thing o f P eter’s travels and activities apart from Acts, and even in Acts the picture is too hazy and im precise to be of m uch use as a chronological index in resolving the Galatian question. W hat we can be certain of, however, is that Peter was an active participant in the Jerusalem Council. A nd while it is often claim ed that his action in the Antioch affair is understandable w hen Gal 2:11-14 is seen as occurring after the council, it is m uch m ore understandable as having taken place before the council and as having been part o f the controversy that precipitated it. O th er resolutions of the North-South Galatian quandary, of course, are possible, for the historical, exegetical, and biographical factors have been evaluated differently by various scholars. But n o t every possibility is a probability. And we believe that the balance of probability favors a South Galatian hypothesis. Such a position, o f course, leaves certain exegetical issues yet unresolved. For example, what is the significance of τό πρότερον in Gal 4:13? Is this tem poral adverb used as a true comparative (i.e., the form er of two visits) or is it to be u n derstood simply in the sense of the first o f a series (i.e., “previously”)? And if a comparative, does it have in m ind the visit of Acts 16:6 (with the latter being that o f Acts 18:23), or the visit of Acts 13:14-14:23 (with the latter being that of Acts 16:6), or the eastward journey from A ntioch to D erbe of Acts 13:14-14:2 l a (with the latter being the westward return summarized in Acts 13:21b-23)? Furtherm ore, such a position needs to be integrated with m atters having to do with chronology. Thus we m ust deal with the question of date in the following section, as well as with related exegetical issues in their appropriate places in the com m entary proper. D ate

Bibliography Beare, F. W. “T he Sequence of Events in Acts 9-15 and the C areer of P eter.” JBL 62 (1943) 295-306. Betz, H . D. “Geist, F reih eit u n d Gesetz: Die Botschaft des Paulus an d ie G em einden

Introduction

lxxiii

in G alatien.” ZTK 71 (1974) 78-93. ————. “In Defense of the Spirit: P aul’s L etter to the Galatians as a D ocum ent of Early Christian A pologetics.” In Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. Schü ssler Fiorenza. N otre Dame, IN: University of N otre Dame Press, 1976. 9 9 -1 1 4 .————. Galatians, 9-12. Bruce, F. F. Galatians, 4 3 56. Buck, C. H. “T he Date of G alatians.” JBL 70 (1951) 113-22. Buck, C. H., an d Taylor, G. Saint Paul, 82-102. Burton, E. deW. Galatians, xliv-liii. Caird, G. B. “Chronology o f the N T.” IDB, 1:599-607. Campbell, T. H. “P aul’s ‘Missionary Journeys’ as Reflected in His L etters.” JBL 74 (1955) 80-87. Drane,J.W . Paul, Libertine or Legalist? 140-43. Duncan, G. S.— — — — Galatians, xxi-xxxii. Funk, R . W. “T he Enigm a of the Fam ine Visit.” JBL 75 (1956) 13036. Hurd,J. C. The Origin of 1 Connthians. 1 2 -4 2 .————. “Pauline Chronology and Pauline Theology.” In Christian History and Interpretation. FS J. Knox, ed. W. R. Farm er, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. N iebuhr. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1967. 225-48. Jewett, R. Chronology. Knox, J. Chapters. Lake, K. The EarlierEpistles. 265-304. Lightfoot, J. B. Galatians (1890), 36-56. Luedemann, G. Paul, 44-80, 90-92. M achen,J.G . Machen’s Notes, 86-94. Ramsay, W. M. The Teaching of Paul, 372-92. Robinson, J. A. T. Redating, 55-57. Round, D.— — — — The Date. Sanday, W. “T he Early Visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem .” Exp, 5th series, 3 (1896) 253-63. Stein, R. H. “T he Relationship of Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-35: Two N eglected A rgum ents.” JETS 17 (1974) 239-42. Talbert, C. H. “Again: P aul’s Visits to Jerusalem .” NovT 9 (1967) 26-40.

It is im possible to discuss the date of Galatians w ithout taking into account the question o f the le tte r’s destination (as we have attem pted to do above). Yet destination does n o t necessarily d eterm ine date. Most N orth Galatianists posit th at the letter was w ritten on P aul’s third missionary journey (if the fram ework of Acts is accepted), som etim e betw een a .d. 53 and 58— though Betz suggests between a .d. 50 and 55 ( Galatians, 9-12). Most South Galatianists view it as having been written eith er during the early p art of P aul’s second m issionary journey som etim e aro u n d a .d. 49-50, or after P aul’s first m issionary journey b u t before the Jerusalem Council in a .d. 49—though B urton th o u g h t a .d. 53-54 to be m ost likely ( Galatians, xliv-liii), and Robinson suggests about a .d. 56 (Redating, 55-57, citing E.— — — — H. Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians [1899]). W ithout a doubt, the date of Galatians is one of the m ost knotty problem s in Pauline studies. It is not, however, an incidental problem or one that can be ignored. Because the letter deals with such im p o rtan t m atters as the salvation of Gentiles apart from the Jewish law and relationships between Paul and the Jerusalem church, o n e ’s view as to date has wide-ranging im plications for o n e ’s u n derstanding of P aul’s theology and the reconstruction o f the history o f early Christianity.1 1. Paul'sJerusalem Visits in Galatians and Acts Any attem pt to establish a chronology for Paul and to date Galatians m ust begin with P aul’s own statem ents in Gal 1-2. This is n o t merely because priority m ust be given to prim ary sources (Paul’s own letters) over secondary sources (Luke’s Acts), b u t because Paul writes u n d er oath (Gal 1:20) and any slip or dissim ulation would have played into the hands of his opponents. Historiographically speaking, P aul’s statem ents in Gal 1-2 are the m ost im portant in the entire NT. In Galatians Paul speaks of two visits, and only two, which he m ade as a Christian to Jerusalem : a visit three years after his conversion, in 1:18-20; and a visit “fo u rteen years later,” in 2:1-10 (Paul speaks o f a third visit, the collection visit, in Rom 15:25-33,1 Cor 16:1-4, and 2 Cor 1:16). Five visits to Jerusalem , however, are given in Acts, which may conveniently be labeled (1) the conversion visit, 9:26-30;

lxxiv

Introduction

(2) the fam ine visit, 11:27-30; (3) the Jerusalem Council, 15:1-30; (4) the hasty visit, 18:22 (while the nam e “Jerusalem ” does n o t appear in 18:22, Jerusalem is certainly im plied by the absolute use of “the ch u rch ” [την εκκλησίαν] and the expressions “went u p ” [άναβαν] and “went dow n” [κατέβη]; and (5) the collection visit, 21:15-17. Six Jerusalem visits may be seen in Acts if els* Ιερουσαλήμ of 12:25 is accepted; b u t though ε ις is better attested externally, scholars usually conclude on the basis o f internal factors that εξ Ί ερουσαλήμ was the original reading (see my “T he Acts o f the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:417). Most find little difficulty in identifying Gal 1:18-20 with Acts 9:26-30. The problem has to do with Gal 2:1-10 vis-a-vis the visits of Acts. A nu m b er of positions on this question have been taken. C. Η. T albert lists seven (NovT 9 [1967] 26 n. 3), to which can be added the view o f D. R. Delacey that Gal 2:1-10 is the conversion visit of Acts 9:26-30 and that Luke did n o t know of the visit o f Gal 1 :1 8 -2 0 ( N T S 20 [1983] 8 2 -8 6 ). T he following five options, however, are the m ost viable and im portant: 1. T h at Gal 2:1-10 is the Jerusalem Council visit of Acts 15:1-30, with the fam ine visit o f Acts 11:27-30 left unrelated to the question or seen as u n im p o rtan t for Paul’s polem ic in Galatians. This is the traditional view that h eld the field virtually unchallenged until the early twentieth century. Only J o h n Calvin, it seems, dem urred in identifying Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 11:27-30, though w ithout defense (see his Commentary on Galatians, tr. T. H. L. Parker [G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1965] 24, com m enting on Gal 2:1). 2. T h at Gal 2:1-10 is the fam ine visit of Acts 11:27-30, with the Jerusalem Council visit of Acts 15:1-30 taking place after Galatians was written. This view becam e an option when the revised form of the South Galatian hypothesis was proposed. Am ong those who have argued it are D. R ound, The Date; K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles, 297ff. (though later he abandoned the position in favor o f Acts 11:27-30 and 15:1-30 as doublets); C. W. Emm et, Galatians, xivff. ; idem , “T he Case for the T radition,” 2:265-97; W. M. Ramsay, The Teaching of Paul, 372-92; idem , St. Paul the Traveller, 14th ed., xxi, xxxi; A. W. F. Blunt, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: C larendon, 1922) 182ff.; idem , Galatians, 2125; F. C. Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, 116ff.; G. S. D uncan, Galatians, xxiiff.; F. Amiot, S. Paul: Epître aux Galates, 32; W. L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1948) 40ff.; R. H eard, Introduction to the New Testamant (New York: H arper & Row, 1950) 183; H. F. D. Sparks, The Formation of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1952) 60-61; D. G uthrie, New Testamant Introduction: The Pauline Epistles (London: Tyndale, 1961) 7987; idem , Galatians, 27-37; J. W. Drane, Paul, Libertine or Legalist? esp. 14043; F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 43-56. 3. T h at Gal 2:1-10 is the Jerusalem Council visit of Acts 15:1-30, which Luke has tu rn ed into two visits by m isunderstanding the parallel nature of two reports he received about the council and so fabricating the visit of Acts 11:27-30. Among the many who have argued this view are K. Lake, “T h e Apostolic Council of Jerusalem ,” 5:201; E. H aenchen, “T he Book of Acts as Source M aterial for the History o f Early Christianity,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville: A bingdon, 1966), 271; idem , The Acts of the Apostles, tr. R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: W estminster, 1971), 400-404, 438-39.

Introduction

lxxv

4. T h at Gal 2:1-10 is the Jerusalem Council visit of Acts 15:1-30, with Acts 11:2730 being a misplaced rep o rt of the collection visit which was originally connected with the m aterial of Acts 21:15-17 bu t which Luke has chosen to place earlier in order to support his schematic portrayal of the expansion of the church. Am ong proponents of this view are F. W. Beare , JBL 62 (1943) 298; R. W. Funk,J B L 75 (1956) 130-36. 5. T h at Gal 2:1 -10 is the Jerusalem Council visit of Acts 15:1 -30, with Acts 11:2 7 30 being an invention of Luke (for reasons given in either positions three or four above) and with the Jerusalem Council visit to be identified with the hasty visit of Acts 18:22. Major advocates of this position are j. Knox, Chapters; J. C. H urd, “Pauline C hronology,” 225-48; idem , CJT 14 (1968) 189-200; C. Buck and G. Taylor, Saint Paul, 7-9, passim; R. Jewett, Chronology, 63-104; G. Luedem ann, Paul, 13ff., 71ff., 149ff. T he first two of these positions m ount no attack against Acts. They seek, rather, to correlate the visits given in Galatians with those of the Acts narrative. The third and fourth positions view Acts as having less credibility, and explain Acts 11:27-30 as either an inadvertent doublet of Acts 15:1-30 or a conscious insertion into Acts 11 of some m aterial that was originally associated with Acts 21:15-17. T he fifth dispenses with the framework of Acts altogether. It argues on the basis of Gal 1-2 and data from his o th er letters that P aul’s biography can be reconstructed in term s of only three visits to Jerusalem : (1) the conversion visit of Gal 1:18-20 (cf. Acts 9:26-30); (2) the Jerusalem Council visit of Gal 2:1-10 (cf. Acts 15:1-30, which is to be identified with the hasty visit of Acts 18:22 and probably to be located at that time historically); and (3) the collection visit of Rom 15:25-33; 1 Cor 16:1-4; and 2 Cor 1:16 (which is represented in Acts 11:27-30 and 21:15-17 in quite garbled fashion). 2. A n Evaluation of the Three-Visit Hypothesis Because of the nature of current chronological discussions, it is necessary to deal first with Jo h n Knox’s three-visit hypothesis before taking up directly the question o f w hether or n o t Gal 2:1-10 is Paul’s version of the Jerusalem Council. Argum ents in favor o f the historical reliability of Acts, or even specific dem onstrations of agreem ent between Paul and Luke on the course of P aul’s missionary outreach (where an itinerary can be inferred from P aul’s own letters), do not go far in dealing with K nox’s reconstruction, since proponents of the three-visit hypothesis have largely disengaged Acts from considerations of Pauline chronology. It is necessary, therefore, to take the Knox hypothesis on its own term s when evaluating it. And when dealt with on its own term s—apart from any argum ent that depends on the validity of Acts—four problem s, at least, arise that serve to highlight certain inconsistencies within the position and that suggest a failure to account for the data better than does Acts. O ne m ajor difficulty with the Knox hypothesis is the fact that Barnabas is no t m en tio n ed at all in P aul’s letters in connection with the founding of any of the churches in M acedonia and Achaia. R ather, 2 Cor 1:19 states that Silas and Tim othy were P aul’s co-workers in founding the C orinthian church. F u rth erm ore, Barnabas does n o t figure in any significant way in any of the continuing correspondence with these churches (1 Cor 9:6 is no real exception, and certainly 2 Cor 8:22 and Col 4:10 cannot be so claim ed). Yet on K nox’s reconstruction, all

lxxvi

Introduction

o f these churches were fou n d ed p rio r to the Jerusalem Council. And Gal 2:1-10 makes it clear th at Paul and Barnabas were confederates in a G entile m inistry before the convening o f that council. It is, of course, theoretically possible to argue that Paul for one reason or an o th er ju st inadvertently failed to m ention Barnabas in connection with their jo in t m inistries to M acedonia and Achaia—or perhaps that Paul and Barnabas were in d ep en d en t missionaries to the Gentiles who ju st before the council decided to go up together to Jerusalem to discuss com m on problem s with the Jerusalem leaders. A m ore straightforward interpretation o f Gal 2:1-10, however, is that Paul and Barnabas were partners in mission at least up until the time o f the council. And this being so, the absence o f Barnabas from P aul’s letters that have to do with M acedonia and Achaia is difficult to square with Knox’s hypothesis. Unless it is asserted that a Paul-Barnabas missionary team has no basis in reality at all, the Acts account, in which the split between Paul and Barnabas occurs after the Jerusalem Council o f Acts 15, gives a far m ore satisfactory explanation for the presence of Barnabas in Gal 2:1, 9, 13 and his absence from P aul’s o th er letters. A second problem with Knox’s hypothesis arises from P aul’s narration in Gal 1:21-24, for there he says quite explicitly that he spent his tim e between his two visits to Jerusalem in the regions o f Syria and Cilicia. Now if, as Knox proposes, the Jerusalem Council visit occurred late in P aul’s ministry and is to be identified with the so-called hasty visit of Acts 18:22, P aul’s statem ents in Gal 1:21-24 do n o t appear to leave room for such missionary activity in M acedonia and Achaia as the C orinthian correspondence and Rom 15 require. They may allow by a slight extension travel and ministry in the neighboring province of Galatia (as N orth Galatianists and some South Galatianists posit). But they can hardly be read to include an extensive ministry as far away as M acedonia and Achaia. This is, of course, exactly what Jo h n Knox does ( Chapters, 58-60), repeating jo h a n n e s Weiss’s claim: “Gal 1:21 cannot be taken to m ean that for the fourteen years, he worked only in Syria and Cilicia. T he statem ent merely indicates the p o in t from which his work at that time began, b u t does n o t in any way describe this work as a w hole” ( The History ofPnmitive Christianity [New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1937] 1:204; so also C. H. Buck and G. Taylor, Saint Paul, 251). Yet to include missions to M acedonia and Achaia within Gal 1:21-24 seems to make a mockery of language and to discredit entirely P aul’s endeavor to be truthful (cf. 1:20). T he fram ework o f events in Acts accom m odates the data of Gal 1:21-24 in a m uch sim pler and m ore straightforward m anner. A fu rth er internal problem with the three-visit hypothesis has to do with the tim ing o f the Jerusalem Council vis-a-vis the Gentile mission. For in K nox’s reconstruction, this crucial conference, at which the status o f Gentile Christians was resolved, took place only after a fourteen-year period during which Paul had established churches of a Gentile character th ro u g h o u t the eastern p art of the Rom an em pire. But if the issue was as serious as all the reports indicate, it is difficult to und erstan d why it was n o t dealt with by the leaders of the first-century church before the problem had spread as far as M acedonia and Achaia. This is, o f course, an argum ent based on “what is likely to have happened,” and so—with history being what it is—only o f lim ited value. Yet it m ust be said that the Acts account o f these relationships, w herein the Jerusalem Council takes place soon after the Gentile mission expanded beyond Syrian Antioch, appears m ore likely.

Introduction

lxxvii

A fourth difficulty with Knox’s hypothesis has to do with the conclusion to the collection project. For as Paul prepared to leave for jerusalem to deliver the collection to the Christians there, he expressed anxiety as to w hether the collection would actually be accepted by the Jerusalem church (Rom 15:25-32). A nd his fears appear to have been well-founded, for from L uke’s reticence to speak o f the collection in his description of P aul’s final visit to Jerusalem (cf. my “T he Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 9:519) and from the fact of P aul’s arrest and im prisonm ent in Jerusalem , it would seem that the collection was not well received by the Jerusalem church. Yet one im portant feature in Knox’s reconstruction is that the collection was an obligation laid on Paul by the Jewish Christians at the Jerusalem Council, which he then m ade haste to fulfill. If, however, this was the case—that is, if the collection was som ething that the Jerusalem church had dem anded from Paul and was expecting as p art of an agreem ent—it is difficult to account for Paul’s fears and the subsequent failure of the project. It would appear, rather, that the im petus and rationale for the collection came from Paul himself. But if the collection was n o t an obligation laid on Paul at the Jerusalem Council, then one of the m ain argum ents that Knox and others have used for placing the council so late in P aul’s career is seriously weakened. Admittedly, this is no argum ent for the validity of Acts, for Luke makes no reference (except at 24:17 in reporting P aul’s defense before Felix) to such a collection. But it weighs heavily against Knox’s reconstruction of events. Thus even when taken on its own terms, it m ust be concluded that the Knox reconstruction gives a m uch less satisfactory account of a series o f details found in Paul’s own letters than does the traditional fram ework of Acts. Taken together with T. H. Cam pbell’s earlier dem onstration that, where they can be checked, Paul and Luke are in essential agreem ent as to the pattern o f P aul’s itinerary (JBL 74 [1955] 80-87), these considerations stand in opposition to the three-visit reconstruction o f Knox, H urd, Jewett, L uedem ann, and others. It is, therefore, n o t simple naivete that causes us to prefer Luke’s framework in Acts to Knox’s reconstruction, and so we feel free to raise direcdy the question of the relation of Gal 2:1-10 to Acts 15:1-30. 3. On Identifying Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 15:1-30 T he strongest and m ost obvious argum ent in favor of identifying Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 15:1-30 is the m arked similarity betw een the two passages. Both speak o f a m eeting held at Jerusalem to deal with the question of G entile Christians having to observe the Jewish law. In both, the discussion is pro m p ted by Jewish Christian legalists. In both, the m ain participants are Paul and Barnabas, on the one hand, and Peter and Jam es, on the other. A nd in both, the decision reached is in favor o f a law-free mission to Gentiles. It cannot be denied th at on first im pression these two passages seem to refer to the same event—and so they have b een u n d ersto o d by alm ost everyone until the tw entieth century. This general im pression of similarity, however, is dim inished w hen the passages are subjected to closer scrutiny, for there are a num ber of differences and omissions that suggest that the similarities may be m ore superficial than substantial. P rom inent am ong the differences are m atters having to do with (1) the role of Paul at the m eeting, (2) the motivation for the trip to Jerusalem , and (3) the nature o f the m eeting itself. As for the first m atter, it can be asked: Was Paul a m ajor participant and at the center of the discussion, as in Gal 2:2, or was he overshad-

lxxviii

Introduction

owed by Barnabas, Peter, and Jam es, as in Acts 15? As for the second: Was the trip to jeru salem m ade in response to a revelation (κατά άποκάλυψιν), as in Gal 2:2, or because of a sending by the Antioch church, as in Acts 15:1-3? And third: Was the m eeting private (κατ ’ ίδιαν) with a few leaders, as in Gal 2:2, or a public conference, as in Acts 15:6, 12? These differences are im mediately ap p aren t on any close study of the two passages. Yet they may be attributable simply to the differing purposes and perspectives of Paul and Luke in their respective writings. And if these were the only problems in equating the passages, matters could be left at that. T here are, however, two omissions in Galatians that weigh m ore heavily against an identification of Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 15:1-30. Also, there is an observation of some im portance th at arises from the schism reported in Gal 2:11-14 that has some bearing on the question. To speak o f omissions in Galatians, of course, presupposes a certain attitude toward Acts, for one cannot make com parisons w ithout also leveling value ju d g m ents on the materials being com pared. A nd though we cannot here en ter into a full discussion of Acts as a historical source (for an introductory treatm ent, see my “T he Acts o f the Apostles,” in The Expositor s Bible Commentary, 9:208-31), some rem arks need be m ade apropos the question. Suffice it here to say that, on the one hand, we believe the cu rren t widespread skepticism toward the historical reliability of Acts to be ill-founded, resting as it does on an inadequate consideration of ancient historiography and a false dichotom ization of history and theology. O n the o th er hand, it is necessary to use Acts critically, for, as 2 Cor 11:23-27 illustrates, Luke’s account by no m eans contains a com plete record of P aul’s ministry. Even where Paul and Luke treat the same event, as is generally thought to be the case with respect to Gal 1:18-20 and Acts 9:26-30, the differences between the accounts is a clear indication that the two authors wrote from different perspectives, shaping their presentations in strikingly different ways. Indeed, in com parison with P aul’s letters, Acts is a secondary source, which is a fact that m ust constantly be kept in m ind w hen jud g in g between them . Yet it is n o t at all inappropriate to take seriously Luke’s account of P aul’s itinerary in attem pting to unravel the problem s posed by Gal 1-2. Assuming, then, the basic reliability of Acts in its presentation o f P aul’s itinerary, the identification of Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 15:1-30 forces one to say that Paul in Galatians has om itted reference to the fam ine visit of Acts 11:27-30 for reasons of his own. But it is difficult to im agine how Paul, who affirms his truthfulness so vehem ently in Gal 1:20, could have failed to m ention th at visit in the recitation o f his contacts with the Jerusalem leaders in Gal 1-2. In the context o f his em phasis on the m inim al n ature of his contacts with the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 1:16-17, 18-19; 2:1) and their confirm ation o f his m inistry on those few occasions w hen they did m eet (Gal 1:23-24; 2:6-9), such an om ission is h ard to justify since it tends to discredit his argum ent. W ould n o t his o p p onents have been quick to seize on such an omission? W ould they n o t have said that, after all, there was a second visit of Paul to jerusalem , which Paul has failed to m en tio n — perhaps because it showed that he was no in d ep en d e n t apostle, as he claim ed, b u t a m ere disciple whose authority stem m ed from the apostles at Jerusalem ? Those who posit a late date for Galatians and yet hold to the reliability of Acts are forced to say that, for one reason or another, Paul saw no polem ical im portance

Introduction

lxxix

in the fam ine visit, and so om itted it in his narration of events. J. G. M achen, for example, argued that there is a transition between Gal 1:18-24 with its assertion of a full accounting and Gal 2:1-10 where “an entirely different arg u m en t” is m ade (Machen’s Notes, 91-92). So M achen insisted: Rightly regarded, therefore, P aul’s argum ent does n o t dem and th at the fam ine visit should be m entioned, supposing it took place p rio r to the visit recorded in Gal 2:1-10, unless it involved the im portant event o f a real conference betw een the original apostles and Paul regarding the co n ten t o f P aul’s gospel and an expression of opinion by the original apostles about that gospel and about P aul’s right to preach it. . . . Paul was n o t obliged to m ention it in his argum ent, and his omission of m ention o f it before Gal 2:1 does n o t prove eith er th at the visit narrated in Gal 2:1-10 is to be identified with it o r that the Book o f Acts is in erro r in representing it as having occurred (ibid., 93-94). To some, such an explanation may be convincing. If, however, Gal 1:11-2:10 is taken to be a connected biographical argum ent (as will be argued later in discussing the le tte r’s structure and in the com m entary proper) and Acts 11:2730 is accepted as authentic, certainly the omission in Galatians of any reference to the fam ine visit is a factor th at m ust weigh heavily against the identification of Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 15:1-30. A second omission in Galatians that stands in the way of taking Gal 2:1-10 as P aul’s account of the Jerusalem Council (assuming, again, the basic reliability of Acts) is P aul’s silence as to the m ajor decision of the council, which decision would have served as the coup de grace to the conflict at Galatia. Now it is n o t difficult to believe th at Paul may have been som ewhat reluctant, for various reasons, to refer to the four prohibitions tacked on to the decision o f the council (Acts 15:20, 29), even if they had to do n o t with the salvation of Gentiles b u t with their table fellowship with Jewish Christians (cf. my Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 232-35, 239-43). But it is difficult to see why in the m idst of the Galatian conflict he chose to be silent ab out the decision reached at jerusalem — or how, in fact, he could have avoided any m ention o f it—if he were writing after the Jerusalem Council. Paul certainly did n o t draw his punches or refrain from using argum ents advantageous for his position elsewhere in his Galatian letter. It seems, therefore, inconceivable that he would n o t have b ro u g h t in the decision of the Jerusalem C ouncil in his debate with the Judaizers—indeed, th at he would n o t have driven its m ajor p o in t hom e in his argum ent—had he known about the council’s decision w hen writing Galatians. Perhaps it could be argued that P aul’s Galatian converts had n o t yet heard of the decision reached at jerusalem , and so he did n o t bring it into his argum ent when writing them . Yet surely Paul would have realized, were this the case, that by no t taking the opportunity afforded him of being the first to inform them of the decision—when, in fact, he would have been in a position to present it as an overwhelming victory for the Gentile mission—he was paving the way for serious difficulties later in allowing the Judaizers an opportunity to take the initiative and to m isrepresent the intentions of the council. And after allowing the Judaizers the privilege of first telling the Galatians about the four prohibitions included with the council’s decision, it would have been very difficult for Paul to have m ade the bare

lxxx

I ntroduction

assertion that “those who seem ed to be im portant . . . added n othing to my m essage” (Gal 2:6) w ithout playing right into the hands of his opponents. N or can it be argued th at since the letter from the council was addressed “to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia” (Acts 15:23), its decision and prohibitions had no relevance to Gentile C hristians in Galatia, n o r th at Paul only first h eard ab out the council’s action from james on his last visit to jerusalem (Acts 21:25) an d so was unaw are of it w hen writing to the Galatians. With respect to the first of these suggestions, it is ap p a ren t from Acts 16:4 and 21:25 th at the action taken was in ten d ed to have a m ore general applicability— to the whole Gentile mission, o f which the church at Syrian A ntioch was the m o th er church. And as for the second o f these argum ents, n o t only is Acts 21:25 open to o th er in terp re tations (cf. my “T he Acts of the A postles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:520), b u t it seems ap p a ren t from the discussions of 1 Cor 8-10 and Rom 14 th at the Jerusalem prohibitions were being discussed in these churches even before P aul’s final visit to jerusalem and that Paul was already defending the keeping o f such prohibitions in his churches, even if his defense was on his own term s. Thus the absence in Galatians o f any m ention o f the m ajor decision of the council rem ains a significant problem for those who w ant to see Gal 2:1-10 as P aul’s account of the Jerusalem Council. F urtherm ore, assuming that P aul’s clash with P eter of Gal 2:11-14 took place after the Jerusalem Council, P aul’s account o f that clash undercuts his whole argum ent and turns to the advantage o f his judaizing opponents. Indeed, it would reveal P aul’s recognition of a chasm that still existed between him self and the Jerusalem apostles, which had only superficially been bridged over at the Jerusalem Council. T he inclusion o f this Antioch episode in P aul’s argum ent at a time before the council is understandable. But to use it in support o f his polem ic after the decision o f the council, and w ithout reference to that decision, casts considerable d o u b t on P aul’s logical powers. O ne m ight, o f course, attem pt to rescue P aul’s logic by reversing the o rd e r o f events in Gal 2, so that Gal 2:11-14 refers to a tim e before the Jerusalem C ouncil and Gal 2:1-10 is P aul’s version o f th at council (for a defense o f this position together with a list of its adherents, see J. D upont, RSR 45 [1957] 42-60, 225-39). That, however, is a ra th e r drastic expedient for which there is no m anuscript support and which flies in the face of any norm al reading. Despite, therefore, certain superficial similarities between Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-30, closer inspection reveals a n um ber of serious problem s with identifying the Jerusalem visits of which these two passages speak. T he seriousness of these problem s, in fact, suggests that we m ust attem pt to find a place for the events o f Gal 2:1-10 elsewhere in the historical sequence of events. 4. On Identifying Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 11:27-30 Though Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 11:27-30 may not at first glance display many similarities, it is by no means impossible that they present the same Jerusalem visit from two different perspectives. Since Barnabas had been sent to Antioch by the Jerusalem church because of the Gentile outreach there, it is not unreasonable to expect that he would have taken advantage of a return trip to Jerusalem, whatever its immediate purpose, to discuss such an outreach with the jerusalem leaders. Moreover, such a visit would have been a m uch m ore likely setting for the private sort of m eeting described in Gal 2. Furtherm ore, the injunction of the jerusalem apostles to “continue to remember

Introduction

lxxxi

[μνημονεύωμεν] the p o o r” reported in Gal 2:10 may well have in m ind and be building on the delivery of the fam ine relief from Antioch Christians. T hree bits o f autobiographical inform ation relative to P aul’s career as a missionary ten d to favor the identification of Gal 2:1-10 with the fam ine visit. T he first is the b rief statem ent of Gal 1:21, “Later I w ent to Syria and Cilicia.” Indeed, as n o ted above, th ere have been freq u en t attem pts to read these words as n o t excluding a m ore extensive missionary outreach on the p art o f Paul during this tim e— eith er in the neighboring province o f Galatia, as traditional N orth Galatianists an d some South Galatianists believe, or th ro u g h o u t Asia M inor and the Balkan peninsula, as Jo h n Knox and others hold. Yet certainly the m ore natural reading o f the text is that Paul spent his time betw een the two Jerusalem visits of Gal 1:18-20 and 2:1-10 only in Syria and Cilicia— th at is, in missionary activity th at cen tered first in Tarsus and then in A ntioch. And if this be the case, th en his missionary endeavors in the province of Galatia did n o t take place until after his second visit described in Gal 2:1-10. A second bit o f im portant autobiographical inform ation is to be found in Gal 2:2, 7-9, where Paul tells us that when he went up to Jerusalem on his second visit he considered himself to be a missionary to the Gentiles, and that during that visit he was recognized as such by the leaders of the Jerusalem church. Now it may be argued that this would hardly have been the case at the time of the fam ine visit, when P aul’s missionary travels had n o t yet begun, for how could Paul have thought of him self as an apostle to the Gentiles and been so recognized if none of his missionary journeys had yet taken place (so W. Sanday, Exp, 5th series, 3 [1896] 253-63; R. H. Stein, jE T S l7 [1974] 239-42)? But this is an artificial argum ent, which arises only on the basis o f a perception o f Paul that depends too heavily on Acts. As far as Paul him self was concerned, his call to preach the gospel to the Gentiles was coincident with his conversion, as he tells us plainly in Gal 1:15-16. And while the events portrayed in Acts on his various missionary journeys were certainly confirm atory of such a call—perhaps may even have served to explicate the nature of that call m ore fully—Paul him self rooted that call in his conversion experience and seems at the time of writing Galatians to have looked on his activities at Tarsus (which Luke omits) and Antioch (which Luke only summarizes) as confirm ations of his call. So if we really take Galatians to be the prim ary evidence here, we m ust conclude that P aul’s conversion (1:15-16) and his early activities at Tarsus and A ntioch (1:21-24) were entirely sufficient, from his perspective, to account for his claims in Gal 2:2, 7-9. In fact, it is possible to in terp ret vv 7-9 as the agreem ent that opened the way for him to engage in a wider Gentile mission. T he th ird bit o f data has to do with the A ntioch episode of Gal 2:11-14, to which we have referred earlier. Acts locates Paul at A ntioch both after the fam ine visit (Acts 12:25-13:3; 14:26-28) and after the Jerusalem C ouncil (Acts 15:30-35), so theoretically the events of 2:11-14 could have taken place at eith er time. Yet it is difficult to imagine why Peter and Barnabas (καί Βαρναβα?, “even B arnabas”) would have caved in u n d e r the pressure of Jewish Christians from Jerusalem if the decision and decrees of the Jerusalem C ouncil had then been in existence. T he situation at Syrian A ntioch, it seems, could only have arisen w here there were no clear guidelines to govern table fellowship between jewish and G entile Christians. While one could posit various reasons for P eter’s action, only in the confusion of the pre-council p eriod would such a p io n eer in the G entile mission as Barnabas

lxxxii

Introduction

have pulled back from full fellowship with Gentiles u n d e r Jewish Christian pressure. In addition to these bits of autobiographical data th at look in the direction of identifying Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 11:27-30, reference should also be m ade to the natu re o f the judaizing activity as rep resen ted in Galatians. It is often assum ed that a late date for Galatians allows tim e for a judaizing opposition to arise in the Pauline mission and for tensions to be re p o rted back to the Jerusalem church. Galatians, however, does n o t view the judaizing opposition as indigenous to P aul’s mission, b u t as stem m ing entirely from Jerusalem (w hether with or w ithout the backing o f the Jerusalem leaders, which is what m ust be investigated la te r). In connection with his second visit to Jerusalem , Paul alludes to “some false b ro th ers” who called for T itus’ circum cision (2:4-5); in relating the A ntioch episode, he speaks o f “certain m en ... from jam es” who caused the trouble (2:12); and, o f course, in the Galatian situation the agitators have ties with Jerusalem . We m ust deal later with the identity and message of P aul’s opponents. Suffice it h ere to note th at Galatians represents th eir activity as having arisen first in Jerusalem and th en as moving out to A ntioch and Galatia, and n o t vice versa. So it n eed be stressed that the inform ation that Galatians itself provides as to the activities of P aul’s o pponents does n o t require a late date for the events of eith er 2:1-10 o r 2:11-14. N or does it require such a date for the w riting o f the Galatian letter itself. T here are, in fact, some rath er striking similarities between the conflict rep o rted in Gal 2:11-14 and the occasion for the convening of the Jerusalem Council as given in Acts 15:1-2. In both, the agitators com e from Jerusalem and stir up controversy at Antioch. In both, questions as to the necessity of the Jewish law for Gentile Christians are raised. If the events o f Gal 2:11-14 occurred after the Jerusalem Council—which has suggested to some a perm anent rift between Paul and his two form er colleagues, Peter and Barnabas—it is difficult to see why Paul would have w anted to m ention the incident at all, particularly in light o f his o p p o n en ts’ accusations. But if the events took place before the issues were dealt with at Jerusalem and Paul was writing in the m idst of the ensuing controversy, the inclusion o f the incident is understandable. It seems best, therefore, to conclude th at Paul wrote Galatians on the eve of the Jerusalem Council, before the issues arising from the Antioch episode had been resolved. T he identification of P aul’s visit to Jerusalem o f Gal 2:1-10 with the fam ine visit o f Acts 11:27-30 is not, however, w ithout its problem s. T he m ost serious concerns the time spans o f Gal 1:18 (“after three years”) an d 2:1 (“after fo u rteen years”). Two dates are usually taken as benchm arks in establishing a NT chronology: (1) P aul’s ministry at C orinth, which began shortly after the edict of Claudius against Jews o f Rome in the n in th year o f C laudius’ reign as em p ero r (Acts 18:2; i.e., January 25, a.d. 49, to January 24, a .d. 50) and which con tin u ed durin g G allio’s b rief time as proconsul o f Achaia (Acts 18:12; i.e., July 1, a .d. 51, to probably July 1, a.d. 52), an d (2) Jesus’ crucifixion, which, it is generally agreed, took place eith er in a .d. 30 or 33. W orking from these two ra th e r fixed points, scholars have dated the fam ine visit at about a .d. 46 or 47 and the Jerusalem Council at a .d. 49 (though, o f course, later on a three-visit hypothesis). In whatever way, therefore, we correlate the visits o f Galatians with those o f Acts, the tim e spans given in Gal 1:18 and 2:1 m ust be taken into account.

Introduction

lxxxiii

O n first reading, of course, it appears that Paul is saying that between his conversion and his visit to Jerusalem of Gal 2:1-10 was a period of seventeen years (i.e., three years plus fourteen years). And that span of time fits nicely an identification o f Gal 2:1-10 with the Jerusalem Council—assuming jesus’ crucifixion in a .d. 30 and Paul’s conversion two or three years later (or, assuming Jesus’ crucifixion in a .d. 33, P aul’s conversion in a.d. 35-37, and the Jerusalem Council occurring at the time of the so-called hasty visit of Acts 18:22 in the early or m iddle 50s). But the time spans of Gal 1:18 and 2:1 have greater difficulty fitting into the widely accepted NT chronological framework w hen Gal 2:1-10 is identified with the fam ine visit o f Acts 11:27-30. In o rd er to accom m odate the three-year and fourteen-year time spans of Gal 1:18 and 2:1 within the limits im posed by the dates for Jesus’ crucifixion and P aul’s initial C orinthian ministry, and still hold to the identification of Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 11:27-30, at least two of the following three assum ptions m ust be made: 1. T hat the three years and fourteen years are concurrent, n o t consecutive— that is, that both are to be m easured from P aul’s conversion, and n o t that the fourteen years of Gal 2:1 are to be counted from P aul’s first visit; 2. T hat Paul in Gal 1:18 and 2:1 is using a m ethod of com putation w herein parts of years are counted as full years; and 3. T hat Jesus’ crucifixion took place in a.d. 30, with P aul’s conversion two or three years afterwards. Admittedly, such assum ptions may n o t appear im mediately evident to everyone. But they are n o t at all impossible. The thesis of an early date for the writing of Galatians is supported by such historical, exegetical, and critical evidence as we have cited above. And though the time spans of Gal 1:18 and 2:1 may no t at first glance easily fit into such an understanding, they do not, given certain possible assumptions, discredit that thesis. F urtherm ore, the thesis of an early date for Galatians can be supported by reference to certain theological indices of im portance, to which we m ust now turn. 5. Theological Indices of Importance It was F. C. Baur who first attem pted to assign dates to the NT writings on the basis o f their ideological tendencies and doctrinal content (see his “Die C hristuspartei in der korinthischen G em einde,” Tübinger Zeitschrift f ür Theologie [1831] 61-206; also his Paul: His Life and Works). And though he strongly opposed Baur in most of his “T endency Criticism,”J. B. Lightfoot also in his 1865 com m entary laid heavy emphasis on m atters of style and content in dating Galatians vis-a-vis 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans—arguing that in tone, feeling, and expression, Galatians is closest to 2 Corinthians (which Lightfoot assum ed to be a single le tte r), bu t that in argum entation and doctrine it stands in relation to Romans “as the rough m odel to the finished statue,” and so m ust be seen as having been written shortly after 2 C orinthians b u t before Romans ( Galatians, 42-50). L ightfoot’s com parisons of Galatians with 2 Corinthians, however, hardly dem onstrate that the two letters were written at approxim ately the same tim e. The m ost they show is that the same author wrote both. Likewise, the claim that Galatians and Romans treat the same topics in similar fashion, only with greater developm ent in Romans, can be challenged.

lxxxiv

Introduction

At any rate, once 2 Cor 10-13 (from whence Lightfoot drew his com parisons of tone and feeling, as well as many parallels of expression) came to be viewed as a separate letter (“the Severe L etter”) written p rior to 2 Cor 1-9 (“the Conciliatory Letter”), Lightfoot’s observations in this regard tended to be forgotten. In 1951 C. H. Buck tried to revive L ightfoot’s position by focusing on the Pauline antitheses o f faith-works and flesh-spirit in 2 C orinthians (3:17; 4:10-5:5), Galatians (4:1-7; 5:13-25), and Rom ans (8:2-25), arguing that— even apart from the data o f 2 Cor 10-13—it is evident that 2 Cor 1-9, Galatians, and Rom ans share the same underlying approach to these m atters, and so these three letters m ust be seen as having been w ritten at about the same time and in that o rd er (JBL 70 [1951] 113-22; cf. C. H. Buck and G. Taylor, Saint Paul, 82-102). But while Buck has had his supporters (e.g., C. E. Faw, BR 4 [1960] 2 5 -3 8 J. C. O ’Neill, The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting [London: SPCK, 1961] 96-97), m ost consider dating Galatians on the basis o f such considerations n o t very com pelling, since the data can be in terp reted in too subjective a fashion (so, e.g., Betz, Galatians, 11; Bruce, Galatians, 48-51). T he attem pt to establish a date for Galatians solely by reference to theological indices within the letter is a dubious one. Historical, exegetical, and critical considerations (such as we have treated above) m ust be dealt with first if we are to have any hope o f g rounding the discussion on a solid, evidential basis. If we move the debate away from these considerations and carry it on exclusively in term s of the theology of Galatians vis-a-vis the theology of P aul’s o th er letters, we ru n the risk of a completely subjective criticism. Yet it m ust also be said that having dealt first with historical, exegetical, and critical issues concerning the addressees and date, it is necessary to ask as well how the theology of the letter correlates with what has been concluded as to provenance on o th er grounds. T he evidence drawn from various theological indices, therefore, may n o t be foundational for the case, b u t it certainly ought to be supportive, at least in the main, if there is to be any confidence in conclusions drawn from historical, exegetical, and critical inquiries. Much has been done in this area, particularly of late, but n o t everything is equally im portant. N or does all the evidence point in the same direction. T here are, however, certain theological indices in Galatians that lend credence to the idea o f an early date in Paul’s missionary career for the writing of the letter, and to these we m ust refer. J o h n D rane in 1975 proposed three im portant indices in support of an early date for Galatians (see his Paul, Libertine orLegalist? A ppendix B: “The Date of Galatians,” 140-43; actually D rane adds a fourth index, “P aul’s stated surprise at the u nexpected way in which the Galatians had deserted his message [Galatians 1:6],” but this is n o t o f the same nature or quality as his first three). T he first of D ran e’s indices has to do with the role of revelation in Gal 1:1 Iff. vis-a-vis that of tradition in 1 Cor 15:1ff. O n this D rane comments: It is inconceivable that Paul moved from an em phasis on the tradition of the church duly h an ded on in 1 C orinthians to the opposite em phasis on an individualistic revelatory experience in Galatians. Nor, after his experience with the Gnosticizing tendencies m et in C orinth, is it likely that Paul would subsequently have m ade such an unguarded statem ent as that in Galatians 1:11 ff. But it is easy to think that the Galatians statem ent was earlier than the C orinthians

Introduction

lxxxv

passage, written at a time when Paul was unaware of the possibly Gnostic understanding of his words, and that in the m eantim e such an understanding had com e into the C orinthian church, to which his statem ents in 1 C orinthians 15 were in p art the reply (ibid., 142). A second theological index to which D rane points concerns differences in P aul’s teaching on the Mosaic law in Galatians and in Romans, for in Galatians there is a very negative attitude expressed in com parison to the m ore positive statem ents of Romans. O n this D rane says: Now it is easy to u nderstand how Paul could have had a very pessimistic view o f the Law at a relatively early stage in his ministry, before he had experienced some o f the im m orality into which “fre e ” Christians could fall. But it is alm ost impossible to think either th at he initially held a positive attitude to it, which later changed, o r that (as would be req u ired if Galatians is d ated close to 1 and 2 C orinthians and Romans) he could have held the two together at one and the same tim e (ibid., 142-43). T he third m atter D rane cites has to do with the m oral freedom proclaim ed in Gal 5:13-6:10 as com pared to the m oral principles laid ou t in both 1 C orinthians and Romans, where quotations from Jesus’ teaching are used as guidelines for Christian morality. And on this third theological index, D rane comments: In Galatians Paul adopts the idealistic view that, if all believers are u n d e r the control o f the Holy Spirit, they will naturally do w hat is right both individually and socially. In 1 C orinthians and Romans, and to a lesser extent 2 Corinthians, he adopts a m ore realistic position, and introduces elem entary m oral rules to form guidelines for behaviour in specific situations, a process which again is m ore easily explicable in term s of an early date for Galatians than the o ther way aro u n d (ibid., 143). O ne may object to D rane’s characterization of Galatians as an “extrem e” representation of Paul’s th ought and to his rath er constricted thesis-antithesis-synthesis procrustean grid into which he casts the data of P aul’s letters. Yet w ithout acceding to his sharp either-or categories, it m ust be acknowledged that the direction of developm ent which D rane points out in these three theological indices is from Galatians to the C orinthian letters and Romans, and n o t vice versa. H ans D ieter Betz in 1976 argued on the basis o f the m an n er o f P aul’s references to the Spirit in Galatians for a relatively early date for the letter (see his “In Defense o f the Spirit,” 9 9 -1 1 4 ; cf. his earlier “Geist, Freiheit u n d Gesetz,” Z T K 71 [1974] 78-93). And in his 1979 Galatians com m entary he sum m arizes his position as follows: O n the whole, an early date is m ore com m endable than a late date. P aul’s theological position is different from the later letter to the Romans. As a m atter o f fact, it closely resem bles the “enthusiastic” or even “gnostic” position. Paul does n o t find it necessary to protect him self against m isunderstandings, but emphasizes the “Spirit” w ithout any qualification. T he letter seems to belong to

lxxxvi

Introduction

the beginning o f his difficulties with his opponents, rath er than to an advanced stage ( Galatians, 12). O f course, having previously asserted th at “it is m ore probable that the Galatian churches were located in central A natolia” (ibid., 5), Betz cannot speak of a date earlier than a.d. 50. So he concludes: “T he m ost likely date would fall into the beginning o f the m iddle period of his mission in Asia M inor, the first p erio d being th at o f the fo u nding of the Galatian churches. T he years betw een 50-55 as the date o f writing may be accepted as a reasonable guess” (ibid., 12). N onetheless, Betz’s observation about the enthusiastic and u n g u ard ed natu re of P aul’s references to the Spirit in Galatians, despite his N orth Galatian proclivities and assum ed gnostic parallels, is highly significant. For, indeed, though the Spirit never becom es a topic on its own in the letter, the Spirit is central in P aul’s Galatian defense of the gospel, underlying and tying together all that Paul writes by way o f theological argum ent (esp. in 3:2-14) and personal appeal (esp. in 5:1326). A nd while adm ittedly P aul’s enthusiastic and u n g u ard ed m an n er of referring to the Spirit in Galatians is n o t decisive of itself for the question o f dating, it tends to su p p o rt an earlier ra th e r than a later date as the tim e of writing. A n other theological index that points in the direction o f an early date for Galatians is w hat m ight be called the functional Christology of the letter vis-a-vis the m ore developed Christology o f the C orinthian correspondence and Romans. T he salutation o f Galatians sets the tone in this regard by identifying Jesus C hrist as the one whom God “raised . . . from the d e a d ” (1:1) and “who gave him self for o u r sins to rescue us from the present evil ag e” (1:4). F urtherm ore, R ichard B. Hays has recently argued persuasively that in Gal 3:1-4:11 “the fram ew ork of P au l’s th o u g h t is constituted n eith er by a system of doctrines n o r by his personal religious experience b u t by a ‘sacred story,’ a narrative stru ctu re,” which, “while n o t all-determ inative, is integral to P aul’s reasoning” (The Faith of Jesus Christ, quoting from 5-6 [italics h is]). T hough Hays him self draws no conclusions from this for the question o f date, his dem onstration o f Jesus-narrative elem ents in 3:14:11 (citing m aterials in 3:1, 13-14, 22, 26-28; 4:3-6) that are m ore functional in n atu re— and so presum ably earlier— than those in P aul’s o th er letters suggests an early date for the le tte r’s com position. O ne m ight also cite the elem ental nature o f P aul’s ecclesiology in Galatians. An early use o f this theological index is to be found in G. S. D u n can ’s 1934 Moffatt com m entary: As at least pointers in the direction of an early date we may cite the character of his references to the C hurch and the fact that, though he comes so near to it in thought, he never uses the expression “the body o f C hrist.” Similarly, he does n o t use the term “the mystery” with regard to the Gospel, even though all that is im plied by that phrase in Col. i. 25ff. is already present to his m ind. T he simple expression found in iii.29, v. 24, “those who belong to C hrist” (lit. “who are of C hrist”) has a parallel in the nam e “C hrist’s m e n ” (Christianoi) which about this time came to be applied to the believers at Antioch (Acts xi.26) ( Galatians, xxxi). D u n can ’s observations, of course, have to do principally with relations between Galatians and the Prison Epistles, which is n o t a m atter at issue here. T here is,

Introduction

lxxxvii

however, one further ecclesiological indicator of some significance for the question at hand—the way Paul speaks of the church in the various salutations of his letters. Assuming for a m om ent the priority of Galatians, it is instructive to note that the salutations o f P aul’s earlier letters generally seem to develop from a m ore m undane understanding of the church (i.e., local congregations in particular areas or cities) to a m ore elevated understanding (i.e., the C hurch universal): Gal 1:2—“to the churches in Galatia” (ταΐ? εκκλησίας τής* Γαλατίας)— though, o f course, Paul speaks in 1:13 of having persecuted “the church of G od” (την εκκλησίαν του θεού), b u t in another context; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1— “to the church of the Thessolonians in God th e /o u r Father and the L ordjesus C hrist” (τη εκκλησία Θεσσαλονικέων εν θεώ πατρί [ημών] και κυρίω Ίησοϋ Χριστώ); 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1— “to the church of God at C orinth” (τη εκκλησία του θεού τη ούση εν Κορίνθω). T he salutations of Romans and the Prison Epistles, however, are of an o th er type, for they speak o f Christians as “loved by G od,” “holy ones,” and “faithful brothers,” b u t leave the word εκκλησία, “church,” a n d /o r the discussion of the church for later, m ore developed treatm ents: Rom 1:7—“to all at Rome who are loved by God and called holy ones” (πάσι v to X? ούσιν έν 'Ρώμη άγαπητοΧ? θεού, κλητοΧ? άγιοι?); Col 1:2— “to the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse” ( to X ? εν Κολ~ οσσαΧ? άγιοι? καί πιστοί? αδελφοί? έν Χριστώ); Eph 1:1— “to the holy ones [at Ephesus], the faithful in Christ Jesus” ( to I ? άγιοι? το!? ούσιν [έν Έ φέσώ] καί πιστοΧ? έν Χριστώ Ίησ οϋ); Phil 1:1— “to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons” (πάσιν to X ? άγίσι? έν Χριστώ Ίησ οϋ τοΧ? ούσιν έν Φίλιπποι? συν έπισκόποι? καί διάκονοι?). A fu rth er index to be cited is P aul’s use of σύν-com pound words, which seems to be in line with his developing ecclesiology and to suggest an early date for Galatians. They appear frequently with reference to fellow Christians in Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Philem on—once even in 1 Thessalonians and once in 1 Corinthians: σύνεργό? (“fellow w orker”) in 1 Thess 3:2; Rom 16:3, 9, 21; Phil 2:25; 4:3; Philem 1, 24; συγκληρονόμο? (“fellow h e ir”) in Rom 8:17; Eph 3:6;συγκοινωνό? (“p a rtn e r”) in 1 C o r9:23;Phil 1:7;συμμιμητή? (“fellow im itator”) in Phil 3:17; συναιχμάλωτο? (“fellow p riso n er”) in Rom 16:7; Col 4:10; Philem 23; σύνδουλο? (“fellowservant”) in Col 1:7; 4:7;συστρατιώτη? (“fellow soldier”) inP hil 2:25; Philem 2; σύσσωμο? (“belonging to the same body”) in Eph 3:6. The σύνcom pounds of Galatians, however, are of an o th er type, being devoid of any reference to fellow Christians: συνηλικιώτη? (“contem porary” o f others in Ju d aism) in 1:14; συστοιχέω (“in line with” or “corresponds to ” the present city of Jerusalem ) in 4:25; and συσταυρόω (“be crucified together with” Christ) in 2:20 (also Rom 6:6). O ne m ajor theological objection to dating Galatians early, of course, has to do with its relative lack of eschatological teaching, particularly in com parison with that

Introduction

lxxxviii

of 1 and 2 Thessalonians and 1 and 2 Corinthians. It is fairly com m on today to explain the developm ent of NT thought along the lines of an early fixation on the future and progressive shifts b ro u g h t about by the P arousia’s delay (so E. Käsem ann, New Testament Questions of Today, 236- 37 ) . O n such a view, it was eschatology th at dom inated P aul’s outlook in his early days, while such m atters as soteriology, Christology, ecclesiology, and ethics came to assume im portance in his teaching only later (for a b rief history o f this eschatological und erstan d in g of Paul fro m j. Weiss to E. P. Sanders, see my “The N ature of P aul’s Early Eschatology,” N T S 31 [ 1985] 85- 86 ). I have argued, however, th at the T hessalonian letters show th at P aul’s basic C hristian conviction and the starting p o in t for all his Christian theology was n o t apocalyptic eschatology b u t functional Christology— that is, that his com m itm ent was n o t first o f all to a program or some tim etable of events, but to a person, Jesus the Messiah, with the result th a t what jesu s did and said were the controlling factors for even his eschatology (ibid., 87- 95 ) . Thus, w ithout denying the im portance of either eschatology or developm ent in Pauline thought, I see no reason to invoke an eschatological criterion in establishing a relative chronology for Galatians vis-a-vis the Thessalonian and C orinthian correspondence. In light, therefore, of the cumulative evidence as to date drawn from historical, exegetical, and critical considerations, and supported by certain theological indices o f im portance, we conclude in agreem ent with F. C. Burkitt (and others) th at “the m ost natural interpretation of the biographical statem ents in Galatians i and ii is that they were written before the ‘C ouncil’ at Jerusalem ” ( Christian Beginnings, 116). And while there rem ain difficulties in holding to an early date for the writing of Galatians, Philip C arrington was probably right to assert that “the argum ents which perplexed the older theologians and still go on in the schools were due in no small degree to the fact that they accepted the later date of Galatians, which was traditional in their tim e” ( The Early Christian Church, 1:91 ). O

ppo n en ts and

S i t u a t io n

Bibliography Barclay, J. M. G. “M irror-Reading a Polem ical Letter: Galatians as a T est Case .”JS N T 31 (1987) 73-93. Baur, F. C. “Die C hristuspartei in d er ko rin th isch en G em ein d e,” Tü binger Zeitschriftf ür Theologie[1831] 6 1 -2 0 6 .————. Paul: His Life and Works, 1:105-45,250-57. Betz, H. D. Galatians, 5-9. Brinsmead, B. H. Dialogical Response. Bruce, F. F. Galatians, 1932. Burton, E. deW. Galatians, liii-lxv. Crownfield, F. C. “T he Singular Problem o f the Dual Galatians.” JBL 63 (1945) 491-500. Duncan, G. S. Galatians, xxvi-xxxiv. Ellis, E. E. “Paul an d His O pponents: T rends in the R esearch.” In Christianity,Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults. FS M. Smith, ed.J. N eusner. Leiden: Brill. 1975, 1:264-98. Gunther, J.J. St. P aul’s Opponents. Harvey, A. E. “T he O pposition to P aul.” In Studia Evangelica IV, ed. F. L. Cross. TU 102. Berlin: A kadem ie, 1968. 319-32. Hawkins, J. G. “T he O p p o n en ts o f Paul in G alatia.” Ph.D. diss., Yale, 1971. Hort, F. J. A. “T he C h u rch of A ntioch.” In Judaistic Christianity, 61-83. Howard, G. Paul: Crisis in Galatia, 1-19. Jewett, R. “T he Agitators and the G alatian C ongregation.” NTS 17 (1971) 198-212. Knox, W. L. St. Paul and the Church of Jerusalem. Lake, K. The Earlier Epistles, 304-8. Lightfoot, J. B. “St. Paul and the T h re e .” In Galatians (1890), 292-374. Longenecker, R. N. “Christianity in Jerusalem .” In Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 271-88. Lull, D. J. The Spirit in Galatia, 29-52. Lü tgert, W. Gesetz und Geist. Munck, J. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 87-134. ————. ‘Jewish Christianity in PostApostolic Tim es.” NTS 6 (1960) 103-16. Mussner, F. Galaterbrief, 11-29. Ropes, J. H.

Introduction

lxxxix

Singu lar Problem. Schlier, H. Galater. Schmithals, W. Paul and the Gnostics.————. Paul and James. Schoeps, H . J. Paul, 63-87. Schü tz, J. H. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 124-28. Tyson, J. B. “P aul’s O pponents in G alatia.” NovT 10 (1968) 241-54. Wilson, R. McL. “Gnostics in Galatia?” In StudiaEvangelicaTV, ed. F. L. Cross. T U 102 Berlin: Akademie, 1968. 358-67. Zahn, T. Galater, 1-9.

T he identity of Paul’s opponents, the nature of their opposition, and the substance of their teaching are alluded to thro u g h o u t Galatians, but are never spelled out precisely as entities on their own. It is, therefore, only from some type of “m irror read in g ” of the letter itself that we are able to speak of the opponents and their message, and so to reconstruct the situation to which Paul speaks. M irror reading, however, is always difficult and dangerous. Its difficulty lies in the fact th at it is no t always possible to distinguish am ong (1) exposition, (2) polem ic (i.e., an aggressive explication), and (3) apology (i.e., a defensive response), and m irror reading works only w here there is reasonable assurance that we are dealing with either polem ic or apology. Its danger, of course, is that it is all too easy to see our own image or concerns in the reflection and so to project o ur own favorite theses into the evidence. Nevertheless, despite its difficulties, dangers, and frequent abuse, m irror reading is the only m ethod here available to us. O ther materials, indeed, m ust be used to check our hypotheses and to supplem ent whatever profile may be drawn from Galatians itself, b u t we possess no o ther writing from antiquity that speaks so directly to the situation as does P aul’s own letter. Having affirm ed the necessity of m irror reading in the study of Galatians, however, a caveat is in order. B. H. B rinsm ead’s m onograph is to date the m ost thorough-going treatm ent of Galatians in term s of m irror reading. Yet one m ust take care n o t to in terp ret everything in Galatians as a response to the o p p o n en ts’ position. Certainly Galatians is dialogical, bu t its dialogue is with the Galatian Christians and n o t directly with the opponents. As H. D. Betz observes: “Paul never addresses his opponents directly, bu t he addresses the issues which they had in tro d u ced ” ( Galatians, 5; cf. 267 n. 143). So it is necessary to begin with the issues that Paul addresses and to try to distinguish (1) how the opponents understood them , (2) how the Galatian Christians u nderstood them , and (3) how Paul u n d ersto o d them . Simply to reverse P aul’s affirm ations is at times helpful in gaining a h andle on what the opponents taught and why they taught as they did. At o th er times, it may reflect m ore how the Galatian C hristians u n d erstood m atters. Often, however, such a procedure gives us only how Paul in the h eat of controversy characterized (even caricatured) their teaching and activity, which may n o t have been how they themselves saw them . 1 1. The Identity of the Opponents So m uch has been written on the identity of Paul’s opponents at Galatia and there is such a welter of opposing opinions and conflicting theories that exegesis can easily becom e swamped. As we noted earlier, the com m on, alm ost uncontested view during the patristic and Reform ation periods was that P aul’s opponents were Jewish Christian Judaizers. But that identification has been both challenged and considerably refined during the past 150 years or so. In what follows, we desire to sketch o u t the m ain lines of the m odern debate and propose a working hypothesis. F. C. Baur, with whom the m odern period of Pauline studies began, proposed in 1831 that primitive Christianity m ust be seen as com posed of two rival factions:

xc

Introduction

a Petrine group, which included a so-called Christ party, and a Pauline group, with which the Apollos party was associated (“Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen G em einde,” Tü bingerZeitschrif t f ür Theologie [1831] 61-206). T he form er faction he saw constituting the overwhelming majority in the Jerusalem church, founding the Christian com m unity at Rome, furnishing the opposition to Paul at C orinth and Galatia, and later being known as the Ebionites. The Jerusalem apostles were part o f this group; though being unable to oppose his argum ents in support of a Gentile mission, they had somewhat reluctantly acknowledged P aul’s independence. They were, however, never fully reconciled to P aul’s type o f G entile outreach, and so they did no t oppose the m ore legalistic m em bers of the Jerusalem church in their opposition to Paul, b ut rem ained passive in the ensuing conflict. Thus, as Baur set out his views m ore fully in 1845, P aul’s opponents were these zealous Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, who, unopposed by the Jerusalem apostles, infiltrated his churches in o rd er to com plete the work of conversion by im posing on the Gentiles the requirem ents o f the Jewish law (Paul: His Life and Works, 1:105-45, 250-57). B aur’s position, however, was adjusted by his disciples A lbert Schwegler and E duard Zeller (B aur’s son-in-law) to read that b ehind P aul’s opponents stood the full authority o f the Jerusalem church, including that of P eter and Jam es (F. K. A. Schwegler, Das nachapostolische Zeitalterin den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung, 2 vols. [T ü b in g en , 1846]; E. Zeller, Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung Kritisch and untersucht [Stuttgart, 1854], which is based on a series o f articles written between 1848 and 1851 for the TheologischeJahrbiicher) . And it was in this form that the Tiibingen view of the situation at Galatia becam e dissem inated (cf., e.g., A. Hilgenfeld, Der Galaterbrief). In 1865, J. B. Lightfoot, in direct opposition to T übingen, argued that, though their ministries differed, Paul’s relationship with the apostles at Jerusalem was one o f m utual recognition and acceptance (see esp. his “St. Paul and the T h re e,” 292374). So while those who brought a deviant gospel to Galatia were from the m other church at jerusalem —and may, in fact, even have been personal disciples of Jesus him self—they were no t supported by the Jerusalem apostles in their judaizing activities, and therefore m ust be seen as having taken a line of their own. O n the “certain m en [who] came from Jam es” of Gal 2:12, for exam ple, Lightfoot writes: Did they bear any commission from him? If so, did it relate to in d ep en d en t matters, or to this very question of eating with the Gentiles? It seems m ost natural to in terp ret this notice by the parallel case of the Pharisaic breth ren , who had before troubled this same A ntiochene C hurch, “going fo rth ” from the Apostles and insisting on circum cision and the observance of the law, though they “gave them no orders” (Acts XV.24)” (ibid., 371). If the Jerusalem apostles were slow in checking the Judaizers’ activities it was probably because they had hopes of conciliating them . And if Jam es was m ore reticen t th an P eter to approve P aul’s missionary outreach to Gentiles, th at at worst m ust be seen only as a case of his understanding “in this, as in his recognition of Jesus as the Christ, moving m ore slowly than the Twelve” (ibid., 372). A variation o f L ightfoot’s position is th at of F. J. A. H ort, his Cam bridge colleague, who held that the opposition to Paul at both Antioch and Galatia probably did, in fact, stem from Jam es, b u t mistakenly so (see his Judaistic ChHsti-

Introduction

XC1

anity) . Being pastorally concerned about Jewish-Gentile relations in the Christian com m unities founded outside of Palestine, Jam es may very well have sent a delegation from Jerusalem to check on affairs. But the emissaries from Jam es mistook his interests and tu rn ed his practical concerns into justification for their claim that Gentile Christians m ust be circum cised and take on a jew ish lifestyle. In effect, they shifted an original practical concern o f the Jerusalem church over into the area o f a theological principle—a “present policy” of caution into a “perm an en t p rinciple” of necessity (ibid., pp. 80-81)—and so denied the legitimacy of a direct ministry to Gentiles and the validity of the conversion of Gentiles to Christ apart from any com m itm ent to Judaism . H ort insisted that all of their theological judaizing, however, was a m istaken reading of Jam es’ real concern, and so unsu p p o rted by the Jerusalem apostles. A decided shift in the understanding of the problem at Galatia came with the “Two Front T heory” of W ilhelm Lütgert in 1919 and Jam es Hardy Ropes in 1929. L ütgert argued that Galatians was directed against n o t one but two types of o pponents— a judaizing group, which exaggerated the Jewish features in P aul’s message, and a pneum atic group of spiritual radicals (freien Geister), which exaggerated P aul’s teaching on freedom —and that these two groups were fighting with each o th er ( Gesetz und Geist). To view m atters in this light, Lütgert insisted, explains the contradictions between (1) Paul being charged with being both too in d ep en d en t o f the Jerusalem apostles (by the Judaizers) and too d ep e n d en t on them and on the Jewish m oral tradition (by the Pneum atics), and (2) Paul having to assert his own equality with the Jerusalem apostles and argue for the futility of the Jewish law in 1:1-5:12 (against the Judaizers), and then having to check certain ethical excesses by appealing to a sum m ation of the Jewish law and to “the law of C hrist” in 5:13-6:10 (against the Pneum atics). Ropes built on L ütgert’s thesis, bu t developed it by claiming that n eith er group appears from the way in which Paul deals with them to be Jewish (Singular Problem) . The Pneum atics certainly were not. N or were the Judaizers, who m ost likely were simply Gentiles enam ored with the H ebraic elem ents of their Christian faith. In 1945 Frederic C. Crownfield rejected the Lütgert-Ropes position, because he could see no evidence for such a twofold opposition (JBL 63 [1945] 491-500). Instead, Crownfield proposed that the opponents were syncretistic in their stance, probably with a background in a jewish mystery cult that sought union with God in various ritualistic ways, including that of circumcision. So when they becam e Christians, Crownfield speculated, they m ust have b rought with them “the com bination of some Jewish rites with laxity in m orals” (ibid., 493). To such opponents, therefore, Paul had to stress (1) his own independence from the Jerusalem apostles, (2) the m utual exclusiveness of gospel and law, and (3) the m oral imperative of Christian liberty. In 1954Joh an n es M unck leveled a broadside against the Tübingen u nderstanding of the course of apostolic history (Paul and the Salvation of M ankind) . As M unck saw it, the difference between the Jerusalem apostles and Paul was n o t one of message (i.e., the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the futility of the law, and the inclusion of Gentiles) but had to do with Heilsgeschichte—that is, with w hether Gentiles were to be reached only after Israel’s full conversion, as the Jerusalem apostles expected, or, as Paul believed, a representative num ber of Gentiles m ust first be won to Christ before the Parousia and its accom panying full salvation for Jews

xcii

Introduction

would take place (ibid., 87-134). So Munck argued that Paul’s opponents at Galatia could n o t have been Jewish Judaizers, since there were no such persons before a .d. 70 (see also his ‘Jewish Christianity in Post-Apostolic Tim es,” N TS 6 [1960] 10316), b u t m ust have been Gentiles who m isunderstood P aul’s teaching about Jerusalem and were unduly affected by their reading of the OT. M unck focused for support o f his thesis on the present substantival participle oi περιτεμνόμενοι of Gal 6:13, arguing th at it should be read as a permissive m iddle and n o t as a passive (or as a “causative m iddle,” which would be equivalent to a passive): As the present participle in the m iddle voice of περιτέμνω never m eans “those who belong to the circum cision,” b u t everywhere else “those who receive circumcision,” th at m ust also be the case in Gal 6:13. T hat is m ade specially clear by the connexion between the two sentences. T he thought here is n o t of the jews or Judaizers in general, bu t specifically of the Judaizers am ong the Galatians. P aul’s opponents, who are agitating for Judaism am ong the Gentile Christian Galatians, are therefore themselves Gentile Christians. T heir circum cision is still in the present, so that all this judaizing m ovem ent is of recen t date (Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 89). Strangely, while laying great em phasis on 6:13, M unck gave little attention to the reference to persecution in 6:12 (“the only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of C hrist”) , and so did n o t attem pt to explain how this very im portant feature in P aul’s profile of his opponents could have been true for Gentile Christians who had no connection with Jerusalem . A. E. Harvey, however, sought to fill in this lacuna in M unck’s thesis by proposing that the pressure on these Gentile Judaizers came from local Jews in their endeavors to recover form er proselytes who had becom e Christians (“T he O pposition to P aul”). W alter Schmithals, in a 1956 article which he later revised for inclusion in his 1965 Paulus und die Gnostiker, advanced the thesis th at P aul’s op p o n en ts were Jewish-Christian Gnostics, who, though they practiced circum cision, prid ed themselves in n o t being d ep e n d en t on the Jerusalem apostles an d opposed Paul because he was (“Die H eretiker in G alatien,” Z N W 47 [1956] 25-67; which, as revised in 1965, was translated as “T he H eretics in G alatia,” in Paul and the Gnostics, 13-64). As Schm ithals sees it, Paul was “only m eagerly in fo rm ed ” about the situation at Galatia. T herefore, his discussion of faith and the law in chaps. 3-4 contains only “cu rren t topoi” such as were usually b ro u g h t in w hen dealing with Jews ab out salvation, b u t which have noth in g necessarily to do with the Galatian situation. So setting aside the relevance o f Gal 3-4, Schm ithals finds no basis for the Lü tgert-Ropes two-front theory—nor, m ore im portantly, any reason to postulate a judaizing problem am ong P aul’s converts. As Schm ithals sees it, it is the paraenetic section o f Galatians th at best reflects P aul’s inform ation about the situation and th at alone takes us into the real issues at stake. H e insists, therefore, th at at the h ea rt o f m atters was the question o f apostolic in d ep en d en ce, for in the eyes of the Gnostics the “purity o f the gospel and the non-m ediated character of the apostolate are inseparable” (ibid., 19). Thus it was th at P aul’s o p p onents at Galatia, taking a stance diam etrically opposed to th at o f the Jerusalem apostles, claim ed th at in being d ep e n d en t on the Jerusalem apostles Paul was perverting the purity o f the Christian gospel.

Introduction

xciii

In 1971 R obert Jew ett proposed an explanation of P aul’s opponents at Galatia in term s o f the Zealot m ovem ent th at was rising in Palestine, particularly during the procuratorship of V entidius C um anus (a .d. 48-52; N TS 17 [1971] 198-212). During the period from the late forties until the outbreak of the Jewish war in a.d. 66, the Zealots sought to purge Israel of all G entile elem ents in the hope that God would then bring in the Messianic Age. Absolute separation from the heathen world was what they wanted, and so their activities were directed against all Who had Gentile sympathies and all who associated with G entile sympathizers. As Jew ett puts it: Jewish Christians in Ju d ea were stim ulated by Zealot pressure into a nomistic campaign am ong their fellow Christians in the late forties and early fifties. T heir goal was to avert the suspicion that they were in com m union with lawless Gentiles. It appears that the Ju d ean Christians convinced themselves that circumcision of Gentile Christians would thwart Zealot reprisals (ibid., 205). Thus it was about this time, Jew ett believes, that agitators first appeared at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14), and then later at Galatia. As Jew ett sees it, the Judaizers’ strategy was n o t to oppose Paul bu t to offer a supplem ent to the Pauline message and so bring the Galatian Christians to perfection. “T he prom ise of perfection,’’Jew ett observes, “would have a powerful appeal to the Hellenistic Christians of Galatia, for such was the aim of the mystery religions as well as of classical philosophy” (ibid., 207). Circumcision and the observance of the cultic calendar, in fact, would be m ost congenial to P aul’s Galatian converts—though, so as n o t to weaken their case, the Judaizers m ade no m ention of being obligated to keep all the Mosaic law. At the same time, the Galatian Christians with their pagan backgrounds were as susceptible to libertinism as to Judaism . So since they believed that the Spirit gave them im m ediate immortality, they had little interest in ethical distinctions and were ju st as m uch in danger o f ethical excesses as apostasy. Taking up Jew ett’s suggestion that it was the op p o n en ts’ strategy n o t to oppose Paul directly b u t to offer a com pletion of his gospel, George Howard in 1979 has gone fu rth er to argue that probably the opponents actually thought o f themselves as in no way opposing Paul, either directly or indirectly, b u t considered him to be teaching circumcision and treated him as an ally (Paul: Crisis in Galatia, 1-19). Howard concisely states his position as follows: The view presented here is that rather than assuming that the opponents held the opposite position from the one they ascribed to Paul, they held in fact the same position they ascribed to him and considered him as their ally. If this is true it is most likely that the agitators were Jewish Christian judaizers from Jerusalem who preached circumcision and who said that Paul did the same because he like them was dependent on the Jerusalem apostles for his gospel (ibid., 9). As Howard views them , therefore, P aul’s Galatian opponents believed that they were only carrying on a ministry to Gentiles as they thought Paul would have done had he been able to rem ain longer in Galatia, and that it was Paul alone who saw their activities as opposed to the gospel. Thus Howard makes two assertions with regard to the identity of Paul’s opponents: “First it is clear that there is no need to

xciv

Introduction

postulate an opposition of syncretists, radical spiritualists, gnostics, or any com bination o f them . T he opponents were Jewish Christian judaizers connected with Jerusalem . Secondly, the opposition which appears in the letter is from the viewpoint o f Paul” (ibid., 11). In explication, Howard writes: While Paul was hostile to the judaizers, there is no indication th at they were hostile to him. P aul’s hostility to them was caused by his earlier clashes with o th er judaizers who had sought to u n d erm in e his work. Paul had h o p ed that such clashes were over since the Jerusalem m eeting with the “p illar” apostles an d his rep rim an d of Peter; hence his disappointm ent at the tu rn o f events is understandable. But there is no reason to believe that the cu rre n t judaizers were privy to these earlier clashes or to the agreem ents m ade at Jerusalem (ibid., 11). T he range of opinions as to the identity o f P aul’s opponents at Galatia seems at first glance rath er staggering. Each of the above-m entioned views has a history, each has m odern defenders, and each has been nuanced in various ways (for fu rth er treatm ents, cf. E. E. Ellis, “Paul and His O p p o n en ts”;J. G. Hawkins, “T he O pponents o f Paul in G alatia”) . It may be, as some believe, that we m ust adm it scholarship’s inability to make an identification, and so rem ain somewhat agnostic on the m atter (so H. Schlier, Galater, 19-24). Yet m ost are convinced that with suitable caution it is possible to delineate at least a general profile of those who were troubling the Galatian churches. Negatively, there is rath er widespread agreem ent on a few crucial points. First, almost all scholars today agree that the “Two-Front T heory” of L ütgert and Ropes is im p o ssib le to m a in ta in , sim ply b e c a u s e P a u l sp e ak s to his G a la tia n c o n v e rts as a more-or-less hom ogeneous group. Likewise, m ost find Schm ithal’s identification of the opponents as Gnostics to be difficult, since it m ust begin by resorting to the assum ption that Paul was poorly inform ed about the situation and then goes on to deny the relevance of what m ost interpreters consider to be the central portion of the letter (i.e., chaps. 3-4). Furtherm ore, it has difficulty in showing how or why the Gnostics argued for circumcision when they themselves had no judaizing tendencies (cf. R. McL. Wilson, “Gnostics in Galatia?”) . A third negative conclusion accepted by m ost is that M unck’s argum ent for the Gentile nature of the judaizing opposition to Paul is strained, being unsupported by his treatm ent of 6:13 and h in d ered by his neglect o f 6:12. A fourth generally accepted po in t is that the opponents were hardly indigenous to the situation, for Paul repeatedly refers to them as distinguishable from the Galatian Christians (cf. 1:7-9; 3:1; 4:17; 5:7, 12; 6:12-13). Indeed, Paul seems n o t to have known them , either personally or by nam e. H e refers to them generally as “some p eo p le” (τινβς*) and “anybody” (tls*) in his opening statem ent of the problem (1:7-9); he asks during the course of his treatm ent such questions as “W ho has bew itched you?” (3:1) and “Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the tru th ?” (5:7); and he warns, “T he one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he m ay b e” (5:10), with the singulars o f 1:9 and 5:10 best seen as generic singulars. Finally, it is generally agreed that, though they may have com e from the Jerusalem congregation and been in personal contact with the apostles there, the opponents in their judaizing activity were probably taking a line o f their own, and so were unsupported by the Jerusalem apostles.

Introduction

xcv

T he closest thing we get to a clear description of P aul’s opponents in Galatians is in the opening statem ent of 1:6-9 and the postscript of 6:11-18. In the first of these passages we learn that the agitators were perverting the gospel and throwing believers into confusion, with the ironic allusion to “an angel from heaven” suggesting th at they came with high qualifications a n d /o r were appealing to a higher authority than Paul. In the postscript we are told that they were prom oting circum cision for Gentile Christians and that Paul views their motivation as being a desire to avoid persecution. It is, therefore, these two passages that m ust hold center stage in any attem pt to characterize the opponents. Various inferences, however, can also be drawn from o th er data in the letter, though with dim inished clarity. For instance, from the way in which Paul defends his apostleship in 1:1 and 1:11-2:10, it may legitim ately be inferred that his standing as an apostle was in some way a focus of the o p p o n en ts’ attack, and that it was being unfavorably com pared to that of the “pillar” apostles at Jerusalem . Likewise, from the way in which Paul deals with (1) the futility of the Mosaic law as a m eans of salvation in 2:15-3:18 and (2) its purpose as a pedagogue in 3:19-4:7, it seems reasonable to assume that the opponents stressed the im portance of observing the law n o t only for being fully accepted by God b u t also as a p ro p e r Christian lifestyle. Such features—coupled with Paul’s specific counterargum ents having to do with Abraham (3:6-9), righteousness vis-a-vis the law (3:10-14), the covenant and its prom ise (3:15-18), the purpose of the law (3:19-4:7), and the supremacy o f “Jerusalem that is above” over “the present city of Jerusalem ” (4:2131)—strongly suggest that the opponents had a Jewish background and a Jerusalem orientation. O n the o th er hand, their preaching of a “gospel” message (1:67, which, of course, Paul calls “another gospel”) and their desire to avoid persecution “for the cross of C hrist” (6:12) point conclusively to their being Christians. We conclude, therefore, that Paul’s opponents were Jewish Christians—or, m ore accurately, Christian Jews—who came from the Jerusalem church to P aul’s churches in Galatia with a message stressing the n eed for Gentiles to be circum cised and to keep the rudim ents of the cultic calendar, both for full acceptance by God and as a p ro p er Christian lifestyle. U ndoubtedly they presented their message as being theologically based and claim ed to be only interested in Gentiles being fully integrated into the chosen people of Israel, and so full recipients of the blessings o f th e Abraham ic covenant. Probably, as well, they claim ed n o t to be opposing Paul b ut to be com pleting his message, and so bringing the Galatian Christians to perfection. Perhaps they also claim ed to be representing ja m e s’ pastoral concerns reg ard in g Jewish-Gentile relations in the Christian com m unities outside of Palestine. Paul, however, accuses them of being primarily motivated by a desire to avoid persecution, and so to boast about Gentiles being circumcised (6:12-13). In fact, P aul’s evaluation of their motives in 6:12-13— “they want to p u t up a good show in the flesh” in o rder “to avoid being persecuted for the cross of C hrist” and so “that they may boast about your flesh”—is probably the key to understanding the Judaizers. For, as Jew ett points out, in the rising tide of Jewish nationalism in Palestine, with the antagonism of the Zealots being directed against all who had Gentile sympathies and all who associated with Gentile sympathizers: If they could succeed in circumcising the Gentile Christians, this m ight effectively thwart any Zealot purification campaign against the Ju d ean church! . . .

xcvi

Introduction

T he nomistic Christians in Ju d ea would have am ple reason to boast if they could induce the Gentile churches to en ter the ranks of the circum cised, for such an achievem ent would release them from a m ortal threat levelled against all who dared to associate themselves with the ungodly and the uncircum cised. It was this hope o f public recognition for their loyalty to the Torah which lay behind P aul’s bitter words: “they wish to p u t up a good show in the flesh” (vi 12) (NTS 17 [1971] 206). 2. The Message of the Opponents Having identified P aul’s Galatian opponents as Jewish Christians from Jerusalem who were m otivated by concern for the welfare of Palestinian C hristians am idst the rising pressures of Jewish nationalism and so carried on a judaizing cam paign am ong P aul’s converts in the Diaspora in o rder to thwart any Zealot purification cam paign against the church back hom e, the question arises: Is it possible to go fu rth er and delineate the contours of their teaching in Galatia? T he problem , o f course, is that such an endeavor requires an even m ore extensive use of “m irro r read in g ,” and we cannot always be sure in P aul’s letter w here exposition alone is to the fore and where polem ic or apology is dom inant. Nevertheless, since exposition, polem ic, and apology so often seem to m erge, some inferences can be drawn. While an outline or o rd e r o f p resentation m ust rem ain obscure, some features of the Judaizers’ message can legitimately be highlighted. For openers, it seems safe to say that the opponents m ade it a m ajor feature of their presentation to discredit P aul’s apostolic credentials. For from the way in which he so vigorously and extensively defends both the independence and the equality of his apostleship vis-a-vis that o f the Jerusalem apostles in Gal 1-2—even to the p o in t o f recounting his opposition to Peter, the “m en from james,” and “even B arnabas” at Antioch (2:11-14)—it can be concluded that the opponents were arguing th at Paul was, in fact, d ep en d en t on and subordinate to the leadership of the m o th er church at Jerusalem (from whence, of course, they came and were accredited representatives). F. F. Bruce aptly draws together what can be inferred from a m irror reading of P aul’s defense on this m atter, and so speculates that the Judaizers m ust have argued as follows: “T he Jerusalem leaders are the only persons with authority to say what the true gospel is, and this authority they received direct from Christ. Paul has no com parable authority: any com m ission he exercises was derived by him from the Jerusalem leaders, and if he differs from them on the content or im plications of the gospel, he is acting and teaching quite arbitrarily. In fact,” they may have added, “Paul went up to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion and spent some time with the apostles there. They instructed him in the first principles of the gospel and, seeing that he was a m an of uncom m on intellect, m agnanim ously wiped out from their m inds his record as a persecutor and authorized him to preach to others the gospel which he had learned from them . But w hen he left Jerusalem for Syria and Cilicia he began to adapt the gospel to make it palatable to Gentiles. T he Jerusalem leaders practised circum cision and observed the law and the customs, b u t Paul struck out on a line of his own, om itting circum cision and o th er ancient observances from the message he preached, and thus he betrayed his ancestral heritage. This law-free gospel has no authority but his own;

Introduction

xcvii

he certainly did n o t receive it from the apostles, who disapproved of his course o f action. T heir disapproval was publicly shown on one occasion at Antioch, w hen there was a direct confrontation between Peter and him on the necessity o f m aintaining the Jewish food-laws” ( Galatians, 26). A fu rth e r feature o f the Judaizers’ message m ust have been on being rightly related to A braham and the A braham ic covenant, and so on being legitim ately A braham ’s sons and experiencing fully the blessings of G od’s covenant with A braham (and, by extension, the people of Israel). P aul’s exposition of the faith o f A braham in 3:6-9 (“he believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness”; “all nations will be blessed in you”), his polem ic on the n ature of the covenant an d the focus o f its prom ise in 3:15-18 (established with A braham apart from the law, with its prom ises being focused particularly on A braham ’s Seed, “who is C hrist”), his application of that polem ic to the situation at h an d in 3:29 (“if you belong to Christ, th en you are A braham ’s seed, an d heirs according to the p rom ise”), his allegorical treatm en t o f H agar and Sarah and their sons in 4:2131, and his use o f the expression “the Israel of G od” for his Galatian converts in 6:16— all these, to ju d g e by their prom inence in P aul’s argum ent, strongly suggest th at A braham and the A braham ic covenant loom ed large in the Judaizers’ teaching. T h ro u g h o u t his treatm ent of these m atters Paul seems to be interacting with a typically Jewish attitude, as expressed m ost clearly in the Talm ud, th at tru th comes in two guises, the first in an elem ental form and the second in a developed form (cf. D. Daube, “Public R etort and Private E xplanation,” The New Testament and Rabbinicjudaism [London: A thlone, 1965] 141-50)—and that he is countering in particular the Judaizers’ application of this Jewish m otif to the effect th at P aul’s message was an elem ental form o f the gospel proclam ation while theirs is the developed. T he Ju daizers’ argum ent could very well have ru n along the following lines: (1) while Paul directed the Galatians to Gen 15:6, they m ust realize th at the developed form o f G od’s covenant with A braham appears in Gen 17:4-14, with its req u irem en t o f circum cision em phatically stated in vv 10-14; (2) while Paul spoke only of A braham , the full developm ent o f Israel’s religious legislation came with Moses; (3) while Paul spoke o f the prom ises o f the gospel, the prom ises were in actuality m ade to A braham and to his “seed,” which m eans the nation; and (4) while Paul assured his converts that by accepting the gospel they becam e sons of Abraham , the question m ust be raised as to which son they represent, for Abraham h ad two sons— the first being Ishm ael, with Isaac bo rn later. To this line o f argum ent, as we have seen, Paul responds by asserting th at Christ an d C hrist’s own are A braham ’s true “seed” (3:16, 29). F urtherm ore, he insists th at the covenant with A braham was confirm ed by God four h u n d re d and thirty years before the giving o f the Mosaic law, and so having been confirm ed, it can n eith er be an nulled n o r added to by later developm ents (3:15-18). And in regard to the claim th at his message represents an Ishm aelian form o f truth, he responds in ra th e r circum stantial and ad hom inem fashion (note the two uses o f μέν, “in d e e d ,” in vv 23-24) that he can allegorize as well: it is H agar, who has contacts with Mt. Sinai (from w hence came the law th at the Judaizers so ex to l), who should be associated with the present jerusalem , which explains the bondage ofjerusalem an d h e r emissaries; it is, however, Sarah, Isaac, and spiritual Jerusalem who are

xcviii

Introduction

involved in the prom ises o f God, and we are children of prom ise in association with them (4:22-28). Included as well in the Judaizers’ presentation seem to be charges that Paul, as a m atter o f fact, actually did preach and practice circum cision, b u t th at he w ithheld this m ore developed rite only so as to gain his converts’ initial favorable response. Thus, in effect, he was m ore interested in w inning their approval than G od’s approval (cf. 1:10), since he really did believe in circum cision and m ade it a part o f his ministry elsewhere (cf. 5:11). So as they saw it, there was n eed for accredited emissaries from Jerusalem to bring P aul’s truncated m inistry at Galatia to com pletion (cf. 1:6-7). Perhaps the Judaizers charged Paul with advocating circum cision because o f their garbled version o f the Titus episode at Jerusalem (2:1-5)—or, if Galatians be dated later than we’ve proposed, because of P aul’s circum cision of Tim othy (cf. Acts 16:1-3), whose status in Jewish eyes stem m ed from his jew ish m other. Perhaps the charge arose from their knowledge that Paul approved of jewish believers in Jesus expressing th eir faith in the traditional form s of Judaism (cf. his later words on this m atter in 1 Cor 7:17-20). O r perhaps they simply knew that Paul him self continued to live a basically jewish lifestyle (cf. 1 Cor 9:19-23; see also my “The Problem Practices of Acts,” in Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 24563). What, however, they evidently failed to appreciate is that Paul m ade a distinction between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians— though, obviously, n o t at all in the same way as they did. So while he saw it as perfectly legitim ate for Jewish Christians to express their faith in Jesus through the traditional Jewish practices, he strenuously opposed the im position of these practices on Gentile Christians either for full acceptance by God or as a norm ative way of life. O n a practical basis, the opponents at Galatia m ust also have included in their message an em phasis on the Jewish law as the divinely ap p o in ted way to check libertinism within the church. P aul’s em phases on (1) the pedagogical function o f the law com ing to an en d with Christ, in 3:19-4:7, and (2) living by the direction o f the Spirit (as opposed to life directed by law) as the antidote to libertinism , in 5:13-26, suggest th at n o t only did the o p p onents argue circum cision as a prerequisite for being fully accepted by God b u t also th at they asserted th at life lived u n d e r the T o rah—which m eant for them a Jewish lifestyle—was the only way to bring the excesses o f the flesh into line. T he rep eated m ention o f “the flesh” (σαρξ, or “the sinful n a tu re ”) in 5:13-21 im plies quite clearly th at the Galatian churches were having ethical problem s or at least were acutely conscious of ethical failures. For such problem s the Judaizers offered a ra th e r straightforw ard and seemingly G od-honoring solution: accept a Jewish nom istic lifestyle an d you will have clear guidance as to what is right and wrong, and so be able to live a life that pleases God. Ju st as P aul’s message, they probably added, being only elem ental in nature, was n o t able to relate you properly to A braham and the A braham ic covenant for full salvation, so it failed to relate you to the divine T orah and a Jewish lifestyle for p ro p e r Christian living. Thus you need to accept circum cision to be fully accepted by God into the A braham ic covenant, and you n eed to take on a Jewish lifestyle in o rd er to live in a m an n er th at checks the excesses o f your sinful, Gentile natures an d enables you to please God in your lives. T h eir message was, therefore, in effect, one of both legalism for full salvation and nom ism for Christian living (cf. my Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 78-83, on the use o f “legalism ” and “nom ism ”).

Introduction

XC1X

3. The Situation in the Churches The situation at Galatia was serious, n o t just, of course, because of the presence of Judaizers, b u t because the Judaizers had persuaded Gentile Christians to turn away from “the tru th of the gospel” (2:5, 14) to “a different gospel—which is no t at all the same gospel” (1:6-7). T heir argum ents were persuasive (cf. 3:1; 5:7-8), and those who claim ed the nam e of Christ were beginning to carry out their directives (cf. 4:9-11). As yet, however, Paul’s converts seem n o t to have subm itted to the rite o f circumcision, and so Paul exhorts them to stand firm in their Christian freedom (5:1)—even, in fact, expressing confidence that they will (5:10). In addition to this judaizing threat b rought in from the outside, there was in the Galatian churches the threat of libertinism , which appears to have been present from the very beginning. In the m idst of his treatm ent of libertinism in 5:13-6:10, Paul tells his converts: “I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will n o t in herit the kingdom of G od” (5:21). So while it is clear that in dealing with the judaizing problem Paul is countering a theology b rought in by others, in treating the th reat o f libertinism it is equally clear that he is opposing a view that was indigenous. Are we th en to think of two parties in the churches of Galatia that were diametrically opposed to each other—a legalistic group and a libertine group— som ething like the warring parties in the C orinthian congregation (cf. 1 Cor 1:1012)? By the way in which Paul seems to be addressing rath er hom ogeneously all his Galatian converts in both his anti-judaizing polem ic and his anti-libertine argum ent, probably not. In countering the judaizing threat, he seems to characterize all the Galatian Christians as “foolish Galatians” (3:1); in speaking to the libertine problem, he likewise seems to assume that he is speaking to all the believers, as the equation o f υμεΐς* oi πνευματικοί, “you who are spiritual,” with αδελφοί, “b ro th ers,” suggests (6:1). F urtherm ore, as R obert Jew ett points out: In the anti-libertinistic section (v. 13-vi. 10) there are answers to questions raised by the nomistic influx. In v. 14 Paul shows that Christian love replaces the law while in v. 23 he assures the Galatians that the law will not condem n the fruits which flow from the Spirit. In vi. 2 he states that behaviour based on love would “fulfil the law o f Christ.” This shows that the ethic arrayed against libertinism was phrased as a replacem ent of the law and was directed to the congregation as a whole ju st as the earlier portions of the letter were (N TS 17 [1971] 210). So with Jew ett we conclude: Paul viewed the congregation as a m ore or less hom ogeneous u n it capable of being swayed in this direction and that. . . . T he Hellenistic assum ptions of this congregation were as susceptible to the propaganda of the agitators as to the lures of libertinism (ibid., 209). O n the m uch m ore difficult question of exactly how m uch of the Mosaic law the Galatian Christians expected to assume—or how m uch the Judaizers taught them it was necessary to assume—it is impossible to say. Paul, of course, argues that “every m an who lets him self be circum cised . . . is obligated to obey the whole law” (5:3) and accuses his opponents of n o t fully obeying the law themselves (6:13). From

Introduction

c

these statem ents it has been variously argued th at (1) “these false teachers can hardly have been Judaizers” else Paul would n o t have been able to point o u t their deficiencies o f teaching and practice (W. Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics, 33-34; cf. F. C. Crownfield, “The Singular Problem ,”JBL 63 [1945] 500: “This would be impossible for real Judaizers, bu t quite natural for the syncretists”) , (2) the opponents were from non-Pharisaic Jewish backgrounds and so did n o t themselves hold to a rigid understanding of the law (e.g., J. G. Hawkins, “T he O pponents of Paul in Galatia,” 3 4 4-46), (3) the opponents agreed theoretically with Paul and so taught the Galatians, bu t were insincere in their own practice (e.g., J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 222), or (4) the opponents taught com plete obedience to the law, bu t from P aul’s perspective they were n o t keeping it as scrupulously as their teaching d em anded (e. g., G. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia, 15). M irror reading P aul’s words at this point, however, seems to fail us, for though 5:3 and 6:13 clearly express his criticisms, they tell us nothing necessarily about how his opponents themselves or their in tended converts viewed m atters. I tend to agree with Jew ett th at probably the Judaizers asked for the G alatians’ observance of only the m ost obvious requirem ents, and so did n o t im pose on them the whole law, which would have been unnecessary for their purpose and would only weaken their case. But th at opinion is drawn from conclusions reached as to the Judaizers’ prim ary purpose and does n o t arise as an inference from P aul’s words in 5:3 and 6:13, though it is n o t in conflict with such statem ents. E p is t o l a r y

and

R h e t o r ic a l S t r u c t u r e s

Bibliography Aune, D. “Review of H ans D ieter Betz, G alatians” RSR 7 (1981)323-28. Betz, H. D. “T he Literary Com position and Function of P aul’s L etter to the G alatians,” N TS 21 (1975) 35379. ————. Galatians, 14-33. Bjerkelund, C. Parakalô. Bligh, J. Galatians. Brinsmead, B. H. Dialogical Response. Caird, G. B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Corbett, E. P. J. Classical Rhetoricfor the Modem Student. Corbett, E. P. J., ed. Rhetorical Analyses of Literary Works. Dahl, N. A. “P aul’s L etter to the Galatians: Epistolary G enre, C ontent, an d S tructure.” U npublished Society o f Biblical L iterature Paul Sem inar p ap er, 1974. Daube, D. “Rabbinic M ethods of In terpretation and H ellenistic R hetoric.” HUCA 22 (1949) 2 3 9 -6 4 . Deissmann, A. Light from the Ancient East, 224-46. Dixon, P. Rhetoric. Doty, W. G. “T he Classification o f Epistolary L iterature.” CBQ 31 (1969) 1 8 5 -8 9 .————. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Exler, F. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter. Funk, R.W . Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God, 250-74. ————. “T he Apostolic Parousia: Form an d Significance.” In Christian History and Interpretation. FS J. Knox, ed. W. R. Farm er, C. F. D. Moule, an d R. R. N iebuhr. Cambridge: C am bridge University Press, 1967. 249-68. Grant, R. M. “Hellenistic Elements in Galatians.” A TR 34 (1952) 223-26. Hansen, G. W. Abraham in Galatians. Hay, D. M. “W hat Is Proof? Historical Verification in Philo, Josephus, an d Q u intilian.” SBLASP 17:2 (1979) 87-100. Jeremias,J. “Chiasmus in den P aulusbriefen.” Z N W 49 (1958) 1 4 5 56. Kennedy, G. A. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. ————. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 3 0 0 b. c. - a .d . 300. — — — — . New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, esp. 144-52. Kessler,M. “A Methodological Setting for Rhetorical Criticism.” Semitics 4 (1974) 22-36. ————. “An Introduction to Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: Prolegom ena.” Semitics 7 (1980) 1-27. Kim, C. H. The Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation. ————. “T he Papyrus Invitation.” JBL 94 (1975) 391-402. Koskenniemi, H. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Longenecker, R. N. “O n

Introduction

Cl

the F orm .” Malherbe, A. J. Social Aspects.————. Moral Exhortation. Meecham,H. G. Light from Ancient Letters. Meeks, W. A. “Review of H. D. Betz, Galatians.”JBL 100 (1981) 3 0 4 7. Milligan, G. Documents, 83-107, 255-61. Mullins, T. Y. “Petition as a Literary F orm .” NovT 5 (1962) 46-54. ————. “Disclosure as a Literary Form in the New T estam ent.” NovT 7 (1964) 4 4 -5 0 .————. “Formulas in N ew1T estam ent Epistles.” JBL 91 (1972) 38090. ————. “Visit Talk in the New T estam ent Letters.” C1?Q 35 (1973) 350-58. Roller, 0 .— — — — DasFormular. Sanders, J. T. “T he Transition from O p ening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline C orpus.” JBL 81 (1962) 348-62. Schubert, P. Pauline Thanksgivings. Stowers, S. K. Letter Writing. Sykutris, J. “E pistolographie.” In PW, S upplem ent 5, 218-19. Wendland, P. Die urchristlichen Literaturformen. White, J. L. “Introductory Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Letter.” JBL 90 (1971) 91-97. ————. The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter. ————. The Form and Structure of the Official Petition. ————. “Epistolary Form ulas and Cliches in the G reek Papyrus Letters.” SBLASP 14 (1978) 289-319. ————. “T he G reek D ocum entary L etter Tradition, T hird Century b .c.e. to T hird Century c.e.” Semeia 22 (1981) 89-106. White, J. L. an d Kensinger, K.— — — — “Categories of G reek Papyrus L etters.” SBLASP 10 (1976) 79-91.

Since form and content are inseparable in the study of any writing, it is necessary to give attention n o t only to what is said b u t also to how it is said—that is, to the forms used to convey m eaning and to the function served by each particular form. T herefore, p rio r to considering the specific content of Galatians (i.e., prior to exegesis p ro p er), it is essential that we analyze the epistolary and rhetorical structures o f the letter (for a m ore extensive analysis, see G. W. H ansen, Abraham in Galatians, Part 1, 21-93), with those analyses then being taken into account at each stage in the interpretation. 1.— — — — The Literary Genre As is well known, A dolf Deissm ann was so im pressed by the correspondence in form between P aul’s letters and the “tru e ” or “real letters” (wirkliche Briefe) of the nonliterary papyri— th at is, letters that arose from a specific situation and were in ten d ed only for the eyes of the person o r persons to whom they were addressed, an d n o t for the public at large or with the studied art of the “literary epistles” of the day— th at he concluded: “I have no hesitation in m aintaining the thesis that all the letters o f Paul are real, non-literary letters. Paul was n o t a w riter of epistles b u t o f letters; he was n o t a literary m a n ” {Light from the Ancient East, 232; cf. 2 2 4 46). W hat Deissm ann was trying to correct by such a statem ent were views then cu rren t of Paul as a systematic theologian, or as a ra th e r d ecadent classicist, or as m echanically inspired by God (cf. W. G. Doty, CBQ 31 [1969] 185-89). W hat, on the o th er hand, he was attem pting to highlight were the genuine, unaffected religious im pulses that can be seen in P aul’s letters and the definite, unrepeatable situations to which they spoke. With regard to Galatians, Deissm ann characterized it as “the offspring of passion, a fiery utterance of chastisem ent and defense, n o t at all a treatise ‘De lege et evangelio’; the reflection ra th e r o f genius flashing like sum m er lig h tning” (Light from the Ancient East, 237). Deissmann’s emphasis on Paul’s letters as real letters written to specific people in response to particular situations has been accepted by most as valid and helpful (e.g., P. W endland, Die urchristlichen Literaturformen, 344; J. Sykutris, “Epistolographie,” 218-19; O. Roller, Das Formular, 32). Yet laudatory and im portant as it is, subseq u en t study has b rought to light at least four ways in which D eissm ann’s thesis needs to be n u anced m ore carefully. In the first place, it is widely recognized today

cii

Introduction

th at Deissm ann’s classification of Paul’s letters as “private” letters as opposed to “public” letters is somewhat m isleading, for P aul’s letters are n o t merely private, personal com m unications—at least no t “private” and “personal” in the usual sense of those terms. They were written to Christian believers for instruction in their com m on life together by one who was self-consciously an apostle, and so an official representative o f early Christianity. As George Milligan long ago pointed out: T he letters o f St. Paul may n o t be epistles, if by that we are to u n d erstan d literary com positions w ritten w ithout any th o u g h t of a particular body o f readers. At the same time, in view of the tone of authority adopted by th eir author, and the general principles with which they deal, they are equally far rem oved from the un stu d ied expression of personal feeling, which we associate with the idea of a true letter. And if we are to describe them as letters at all, it is well to define the term still fu rth e r by the addition of some such distinguishing ep ith et as “m issionary” or “pastoral.” It is n o t m erely St. Paul the m an, b u t St. Paul the spiritual teacher and guide who speaks in them th ro u g h o u t (Documents, 95). O r as D onald J. Selby says: “These letters are not, strictly speaking, private letters. As their character clearly shows, they were written to be read before the congregation to which they were addressed. T he second person plural, the allusions to various persons, and the greetings and salutations make them group com m unications” ( Toward the Understanding of St. Paul, 239). Galatians in particular, while com parable in many ways to the private letters o f the nonliterary papyri, indicates by its stress on apostleship (e.g., 1:1,11-12; 2:8; 6:17), its address to “the churches o f Galatia” (1:2; cf. 3:1), its tone o f authority, and its style o f teaching that it is m ore than merely a private letter, bu t m ust be understood as a missionary or pastoral letter w ritten to a com m unity (or com m unities) of Christians. A second correction that needs to be m ade in D eissm ann’s thesis has to do with his contention that P aul’s letters lack form or structure, except for a few stereotyped conventions and customary form ulae in the salutations, thanksgivings, and closings. This was a deduction Deissmann drew from his prem ise that P aul’s letters are nonliterary, personal com m unications as opposed to literary, artistic pro d u ctions. But the conclusion is a non sequitur, for recent study has dem onstrated the existence of many conventional forms and structural features both in the com m on, private letters of the Hellenistic period and in the Pauline corpus (cf. esp. J. L. W hite, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter; idem , The Form and Structure of the Official Petition; C. H. Kim, The Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation). T here is, o f course, a wide range o f literary styles in the extant, real letters of P aul’s day. Yet there are certain epistolary conventions that can be observed in those letters as well as in P aul’s letters—conventions to be found n o t only in the salutations, thanksgivings, and closings, bu t also in the bodies of the letters (contra B. H. Brinsmead, Dialogical Response, 78 n. 2, who sides with Deissmann and J. Weiss in claiming that “the Pauline letters at least will continue to be conceived as salutation, thanksgiving, and closing, with virtually anything in any o rd er thrown in betw een”). So while it is p ro p e r to speak of Galatians as a passionate, real letter, that should n o t be taken to m ean that we may ignore the various epistolary conventions and form ulae that appear th ro u g h o u t its body. An awareness of such literary forms, in fact, enables us to move beyond D eissm ann’s

Introduction

ciii

view th at Galatians in its central sections is rath er chaotic and u nstructured—and so to in terp ret P aul’s message m ore adequately. A third way in which D eissm ann’s thesis needs to be m odified has to do with his distinction between a letter and an epistle, which distinction m ust be stated m ore carefully in view of the wide variety of types o f letters found am ong the nonliterary papyri (cf. my treatm ents of “Letters in Antiquity,” “Pastoral Letters,” and “Tractate Letters,” in O n the Form ,” 101-6). Demetrius in his handbook On Style listed twentyone types of real letters, with Proclus expanding the list to forty-one—for example, letters of friendship, recom m endation, request, inform ation, instruction, consolation, praise, thanksgiving, accusation, apology, introduction, interrogation, invitation, and rebuke, with some letters evidencing a m ixture of types (cf. W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity, 10; also T. Y. Mullins, N ovT 5 [1962] 46-54; C. H. Kim, JBL 94 [1975] 391-402; J . L . White and K .Kensinger, SBLASP 10 [1976] 79-91). O f course, none of Paul’s letters corresponds exactly to the types described in the handbooks or as exemplified in the papyri. Nevertheless, an examination of the purpose, m ood, style, and structure of each of P aul’s letters provides a basis for classifying it roughly according to one or the o th er of the then-existing types of Hellenistic letters. O ne exam ple would be Philem on as a letter of recom m endation; others are Philippians as a letter of thanksgiving and 1 C orinthians as a letter o f response and instruction. Likewise, to anticipate o u r discussion in what follows, Galatians should probably be seen as a letter of rebuke and request. Finally, it needs be said that Deissm ann’s rath er simple classification of P aul’s letters as real letters needs to be am ended fu rth er to take into account P aul’s use o f o th er literary traditions as well, such as his use of then-current rhetorical forms and m odes o f persuasion, chiastic structures, m idrashic exegetical procedures, early Christian hymns a n d /o r confessional form ulae, and fixed paraenetic m aterial. So though Deissmann was right to insist on the real, private Hellenistic letter as “the prim ary literary Gattung to which P aul’s letters b elong” (so J. L. W hite, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, xii), that m ust n o t be taken to exclude P aul’s eclectic use of o ther literary traditions as well, as drawn from his Hellenistic, Jewish, and Christian backgrounds. H ans D ieter Betz dismisses the real, private letter as an appropriate literary genre for understanding the structure o f Galatians, arguing instead for what he calls the “apologetic letter” genre (NTS 21 [1975] 354; idem , Galatians, 14; so also B. H. Brinsmead, Dialogical Response, 42, passim ). Betz sees in Plato’s Epistle 7 the p reced en t for such a genre, and cites Isocrates’ Antidosis, D em osthenes’ De Corona, C icero’s Brutus, and L ibanius’s Oratio 1 in support. H e admits, however, that “the subsequent history of the genre is difficult to trace since m ost of the p ertin en t literature did n o t survive” ( Galatians, 15). Nevertheless, he quotes with approval A rnaldo M om igliano’s rem ark that “one vaguely feels the Platonic p recedent in Epicurus, Seneca, and perhaps St. P aul”—and goes on to assert, “the cautious ‘p erh ap s’ is no longer necessary” (ibid.). Betz also sees Galatians as an exam ple of the “magical letter” (Himmelsbrief), though n o t so m uch to describe the epistolary genre o f Galatians as to provide a basis for his suggestion that Paul expected his letter to bring im m ediate curses (cf. 1:8-9) or blessings (cf. 6:16) on his converts, d epending on their response. So he cites a n um ber of examples of magical letters from K. Preisendanz Papyri GraecaiMagicae (new ed. A. H enrichs, 2 vols. [Stuttgart: T eubner, 1973-74]. But as W. A. Meeks rhetorically asks, “Will anyone who has

civ

Introduction

actually read the Zauberpapyri to which Betz refers, and then reads Galatians, really im agine that he is reading the same kind of literature?” (JBL 100 [1981] 306). T he basis for Betz’s confidence in Galatians as typical of the apologetic letter genre o f antiquity, however, starts to crum ble when one looks m ore closely at the Greek and Rom an autobiographical essays with which he com pares Galatians, for there is a fundam ental difference between them and Galatians: these so-called letters o f apology are in reality n o t real letters at all. As R. G. Bury in his introduction to Plato’s Letter 7 observes: [It is] probable that n o t only is this letter an “o p e n ” letter addressed ra th e r to the general public than to the parties nam ed in the superscription, but that the superscription itself is merely a literary device. The letter was never m eant to be sent to Sicily at a ll. .. so that what Plato is doing in this letter is to indulge in a literary fiction which enables him to publish in epistolary form what is at once a history, an apology, and a m anifesto (Plato, LCL [London: H einem ann, 1966] 9:474). Likewise, Isocrates’ Antidosis is n o t a letter but, as its au th o r him self calls it, “a discourse which would be, as it were, a true image of my thought and of my whole life” (Antidosis 7), and so a defense calculated to dissipate prejudice against him. Isocrates’ defense clearly echoes Socrates’ defense as presented by Plato in the Apology (so A. Momigliano, Development of Greek Biography, 59). Yet the Antidosis is m ore discursive than strictly a legal defense to be presented before a court, for, as Isocrates points out, “some things in my discourse are appropriate to be spoken in a courtroom ; others are out o f place am id such controversies, being frank discussions about philosophy” (Antidosis 10). D em osthenes’ De Corona is also hardly to be com pared to a real letter, being a speech delivered in August, 330 b .c ., before a ju ry o f m ore than five h u n d re d citizens o f A thens (cf. C. A. V ance’s com m ents in Demosthenes, LCL [London: H einem ann, 1963] 2:14-15). As well, C icero’s Brutus is no letter b u t a lengthy defense o f his position by m eans of a review o f Rom an procedures o f oratory (cf. Cicero, LCL [London: H einem ann, 1962] 5:5), while L ibanius’s autobiography, his Oratio 1, is an im itation o f Isocrates’ Antidosis (so A. M om igliano, Development of Greek Biography, 60)— with n eith er com parable eith er in form or in co n ten t to P aul’s Galatians. In fact, n one of these claim ed precedents for Galatians really illum inates the epistolary structure of Galatians, for no n e is a real letter. T hus we m ust agree with Wayne M eeks’ criticism o f Betz and his proposed “apologetic le tte r” genre: “Betz does n o t inspire confidence in his th esis... by referring alm ost exclusively to rhetorical and epistolary theory ra th e r than to specific exam ples of real apologies an d real letters from antiquity. H e does n o t offer us a single instance o f the apologetic letter with which we can com pare Galatians. We are th erefo re asked to in terp re t Galatians as an exam ple of a genre for which no o th er exam ple can apparently be cited” (JBL 100 [1981] 306). T he classification of Galatians as an apologetic letter has m ore to do with the style o f the letter’s argum ent than with its epistolary structure. Indeed, autobiography, apology, and defense are im portant factors for any rhetorical analysis of Galatians. But rhetorical analyses m ust n o t be confused with or replace attem pts to describe the letter’s structure. Betz, of course, believes that the epistolary fram ework of Galatians can be easily rem oved “as a kind of external bracket for the

Introduction

cv

body o f the letter” ( Galatians, 15), so that what is left is rhetoric or an “apologetic speech”— which Betz, followed by Brinsm ead, th en analyzes in term s of the rules for forensic speech as found in the classical rhetorical handbooks. Certainly, rhetorical analyses of Galatians are often of great value, and m ust be discussed at greater length later. H ere I would only point out that n eith er Betz n o r Brinsm ead has given sufficient attention to an epistolary analysis of Galatians, and so they have too quickly concluded that “the epistolary nature of Galatians has little consequence for the structure of its contents” (quoting Brinsm ead, Dialogical Response, 37, who even asserts that “papyri give us no help in understanding the overall structure o f P aul’s letters” [ibid., 39]). In contradistinction, I agree with j . L. W hite and others that “the com m on letter tradition, though certainly n o t the only tradition on which Paul depends, is the prim ary literary Gattung to which P aul’s letters belo n g ” ( The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, x ii). And it is on this basis th at I in tend to begin the discussion of the structure of Galatians. 2. Epistolary Analysis Greek letters began with an opening form ula (“A to B,” or at times “To B from A,” with the greeting χαίρειν, lit. “rejoice”; collogicially “hail” or “greetings”) and en d ed with a closing form ula (e.g.,eppakr0ai σε εύχομαι, “I pray you good h ea lth ,” έρρώσθαι σε βούλομαι, “I wish you good h ealth ,” or simply ερρωσο, “good health, farewell”) . Between the opening and the closing, a num ber of rath er conventional form ulae com m only appeared. Analyses of the nonliterary papyri have produced a substantial list of such form ulae, of which the following for our purposes are most significant (for texts and ET, see j. L. White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter): Thanksgiving: γινώσκειν σε θέλω, πάτερ, δτι ευχαριστώ πολλά Ίσιδώρω τώ έπιτρόπω έπε'ι συνέστακέ μοι, “I wish you to know, father, that la m greatly thankful to Isidorus the guardian, since he has advised m e” (BGU 816); Prayer: προ μεν πάντων εϋχομέ σαι ύγειένειν και προκόπτειν, άμα δε καί τό προσκύνημά σου ποιούμε ήμερησ'ιως* παρά τοΐς* πατρώες* θεοΐς*, “before all things I pray for your health and success; at the time I also make daily obeisance for you before our ancestral gods” (PMich 209:3-6); Expression of Joy: λιάν έχάρην άκούσασα δτι, “I rejoiced exceedingly when I heard th a t” (PGiess 21:3); Astonishment-Rebuke: θαυμάζω πώς*, “I am surprised how” (POxy 113:20); Expression of Gnef or Distress: άκούσας* δτι νωθρεύη άγωνιούμεν, “I am anxious because I heard you were ill” (BGU 449:4); Reminder of Past Instruction: ώς* ήρώτηκά σ ε, “as I have asked you” (PMich 202:3); Disclosure: γινώσκειν σε θέλω δτι, “I want you to know th a t” (PGiess 11:4), or γνώριζε ουν, “know th erefo re” (PMich 28:16), or αλλά οίδα δτι, “bu t I know th a t” (POxy 1219:11); Request: παρακαλώ σαι, μήτηρ, διαλάγητί μοι, “I beg you, m other, be reconciled to m e ” (B G U 846:10),o r έρωτηθείς* ουν, άδελφε,τάχιόν μοι γράφιν, “Itherefore ask you, brother, to write me at once” (PMich 209:9-10), or δέομαι ουν σου, βασιλεύ, εΐ σοι δοκεΐ, “I entreat you therefore, king, if it pleases you” (PEnteux 82:6); Use of the Verb for Heanng or Learning: ά κούσας* δε τά κατά τον Πτολεμαίον έλυπήθην σφόδρα, “I was deeply grieved to hear about the case of Ptolemaeus”

cvi

Introduction

(PTebt 760:20); έλοιπήθην έπιγνοϋσα παρά, “I was grieved to learn from ” (POxy 930:4); περί with the Genitive :καί περί τών χωρίων, “an d ab o u tth e fields” (POxy 1220:23); Notification ofa Coming Visit θεών ουν βουλομενων, προς· την εορτήν... πειράσομαι προς* υμάς· γενεσθαι, “If the gods will, therefore, I will try to com e to you . . . for the feast” (POxy 1666:11); Reference to Writing: εγραψας· ήμΐν ότι, “you wrote us th a t” (PMich 36:1); Verbs of Saying and Informing: e pi σοι δε Άπολινάρις* πώς·, “Apolinarius will tell you how” (POxy932:3); καί δηλωσόν μοι πόσαι έξεβησανϊνα ειδώ, “and inform me how m any came out so that I may know” (PFay 122:14); Expression of Reassurance: τούτο μή νομίσης- ότι, “do not think that” (PMich 206:11); Responsibility Statement: μή άμελήσης* εν τή αυριον άπαντήσαι προς· ήμάς·, do n o t neglect to come and m eet us tom orrow ” (PAmh 143:2); The Use of the Vocative to Indicate Transition: φανερόν σοι ποιώ, άδελφε, “I make known to you, b ro th e r” (PMich 206:4-5). Two m atters with regard to the frequency and function of these form ulae in ancient letters n eed here to be highlighted. In the first place, as T. Y. Mullins points out, “The use of oneform tends to precipitate the use of others with i f (JBL 91 [1972] 387 [italics his]); and second, “They alm ost always punctuate a break in the w riter’s th o u g h t” (ibid.). Thus, as Mullins goes on to elaborate: T he opening is a sort of warm-up for the m ain issue and provides a convenient clustering place for m atters less im portant than the m ain issue (but n o t necessarily introductory to it). T he closing constitutes the final com m unication and is a natural clustering place for m atters of m inor im portance which the writer wants to add before breaking off. But in a letter of any considerable length there will be places where a writer will pause and break the flow o f his thought for a m om ent. He may m ark such places with epistolary forms whose relevance to the m ain subject m atter will vary according to the way the writer thinks and expresses him self (ibid.). So in studying a Greek letter (Galatians included), we n eed to be alert to the clustering o f various epistolary form ulae at certain strategic points and the use of such clusters to signal significant breaks or turning points in the letter. A scanning of Paul’s letters reveals that they are usually constructed according to the following pattern, which is in line with the structure of Hellenistic letters generally: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Opening (sender, addressee or addressees, greeting); Thanksgiving or Blessing (often with an intercession); Body (formal opening, connective and transitional form ulae, eschatological climax, and sometimes a travelogue); Paraenesis (with vocatives prevalent); Closing (greetings, doxology, benediction, with a reference to the writing process sometimes in clu d ed ).

F urtherm ore, a scanning o f his letters indicates that Paul used ra th e r freely many o f the epistolary form ulae of his day. Yet though he used the conventions and

Introduction

cvii

form ulae o f Hellenistic letter writing, he seems n o t confined to them . For exam ple, the thanksgiving sections which follow m ost of his salutations (except in Galatians) are generally in line with G reek epistolary style, b u t also appear to reflect Christian liturgical practice. N or does Paul use the cu rren t epistolary conventions and form ulae in any slavish m anner. These were m atters th at were “in the air” and widely practiced, and P aul’s use of them should therefore probably be seen as m ore unconscious adaptations of standard conventions than studied attem pts to write in an acceptable fashion. As R obert Funk aptly says in closing his review of the form al features o f P aul’s letters: It should be em phasized that these elem ents are subject of variation in both context and order, and that some items are optional, although the omission of any one calls for explanation. It is p u t this way around on the view that Paul is n o t rigidly following an established pattern, bu t is creating his own letter form — in relation, o f course, to the letter as a literary convention. If he has m olded this particular p attern out of the circum stances of his apostolic ministry and on the basis of his theological understanding, he seems to follow it w ithout conscious regard to its structure. It is ju st the way he writes letters. It is only in this sense that we can legitimately speak of “form ” (Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God, 270; see also W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity, 27-43). A close analysis of Galatians produces the following list of phrases that by com parison with those of the nonliterary papyri should probably be ju d g ed to be based on rath er conventional epistolary formulae: 1:1-2 (salutation): Παύλος*... ταΐς* έκκλησίαις* τής* Γαλατίας*, “P a u l. . . to the churches of Galatia” 1:3 (greeting): χάρις* ύμΐν καί ειρήνη, “grace and peace to you” 1:6 (rebukeformula): θαυμάζω δτι, “I am astonished th a t” 1:9 (reminder of past teaching: ώς* προειρήκαμεν, καί άρτι πάλιν λέγω, “as we have said before, so now I say again” 1:11 (disclosur formula): γνωρίζω δε ύμΐν, “I want you to know” 1:13 (disclosure formula): ήκούσατε γάρ, “for you have h e a rd ” 3:1 (vocative-rebuke): ω ανόητοι Γαλάται, “you foolish Galatians” 3:2 (verb of h ea n n g : τούτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν ά φ ’ υμών, “only this I want to learn from you” 3:7 (disclosureformula):yινώσκετε άρα ότι, “you know th e n ” 3:15 (vocative-verb of saying: αδελφοί, . . . λέγω, “brothers, . . . let m e take an exam ple” 3:17 (verb of saying: τούτο δε λέγω, “so this I say” 4:1 (verb of saying: λέγω δέ, “what I am saying is this” 4:11 (expression of distress): φοβούμαι υμάς*, “I fear for you” 4:12 (requestformula): άδελφοί, δέομαι υμών, “I plead with you, b ro th ers” 4:13 (disclosureformula): οίδατε δέ ότι, “you know th a t” 4:15 (disclosureformula): μαρτυρώ γάρ ύμΐν ότι, “I testify on your behalf th a t” 4:19 (vocative): τέκνία μου, “my little ch ild ren ” 4:20 (apostolicparousia): ήθελον δέ παρεΐναι προς* ύμάς*, “how I wish I could be with you”

cviii 4:21 4:28 4:31 5:2 5:3 5:10 5:11 5:13 5:16 6:1 6:11 6:16 6:18

Introduction (verb of saying: λέγετέ μου, “tell m e” (vocative): υμ είς δε, αδελφοί, “so you, b ro th ers” (vocative): διό, αδελφοί, “therefore, b ro th ers” (motive for writing formula) :l8e εγώ Παύλος* λέγω ύμΐν δτι, “m ark my words! I, Paul, tell you th a t” (disclosure-attestation): μαρτύρομαι δε πάλιν, “again I testify” (confidenceformula) :έγώ πέποιθα εις* υμάς* εν κυρίω δτι, “la m c o n fid e n t in the Lord regarding you th a t” (vocative) : εγώ δε, αδελφοί, “brothers, if I ” (vocative): υμείς* γάρ . . . αδελφοί, “you, b ro th ers” (verb of saying): λέγω δέ, “so I say” (vocative): αδελφοί, “b ro th ers” (autographicsubscription): ϊδετε πηλίκοις* ύμΐν γράμμασιν έγραψα, “see what large letters I use as I write to you” (benediction): ειρήνη έπ ’ αυτούς* καί έλεος*, “peace and mercy upon th em ” (grace wish, vocative): ή χάρις* . . . άδελφοί, “the grace . . . b ro th ers”

In surveying this list, it is particularly im p o rtan t to note th at these form ulaic phrases do n o t ap pear evenly distributed th ro u g h o u t the letter b u t are gro u p ed in clusters. Indeed, as Mullins observed with regard to frequency, “one form tends to precipitate the use o f others with it” (JBL 91 [1972] 387). Equally im portant, however, is M ullins’ po in t with regard to function: th at the clusters o f such form ulae ten d to signal breaks or tu rn in g points in the developm ent of a w riter’s arg u m en t (ibid.). D isregarding for a m om ent the “verb o f saying” form ulae (3:15, 17; 4:1, 21; 5:16), which seem to be used mainly to knit portions of the letter’s body together, it should be observed that the clusters of form ulaic phrases appear in only certain sections: 1:1-3 1:6-13 3:1-7 4:11-20

salutation (sender to addressees) and a greeting; astonishm ent-rebuke formula; disclosure statem ents; vocative; rebuking questions; disclosure statem ent; expression of distress; request form ula; disclosure statem ents; travelogue and a visit wish; 4:28-5:13 vocatives; summary appeal; disclosure-attestation statem ent; expression of confidence; vocatives; 6:11-18 autographic subscription; benediction; grace wish; vocative. T he opening salutation (1:1-5) and the closing subscription (6:11-18) are clearly identifiable sections. O n this everyone agrees. F urtherm ore, Galatians has no thanksgiving section. So the rem ainder of the m aterial between the opening salutation and the closing subscription is m ade up o f the body of the letter and the paraenesis. And in this material, as based on the identifiable clusters of form ulaic phrases, it is possible to argue that Paul’s Galatian letter develops in the following way: (1) a rebuke section (θαυμάζω) that begins at 1:6; (2) a theological section that begins at 3:1; (3) a request section (άδελφοί, δέομαι υμών) that begins at 4:12; and (4) a paraenesis section that begins som ewhere between 4:28 (υμείς* δέ, άδελφοί)

Introduction

C1X

and 5:13 (υμείς* γάρ . . . αδελφοί), with request blending into and becom ing explicitly exhortation. We m ust deal m ore fully with all of these m atters later in the com m entary proper. Suffice it here to say that on the basis of P aul’s use of ra th e r standard epistolary form ulae, Galatians can be seen to be m ade up of six identifiable sections: salutation (1:1-5), rebuke (l:6ff.), theological argum ents (3:lff.), request (4:12ff.), paraenesis (beginning som ewhere betw een 4:28 and 5:13), and subscription (6:11-18). T he difficulty of identifying precisely where the paraenesis begins suggests that the request and paraenesis sections work together as one unit, with exhortation being an aspect of P aul’s overall appeal. Likewise, the way Paul sets u p his argum ents in 3:1-4:11 by the A ntioch episode of 2:11-14 and the m aterial of 2:15-21 indicates that he saw 3:1-4:11 as p art of w hat he began at 1:6. So we may go fu rth er to suggest th at the basic epistolary structure of Galatians should be seen as follows: 1:1- 5 1:6-4:11

Salutation; Rebuke Section, with the inclusion of autobiographical details and theological argum ents; 4:12-6:10 Request Section, with the inclusion o f personal, scriptural, and ethical appeals; 6:11-18 Subscription. It is, in fact, this structure that will serve as the basis for our outline of the letter and that will inform o ur exegesis in the com m entary proper. 3 3. Diachronic Rhetorical Analysis It is necessary, however, to understand Galatians n o t only in term s of its epistolary structure. A ttention m ust also be given to its argum entative structures— that is, to the way in which within the letter’s epistolary structure Paul has developed his argum ent by m eans of then-current rhetorical forms and m odes of persuasion. Two ways of analyzing a writing as to its rhetorical structures are possible. T he first lays em phasis on the rhetorical forms in their historical context and seeks to trace out lines of genetic relations with o th er writings of the time. The second examines the argum ent on its own, classifying its stages of developm ent in term s of general, m ore universal m odes of persuasion. T he first m ethod is the historical, comparative m ethod, which has o f late been called “diachronic rhetorical criticism ”; the second is strictly a com positional m ethod, which has been given the nam e “synchronic rhetorical criticism ” (cf. M. Kessler, Semitics 4 [1974] 22-36; see also idem , Semitics 7 [1980] 1-27). It is with the first that we are here concerned. T he second will be treated in what im mediately follows. H ans D ieter Betz’s work on Galatians is to date the m ost serious and significant attem p t to in terp re t the letter on the basis o f a diachronic rhetorical analysis (N TS 21 [1975] 3 5 3 -7 9 ; idem , Galatians, 1 4 -2 5 ). As Betz sees it, Galatians is an “apologetic lette r” that conform s closely to the requirem ents of forensic rhetoric (i.e., rhetoric addressed to a ju ry or judge, which seeks to defend or accuse someone with regard to certain past actions) as set ou t in the handbooks on rhetoric by Aristotle (Rhetoric), Cicero (De Inventione and De Optimo Genere Oratorum), Q uintilian (Institutio Oratoria), and others (esp. the anonym ous Rhetorica ad

Introduction

cx

Herennium o f about 85 b .c., which was form erly attributed to C icero), and as exem plified in P lato’s Epistle 7, Isocrates’s Antidosis, D em osthenes’s De Corona, C icero’s Brutus, and Libanius’s Oratio 1. T he basic elem ents of forensic rhetoric as developed by the classical rh e to ricians are as follows: 1. Exordium (introduction), which sets out the character of the speaker and defines the central issues being addressed; 2. Narratio (n arratio n ), which is a statem ent of the facts th at relate to the issues o f the case; 3. Propositio (proposition), which states the points of agreem ent and disagreem ent and the central issues to be proved; 4. Probatio (confirm ation), which develops the central argum ents; 5. Refutatio (refutation), which is a rebuttal of the o p p o n en ts’ argum ents; 6. Peroratio (conclusion), which summarizes the case and evokes a sympathetic response. Betz argues th at Galatians, when com pared with this classical m odel, should be seen as P aul’s letter of apology to his converts in Asia M inor— w herein they are the jury, he is the defendant, and the intruders are his accusers. Set within an epistolary fram ework that “separates so easily that it appears as a kind of external bracket for the body o f the letter” ( Galatians, 15), its argum ent proceeds as follows: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.

Epistolary Prescript Exordium Narratio Propositio Probatio Exhortatio Epistolary Postscript, with a Peroratio included (w 12-17)

1:1-5 1:6-11 1:12-2:14 2:15-21 3:1-4:31 5:1-6:10 6:11-18.

Now th ere is no d oubt that Betz’s treatm en t o f Galatians m ust be considered a landm ark in NT scholarship. It is a bold, new conception of the form and function o f the letter that is supported by m agisterial control of the ancient literary parallels an d by precise exegesis o f the text itself. C om pared to m any descriptions o f Galatians as a passionate b u t confused writing, Betz’s stress on P aul’s care in the construction o f the a rg u m e n t is to be w elcom ed— even though, as we m ust argue, Betz can be faulted for viewing that care in too scholastic and rigid a m anner. As Wayne Meeks rightly says in praise o f Betz’s work, particularly on Gal 1-2: “With great deftness Betz leads us step by step th rough the first two chapters, showing how the apparently am biguous and even disjointed allusions to the events in Jerusalem and in A ntioch serve n o t only a very precisely conceived defensive strategy, bu t also a profound theological peripeteia” (JB L 100 [ 1981 ] 305). At m any places, in fact, Betz has dem onstrated thro u g h diachronic rh e torical analysis how one p art of P aul’s letter relates to o th er parts, thereby revealing som ething o f the underlying rhetorical structure of P aul’s argum ent. From now on, any in terp retatio n of Galatians that treats one section as indepen-

Introduction

CXI

d e n t from the rest m ust be considered suspect because of Betz’s rhetorical analysis. Yet there are certain m ajor criticisms that m ust be raised against Betz’s work, despite its great strengths. And it is in these areas that a diachronic rhetorical analysis such as Betz proposes m ust be carefully qualified. In the first place, it needs to be pointed out that Betz’s attem pt to interpret all of Galatians in terms of forensic rhetoric breaks down on a num ber of counts. His thesis works best for the first two chapters, where Paul begins by accusing his opponents of perverting the gospel (1:7) and by defending him self against their accusations (1:10). Indeed, P aul’s vehem ent denials thro u g h o u t these chapters (1:1, 11-12, 16-17,19-20, 22; 2:5, 6,17, 21) and his accom panying autobiographical narrative in support of his statem ents (1:13-2:21) make the imagery of a judicial proceeding an appropriate analogy and feasible backdrop for this section o f the argum ent (cf. J. P. Sampley, N TS 23 [1977] 477-82). Yet Betz’s thesis has tougher sledding when it moves into chaps. 3-4 and 5-6. As for chaps. 3-4, Betz him self concedes, “Admittedly, an analysis of these chapters in term s of rhetoric is extrem ely difficult” ( Galatians, 129). T he “apparent confusion” of these chapters he explains on the basis of Q uintilian’s advice “to diversify by a thousand figures.” But that appears to be a somewhat thin and rather desperate justification for keeping Galatians within the bounds of classical forensic rhetoric (cf. D. E. Aune, “Review of H. D. Betz, Galatians,” RSR 7 [1981] 325, who notes that Gal 3-4 “does n o t easily fit the role assigned it in the rhetorical analysis proposed by Betz”) . Actually, besides P aul’s use o f interrogatio in 3:1-5 and exemplum in 3:6-7, Betz is n o t able to find any other significant feature in these chapters that relates directly to the category of forensic rhetoric. So he breaks up the m aterial of these chapters into separate proofs and discusses each in isolation from its context. Likewise with regard to chaps. 5-6, Betz says, “It is rather puzzling to see that parenesis plays only a marginal role in the ancient rhetorical handbooks, if n o t in rhetoric itself’ ( Galatians, 254). And he lam ents the fact that even Q uintilian has no special treatm ent of it. W hat Betz has done, in effect, has been to push a good thesis too hard and too far. H e has tried to force all of Galatians into the m old of forensic rhetoric, whereas P aul’s biblical exegesis in chaps. 3-4 reflects m ore Jewish rhetorical conventions and his exhortations in chaps. 5-6 are m ore congenial to a deliberative form of Greco-Roman rhetoric than a forensic form (for definitions of forensic, deliberative, and dem onstrative rhetoric, see P. Dixon, Rhetoric, 22-23; for claims that “Galatians is probably best viewed as deliberative rhetoric,” see G. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 145-47, and F. F. C hurch, “Rhetorical Structure and Design in P aul’s Letter to P hilem on,” H T R 71 [1978] 17-33). F urtherm ore, in his concentration on forensic rhetoric as providing the basic structure and the argum entative forms for Galatians, Betz has failed to appreciate the dram atic shift in m ood that occurs at 4:12 and to ignore such epistolary evidence as we have cited above as would signal the start of a m ajor new section there. And even where the analogy of ajudicial proceeding best fits the data o f Galatians (i.e., chaps. 1-2), Betz has been too rigid in application. For at times in those chapters Paul is the accuser and the prosecutor as well as the defendant, and his converts are in the dock as deserters as well as being the jury. A second m ajor criticism that can be raised against Betz’s treatm ent of Galatians is that he uses the parallels drawn from classical forensic rhetoric in a strictly

exii

Introduction

genealogical m anner, w ithout giving due consideration to their presence in o ther types o f ancient literature and so w ithout acknowledging their appearance in P aul’s letter as being m ore analogical than strictly genealogical in nature. Indeed, Betz has shown that certain features of Greco-Roman judicial rhetoric can be paralleled in Galatians—for example, as p er Betz’s analysis, the expression of astonishm ent in 1:6 (cf. Cicero, De Inventione 1.17.25); the discussion o f adversaries in 1:7 (cf. Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.5.8); the statem ent of causa in 1:6-7 (cf. Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.4.7); the transition of 1:10-11 (cf. Q uintilian, Institutio Οταίοήα 4.1.76-79); the subdivisions of the narratio th ro u g h o u t 1:12-2:14 (cf. Q uintilian, Institutio Oratoria 4.2.47-51); the support of denials th ro u g h o u t 1:12-2:14 (cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 4.2.1-11); the assigning o f reasons or motives for m ajor events in 1:16 and 2:2 (cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 4.2.52); the characterization o f persons in 2:4, 6, 11-14 (cf. Q uintilian, Institutio Oratoria 4.2.52); the statem ent o f the proposition to be elaborated and defended in 2:19-20 (cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria A A A ); the interrogation of witnesses in 3:1-5 and 4:811 (cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.15.15); the use of examples in 3:6, 15 and 4:22 (cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 5.11.6 and 32-35); the diversity of argum ents in 3:14:31 (cf. Q uintilian, Institutio Oratoria 5.14.3); the recapitulation in 6:11-18 (cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 6A A -2); and the appeal to the em otions in 6:12-17 (cf. Cicero, De Inventione 1.55.106). Some of these features, however, are also paralleled by certain epistolary conventions of the day—for exam ple, the expression o f astonishm ent (1:6), subdivisions of the narrative (1:12-2:14), recapitulation (6:11-18) , and appeal to the em otions (6:12-17). F urtherm ore, a nu m b er of these features are com m on to the rhetoric o f the OT, which Paul knew well—for example, the characterization of his opponents in 1:7 as οι ταράσσοντες* (“the troublers,” see also 5:10 and 6:17) may very well be an allusion to Achar “the troubler of Israel” (cf. 1 C hr 2:7); the use of curses in 1:8-9 was an essential p art of the covenant form; the appeal to revelation in 1:12, 16; 2:2 as the basis for a prophetic ministry is a com m on feature in the OT (cf. Exod 3-6; Isa 6; J e r 1); the characterization of persons as being “false” in 2:4, 6 ,11-14 occurs often in the OT (e.g.,Jer 6:13; 26:7-16; 27:9; 28:1; 29:1, 8); the recital o f Israel’s history beginning with A braham is, o f course, frequent in the OT (cf.Josh 24:2-3; N eh 9:7-8; Isa 5:2); and the quotation of divine oracles and the precepts of wise m en, as in 3:6-14, is an OT com m onplace. And all this has n o t even touched on the m any parallels that can be drawn from P aul’s Pharisaic background, as codified later in the Talm ud and M idrashim, which we intend to highlight in the com m entary proper. In sum, therefore, Betz’s use of the parallels drawn from classical forensic rhetoric to dem onstrate only genealogical relationships is somewhat w rong-headed. David E. Aune is m uch closer to the m ark to see in Galatians “an eclectic com bination of various rhetorical techniques and styles of diverse origin which are nevertheless welded together in a new and distinctive literary creation” (“Review o f H. D. Betz, G a la tia n s ,”RSR 7 [1981] 323). F urtherm ore, Betz can be faulted for relating Galatians to the classical form s of forensic rhetoric in too scholastic and rigid a m anner. Indeed, as him self a m em ber o f the Greco-Roman world, Paul may be assum ed to have been influenced at least to some extent by classical rhetoric. M artin H engel has dem onstrated that “‘Palestinian’ Judaism also shared in the ‘religious koine’ of its Hellenistic enviro n m e n t” (Judaism and Hellenism, 1:312). And it should n o t be surprising that ajew

Introduction

cxiii

of Tarsus, who trained u n d er Gamaliel at jerusalem , becam e a convert to the rising messianic m ovem ent called Christianity, took leadership in the extension of that gospel am ong Gentiles, and wrote pastorally to converts in Asia M inor, would use in Galatians many literary and rhetorical conventions then cu rren t in the GrecoRom an world. “Even if,” as G. A. Kennedy observes, “he h ad n o t studied in a Greek school, there were many handbooks of rhetoric in com m on circulation which he could have seen. H e and the evangelists as well would, indeed, have been hard pu t to escape an awareness of rhetoric as practiced in the culture around them , for the rhetorical theory o f the schools found its im m ediate application in alm ost every form o f oral and written com m unication” (New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 10; cf. idem , The Art of Persuasion in Greece, 7-8; see also D. Daube, HUCA 22 [1949] 239-64; R. M. Grant, A TR 34 [1952] 223-26). T he forms of classical rhetoric were “in the air,” and Paul seems to have used them almost unconsciously for his own purposes—m uch as he used the rules of Greek gram m ar. P aul’s argum ent in Galatians, therefore, cannot be ju d g ed simply as a replica of some classical m odel. It reflects certain features of classical forensic rhetoric, particularly in its first two chapters, and Betz has m ade a significant contribution to the study of Galatians in pointing these features out. But Betz m ust be faulted for (1) trying to make all of Galatians fit the m odel of forensic rhetoric or conform to the genre o f “apologetic letter,” (2) drawing hard genealogical lines between this one m odel and Galatians, w ithout taking sufficiently into account other epistolary and rhetorical influences on Paul, and (3) understanding the im pact of classical rhetoric on Paul in too scholastic and rigid a fashion. It would seem far m ore appropriate to use the parallels Betz has highlighted as one set of descriptive tools or influences to be taken into account along with others for interpreting P aul’s letter to the Galatians. M uch the same can be said with regard to the rhetorical use of chiasm us (i.e., the literary p attern A-B-B-A) by Paul in Galatians. Jo h n Bligh has argued that all o f Galatians m ust be seen as having been carefully structured in term s of chiasm us (Galatians: A Discussion of St. Paul’s Epistle). He begins with the chiastic structure that J.— — — B. Lightfoot long ago observed in 4 :4 -5 (cf. L ightfoot’s Galatians, 168), goes on to expand that in to what he calls the “Central Chiasm” of 4:1-10, and then builds a case for the “Symmetrical Structure of Galatians” w herein everything that precedes 4:1-10 can be m atched with everything th at follows in chiastic fashion (Bligh, Galatians, 37-42, passim). Thus he lays ou t the structure o f the letter as follows: A B C D E Dl C1 B1 A1

Prologue, 1:1-1:12; Autobiographical Section, 1:13-2:10; Justification by Faith, 2:11-3:4; Argum ents from Scripture, 3:5-3:29; Central Chiasm, 4:1-4:10; A rgum ent from Scripture, 4:11-4:31; Justification by Faith, 5:1-5:10; Moral Section, 5:11-6:11; Epilogue, 6:12-6:18

Bligh, however, fails to take into account anything having to do with an epistolary analysis of Galatians, which would give ju st as reasonable a rationale for

cxiv

Introduction

m any o f the parallels he sees (e.g., between the prologue and the epilogue and between the A braham accounts of 3:6-9 and 4:21-31) and which would provide far m ore objective controls for his u nderstanding o f the letter’s structure. And Bligh fails to take into consideration o th er types of rhetorical analysis, either o f a diachronic variety (as Betz’s) or of a synchronic variety (as will be treated in what im mediately follows). So while it cannot be denied that chiasmus is a factor in Galatians and m ust be treated seriously in the exegesis of at least some portions of the letter (e.g., 1:1; 4 :4 5, 25-26), it m ust no t be treated in too ham fisted a m an n er and cannot be u n d erstood in any scholastic or rigid fashion. Chiasmus was one of many rhetorical tools lying at h an d for Paul’s use. It probably reflects, in large m easure, the parallelismus membrorum of Jewish thought generally and Israelite poetry in particular. Yet o th er rhetorical tools were also at hand, and to them we m ust now turn. 4. Synchronic Rhetorical Analysis “Rhetorical study, in its strict sense,”Aristotle said, “is concerned with the m odes o f persuasion” (Rhetoric 1.1)— that is, n o t ju st with what is said (content) b u t how it is said (form ). As Aristotle continues, “it is n o t enough to know what we ought to say; we m ust also say it as we ought.” F urtherm ore, Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the faculty o f observing in any given case th e available m eans of persuasion” (ibid. 1.2; em phasis his, though, of course, italics m ine), thereby understanding rhetoric in its synchronic dim ension as n o t confined to any particular art, science, or subject m atter, b u t applicable to “alm ost any subject presented to us” (ibid.). P aul’s letter to the Galatians is, of course, the “given case” at hand, and it is ju st as open to a synchronic rhetorical analysis as it is to a diachronic rhetorical analysis. In fact, m ore so! For the m ore unified we see the letter the m ore necessary it is for us to undertake such a com positional analysis. And the less reliance we place on diachronic exem plars for a full description of the course of P aul’s argum ent, the m ore im portant becom e the synchronic features o f that argum ent for in terp retation. Aristotle grouped all of the m odes of rhetorical persuasion u n d e r three basic headings—viz., ethos, pathos, and logic: O f the modes o f persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. T he first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain fram e of m ind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logic] (ibid. 1.2). C icero’s sum m ation of the process of rhetorical com position has five parts: [The orator] m ust first hit upon what to say; then m anage and m arshall his discoveries, n o t merely in an orderly fashion b u t with a discrim inating eye for the exact w e ig h t. . . o f each argum ent; next go on to array them in adornm ents of style; after that keep them guarded in his memory; and in the end deliver them with effect and charm (De Oratore 1.31.142). W ithin such generalized sum m aries were developed a n u m b er o f categories of persuasion th at were used widely by speakers and writers in the Greco-Rom an

Introduction

cxv

world o f P aul’s day. Indeed, those who based themselves directly on Aristotle (Rhetoric), Cicero (De Inventione and De Optimo Genere Oratorum), and the anonymous w riter o f Rhetorica ad Herennium developed their categories alm ost ad infinitum , for rhetoricians delight in classifying and subdividing m atters. A catalogue o f specific rhetorical categories used in antiquity goes far beyond our presen t controls— certainly beyond our present interests. But certain rhetorical categories were generally cu rren t in P aul’s day. A nd a n u m b er of these can be seen in P aul’s Galatians argum ent. A m ajor category for ancient rhetoricians was that of ethos, or p ro o f deriving from the character o f the speaker himself. Aristotle began his discussion of rhetorical categories here and saw the speaker’s personal character as constituting ju st about the m ost effective m eans of proof: Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good m en m ore fully and m ore readily than others; this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided— It is n o t true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion. O n the contrary, his character may almost be called the m ost effective m eans of persuasion he possesses (Rhetoric 1.2). And this emphasis continued unabated in P aul’s day, as in Q uintilian’s repeated stress on an o ra to r’s virtue as having the greatest evidential value (e.g., Institutio Oratoria 12.1.3: “I do no t merely assert that the ideal orator should be a good m an, b u t I affirm th at no m an can be an orator unless he is a good m an ”) . This form of p ro o f appears in both forensic and deliberative rh eto ric— as when a satirist offers an apologia for his life and writings and then asks his audience for the right to continue vexing and m ending the world. Paul, too, appeals to ethos. In fact, he uses it in Galatians as a platform for his entire argument. It is because of his character as (1) an apostle commissioned by jesus Christ and God the Father (1:1), (2) a servant of Christ (1:10), (3) one who received from Christ the message he proclaims (1:11-12), and (4) one who was set apart and called by God from birth to his ministry (1:13-17) that his addressees are to believe him. It is because of his faithfulness to the gospel am idst fluctuating approval and deviation on the p art of other Christian leaders (1:18-2:14) that his addressees are to have confidence in him. And it is because of his adherence to “the truth of the gospel” in his life as well as in his preaching (2:19-20; 6:14-15), even in the face of persecution (5:11; 6:17), that his authority is invulnerable. Thus because of his character, he has the right to establish the canon for “the Israel of G od” (6:16). O f the various logical categories of rhetoric in antiquity, m uch was m ade of enthymeme, or p ro o f based on a deduction from a m ajor or m inor prem ise to a conclusion. Aristotle called it a “rhetorical syllogism” and insisted that “everyone who effects persuasion through p ro o f uses either enthym em es or examples—there is no o th er way” (Rhetoric 1.2). In actual practice, an enthym em e may run from prem ise to conclusion or from conclusion to prem ise. W hen the form er, such words as “th erefo re,” “h en c e,” “thus,” or “which show th a t” appear; when the latter, such words as “since,” “for,” “because,” or “for the reason” that are used.

cxvi

I ntroduction

Often, though n ot always, Paul’s use of γάρ (thirty-five times) and δτι (nine times) in Galatians signals the presence of enthym em es in his argum ent. For exam ple, his claim that his preaching is the standard by which to measure any other message (1:6— 9) is deduced from the fact that his gospel was received by divine revelation (1:11-12). T he im plicit m ajor prem ise is that all messages received by revelation from God have ultim ate authority, which is the prem ise that shapes the entire argum ent of Galatians. T he autobiographical section of the letter (1:13-2:10) develops fu rth er that prem ise by providing evidence that P aul’s gospel came to him n o t through hum an tradition b u t by divine revelation. Likewise, the argum ent from Scripture (3:6-14) builds on the prem ise of divine revelation, and so lends authority to his message. And from this premise, Paul concludes that the message o f the Judaizers is u n d er a curse since it contradicts what he proclaim ed (1:8-9). Paired with enthym em e in the rhetorical handbooks was p ro o f by example. W hereas enthym em e argues from a prem ise to a conclusion or vice versa, argum ent by exam ple seeks to persuade by appealing to a specific person, thing, or situation to establish or illustrate a general concept, principle, or truth. O f these two rubrics, Aristotle wrote: In some oratorical styles, examples prevail; in others, enthym em es. In like m anner, some orators are better at the form er and some at the latter. Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the o ther kind, b u t those which rely on enthym em es excite the louder applause (Rhetoric 1.2). In Galatians Paul puts forward A braham as an exam ple for his converts. He does this first by citing A braham ’s faith (3:6-9) to confirm the principle that righteousness comes by faith and no t by keeping the law. So he links the G alatians’ experience of the Spirit (3:1-5) with A braham ’s faith, thereby providing double support for the “rule of faith.” Im plicit as well in his argum ent is the appeal to im itate Abraham , “the m an of faith,” by continuing to live a life of faith. T hen he focuses on Abraham in the Hagar-Sarah allegory (4:21-31) to make the point that ju st as Abraham obeyed God and got rid of H agar and h er son, so the Galatian Christians are to get rid o f the Judaizers. As well, by setting o ut the accounts of his own loyalty to “the truth of the gospel” (1:13-2:21) in roughly parallel fashion to th at o f A braham ’s loyalty to God (see the com m entary p ro p er), Paul positions him self alongside Abraham as a m odel for his converts to em ulate. He even begins his appeal by calling on his converts to “becom e like m e” (4:12). Thus as A braham exem plified the truth of the gospel, so does Paul. T he argum ent o f Galatians, in fact, is structured in term s of these two parallel m odels or examples. A ncient rhetoricians also m ade m uch o f argument by definition. A nd P aul’s Galatian letter is no exception. O ne of the m ost im portant term s in Galatians is “the gospel,” which Paul defines as to its uniqueness in 1:6-9, as to its source in 1:11-12, and as to its co n ten t in l:13ff. He uses the phrase “the truth of the gospel” in 2:5, 14 as a sort o f catch phrase or caption for this content, with th at co n ten t then fu rth er expressed in what appear to be five confessional portions (1:4; 3:1,13, 27-28; 4:4-5) and a “sayings” statem ent (3:26) drawn from the proclam ation of the early church (see com m ents in the com m entary p ro p er on these verses). At 3:8 Paul links the gospel (note the verbal form προευηγγελισατο, “proclaim ed the g o sp e l. . . in advance”) with the promise given to Abraham, and thereafter drops the term “gospel”

Introduction

cxvii

and develops a definition of the prom ise (cf. 3:14-29; 4:23, 28). Since, however, the gospel is identified with the promise, defining the promise is actually a continuation of the process o f defining the gospel. Thus ju st as the gospel has direct benefits for Gentiles, so the prom ise pertains to Gentiles as well (cf. 3:8,14, 29; 4:28). Closely related to the argum entative use of definition is argument by dissociation of ideas. W hen the process of dissociation is developed into a series of antithetical pairs, the technique of dissociation lends structure to the argument. And this is what occurs in Paul’s Galatian argum ent, as in his antithetical pairings of blessing versus curse, faith versus works, spirit versus flesh, freedom versus slavery, the free woman versus the slave woman, the free w om an’s son versus the slave w om an’s son, and ‘Jerusalem that is above” versus “the present city of Jerusalem .” These antithetical pairs elaborate the distinction between “the gospel of C hrist” and “the other gospel” of the Judaizers, and so serve to provide a fram ework for P aul’s argum ent. A rgum ent by dissociation of ideas also involves, of course, a dissociation of individuals or a group from those offending ideas, and so argument by the severance of a group and its members was used by ancient rhetoricians. Some com m entators on Galatians treat P aul’s converts and the Judaizers as one. B ernard Brinsm ead, for example, writes, “T he Galatians are in an im portant sense the offending party, and the whole letter is w ritten because of their espousal of an offending theology . . . T here is no division into heresies of the intruders and heresies of the Galatians” (Dialogical Response, 69; which assum ption allows Brinsm ead to treat all of P aul’s statem ents as countering both the judaizers and the Galatian Christians, and so n o t im pede his own excessive use of m irror reading or his understanding of all of Galatians as a “dialogical response to op p o n en ts”) . Now, certainly, P aul’s anguish over the Galatian situation was not just because the judaizers were present but because his converts were responding favorably to their enticem ents. In that sense they were united. Yet Paul also makes a clear distinction between his converts and the troublem akers, and the entire Galatian letter elaborates this distinction and uses it rhetorically in support of its argum ent. Thus, though the Galatian Christians are in the process of deserting (note the present tense o f μετατίθεσθε, “you are deserting,” in 1:6) because o f being bew itched (3:1) and h in d ered (5:7), they are not the ones causing the trouble or trying to distort the gospel (1:7)— they are n o t the leaven in the lum p that needs to be rem oved (5:9) or the slave w om an’s son who needs to be expelled (4:30). Paul, in fact, is confident th at his Galatian converts will agree with him (5:10a). T h e judaizers, on the o th er hand, are the offending party, and he is sure that they “will pay the penalty” for their teachings (5:10b). This dissociation of the Galatians (“you”) from the judaizers (“they”) is an im portant feature in the structure of Paul’s argum ent. Indeed, Paul rebukes his converts. But he also dissociates them from the opponents. T he Judaizers who com e from outside the congregation are the troublem akers and the perverters of the gospel (1:7); they are u n d er a curse (1:8 -9 ); they are guilty of witchcraft (3:1); they are n o t truly seeking the Galatians’ good (4:17); they are children of the slave woman H agar (4:29); they are obstructing the Christians’ progress (5:7) and are leaven in the dough (5:9); they will bear their own ju d g m en t (5:10); they only seek to circumcise the Galatians so that they can boast about it and thereby avoid persecution because of the cross of Christ (6:12); they do not, in fact, keep the law themselves (6:13). So Paul urges his converts to exercise their p ro p er role as the true sons o f Abraham , the true beneficiaries of the Spirit’s activity, the true heirs

cxviii

I ntroduction

o f the prom ise, and the true children o f the free woman and the heavenly Jerusalem , and so expel those troublem akers (4:30). O th er ancient logical categories of persuasion can be discerned in P aul’s Galatian letter as well. For example, argum entation was often structured to enhance the value of som ething by showing how it was the m eans to som ething of even greater value. Or, conversely, something may be devalued by showing how it was the means to a debased end. Paul uses a means-end argument when he links the gospel and the prom ise (3:8) and then shows that through that association the blessing given to A braham comes to the Gentiles (3:9,14). T he cross of Christ and faith are also presented as the m eans of obtaining the Abraham ic blessing (3:6-14). C onversely, the law and o n e ’s keeping of the law cannot be the m eans of obtaining life or righteousness, since the law brings G od’s curse and im prisons m ankind u n d er sin (3:10, 21-24). F urtherm ore, the argument of direction, which attem pts to show how a step taken will lead to a “slippery slope” that allows no stopping and ends in total capitulation, is used by Paul when he argues that acceptance of circum cision results in the necessity to keep the whole law, in losing Christ, and in falling from divine grace (5:2-4). Likewise, Paul uses the argument by repetition and amplification, by which a speaker draws attention to his central them es by repeating certain key words and building on them , particularly in his repetition and treatm ent of the term s “faith ” and “prom ise.” In 3:6-14, πιστις*, “faith,” or πιστεύβιυ,“to believe,” appear eight times; in 3:14 επαγγελία, “prom ise,” is used, and th en repeated seven times m ore in 3:15-22; in 3:22 πίστις* occurs again, and then is repeated seven times m ore in 3:23-29. Thus P aul’s repetition and am plification of key term s in 3:6-29 serves rhetorically to carry the m ovem ent and highlight the em phases of the argum ent. In addition to p ro o f derived from a speakers’ character and p ro o f based on the dem onstration of a case by m eans of argum ent— that is, in addition to ethos an d logic—ancient rhetoricians looked on pathos as an im p o rtan t form o f persuasion and used it to their advantage in argum entation. By pathos they m ean t the em otions induced in an audience, with the purpose of eliciting a favorable response to the speaker’s words. P eter Dixon speaks o f the rhetorical function of pathos as follows: T he audience begins to feel that the speaker m ust be right, and is won over to his side. T he skilful rhetorician will p u t the hearers into a receptive fram e of m ind and th en proceed to play upon their feelings, arousing delight or sorrow, love or hatred, indignation or m irth. It follows that the orator m ust understand the complexities of the hum an heart in order to gauge the probable responses of his audience, and to work successfully on their attitudes and foibles (Rhetoric, 25). And this is exactly what Paul does thro u g h o u t Galatians in alternating expressions of sternness and tenderness, w herein the whole gam ut of astonishm ent, irony, sarcasm, threat, prom ise, affection, wise counsel, and Christian concern is run. For exam ple, Paul begins the body of his letter with an expression of astonishm ent and perplexity (“I am astonished,” 1:6). Then he threatens his opponents with dam nation (“Let him be eternally condem ned!” 1:8-9), going on to speak of their m isguided zeal (4:17), their coming judgm ent (5:10b), their unworthy motivations (6:12), and their duplicity (6:13). He even in caustic sarcasm—in w hat m ust be the crudest of

Introduction

CX1X

all Paul’s extant, written statements—says of his knife-wielding, circumcising opponents: “I wish they would go the whole way and em asculate themselves!” (5:12). With irony he refers to the Jerusalem apostles as “those who seem ed to be im p o rtan t” and “those reputed to be pillars” (2:6, 9). With evident agitation he addresses his converts as “You foolish Galatians!” (3:1), though also with affection as “b ro th ers” (1:11; 3:15; 5:13; 6:1, 18). In his appeal he rem inds his converts of their great concern for him at an earlier time (4:13-15), and he speaks of his concern for them u n d er the m etaphor of a m other in the pains of childbirth (4:19). T h ro u g h o u t his exhortations of 5:1- 6:10 the tone and feeling of pathos prevail. And his closing rem arks in the subscription, “See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own h an d !” (6:11) and “Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (6:17), reverberate with em otion, as we will attem pt to explicate in com m enting on these portions later. T he persuasive m odes of the classical rhetorical handbooks had becom e the com m on coinage of the realm in P aul’s day. O ne did n o t have to be formally train ed in rhetoric to use them . N or did rhetoricians have proprietory rights on them . In his Galatian letter (as elsewhere in his writings), Paul seems to have availed him self alm ost unconsciously of the rhetorical form s at hand, fitting them into his in h erited epistolary structures and filling them ou t with such Jewish theological motifs and exegetical m ethods as would be particularly significant in co u ntering what the Judaizers were telling his converts. All this he did in o rd er to highlight his essential message: “Christ gave him self for ou r sins” (1:4), “Christ crucified” (3:1), “Christ redeem ed us from the curse of the law” (3:13), Christians being “all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (3:26), Christians being “all one in Christ Jesus” (3:27-28), and Christians having “the full rights of sons” before God ap art from the law (4:4-5)—the five basic confessional portions (1:4; 3:1,13, 27-28; 4:4-5) and the one “sayings” statem ent (3:26) that Paul draws from the proclam ation of the early church. It is, in fact, this com bination of H ellenistic epistolary structures, Greco-Rom an rhetorical forms, Jewish exegetical procedures, and Christian soteriological confessions— together, o f course, with P aul’s own revelational experiences and pastoral concerns— that makes up P aul’s letter to the Galatians. It is o u r hope to spell ou t all o f these features in the exegetical studies th at follow.

I. Salutation (1:1—5) Bibliography Barrett, C. K. The Signs of an Apostle. ————. “Shaliah an d A postle.” In Donum Gentilicium. FS D. Daube, ed. C. K. Barrett, E. Bammel, and W. D. Davies. London: O xford University Press, 1978.88-102. Bauckham, R. J. “Barnabas in Galatians.”/SiVT 2 (1979) 61-70. Berger, K.— — — — “A postelbrief u n d apostolische Rede: Zum Form ular frü hchristlicher Briefe.” ZNW 65 (1974) 190-231. Burton, E. deW. “Αιών and Αιώνιο?” and “Έ νεστώ ?.” In Galatians, 426-33. Deissmann, A. Lightfrom the Ancient East, 224-46. Doty, W. G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Fridrichsen, A. The Apostle and His Message. Friedrich, G. “Lohmeyers These ü b e r ‘Das paulinische Briefpräsk ripf kritisch b eleuchtet.” ZNW 46 (1955) 272-74. Lightfoot, J. B. “T he Name and Office of an Apostle.” In Galatians (1890), 92-101. Lohmeyer, E. “Problem e paulinischer Theologie: I. Briefliche G russuberschriften.” ZNW 26 (1927) 158-73. Lohse, E. “U rsprung u n d P rägung des christlichen A postolats.” TZ 9 (1953) 259-75. Rengstorf, K .H . “απόστολο?.” TDNT 1:407-45. Schmithals, W. The Office of Apostle in the Early Church. Schnider, F., and Stenger, W. Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular.

Translation 1Paul, an apostle— notfrom men nor through any man, but throughJesus Christ and [from] God the Father,awho raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me. To the churches of Galatia. 3Grace a n d peace to y o u fr o m God o u rbF ather a n d the L o rd Jesus Christ, 4w ho g a ve h im se lf f o r co u r sin s in order th a t he m ig h t rescue u s fr o m the present e vil age, according to the w ill o f o u r God a n d F ather, 5 to w hom be glory fo r ever a n d ever. A m e n .

Notes aM arcion om itted και θβου πατρό?, “and [from] God the F ath er” (and so probably read αυτόν, “him self,” for αύτόν, “h im ”). bInstead of π α τ ρ ό ? η μ ώ ν και κυρίου, “o u r Father an d the L o rd ” (as in K A 33 81 et al.), p46P51vid B D G H Byzantine vg syr copsa read π α τ ρ ό ? και κυρίου η μ ώ ν, “ou r F ather an d L ord.” T here is some evidence for the text w ithout any personal pronoun: π α τ ρ ό ? καί κυρίου, “Father an d L ord,” 1877 Pelag Chrys Aug; less evidence for two personal pronouns: π α τ ρ ό ? η μ ώ ν καί κυρίου ή μ ώ ν, “o u r Father and o u r L ord,” copbo eth. cInstead o f υπέρ, “fo r” (as in p51 B H 33 TR), p46vid K* A D G et al. read περί, “fo r.”

Form/Structure/Setting Greek letters began with a form ulaic salutation or prescript: “A to B,” or at times “To B from A,” with the greeting χαίρειν (lit. “rejoice”; colloquially, “greetings,” “welcom e,” “h ello ”). So in line with the conventions of his day, Paul begins his Galatian letter with his nam e (v 1), an identification of his addressees (v 2), and a greeting (v 3). He also refers to those who jo in him in sending the letter (v 2), expands the greeting by the insertion of what appears to be an early Christian confession (v 4), and adds a doxology (v 5). M ore im portantly, Paul goes beyond the epistolary conventions of his day by pouring into his salutation (1) affirm ations

2

G alatians 1:1-5

regarding his apostleship (v 1) and C hrist’s salvific work (v 4), and (2) allusions to God the F ath er’s activity and will (w lb , 4b) and his converts’ salvation (v 4) — thereby highlighting at the very beginning the central them es of his letter. In the process, two rath er typical Pauline m ethodological features appear: (1) that of “going off at a w ord” (cf. the elaborations on “apostle,” “God the F ather,” and “the Lord Jesus C hrist”) and (2) that of chiasmus (cf. “n o t from m en n o r through any m an, b u t through Jesus Christ and [from] God the F ath er”) .

Comment 1 Παύλος, “Paul,” is a Greek nam e that m eans “little.” As a Jew o f the tribe of Benjam in (cf. Phil 3:5), he proudly bore the nam e of Israel’s first king, the Benjamite Saul. As a Rom an citizen (cf. Acts 16:37-38; 25:10-12), he would have had three names: a clan or family nomen, preceded by a personal praenomen and followed by a m ore com m only used cognomen. Greeks and o th er provincials who gained Rom an citizenship kept their Greek nam es as cognom ens, to which they added Rom an nom ens and p raen o m en s— usually those of the ones to whom they owed their citizenship. N either P aul’s nom en n o r his praenom en appears in the NT. As a Jewish Christian m issioner to Gentiles, he seems to have used only his Greek nam e Paul, which, as a Rom an cognom en, would have been acceptable to both Greeks and Romans w ithout bringing in any nuance as to status. απόστολος·, “apostle,” is the term Paul uses in Galatians, as well as in all his letters, to epitom ize his consciousness of having been com m issioned by God to proclaim with authority the message of salvation in Jesus Christ. In the NT the nou n απόστολος· connotes personal, delegated authority; it speaks of being commissioned to rep resen t another. It is used broadly of anyone sent by an o th er (cf. Jo h n 13:16, “an απόστολος· is n o t greater than the one who sent h im ”), of Christian brothers sent from Ephesus to C orinth (cf. 2 Cor 8:23, “They are απόστολοι of the churches”), o f Epaphroditus sent by the Philippian church to Paul (cf. Phil 2:25, “he is your απόστολον”), and even of Jesus sent by God (cf. H eb 3:1, “the d πό στολο v and high priest whom we confess”) . M ore narrowly, it is used o f a group o f believers in Jesus who had some special function (e.g., Luke 11:49; Acts 14:4,14; Rom 16:7; Gal 1:19; Eph 3:5; Rev 18:20), with particular reference to the twelve disciples (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:14 [K B et al.]; Luke 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; 22:14; Acts 1:2, 26; passim ). This narrow er usage is how the term is usually used in its approximately seventy-six occurrences in the NT, and that is how Paul uses it of him self in all his letters: one with personal, delegated authority from God to proclaim accurately the Christian gospel. This is not, however, the way in which απόστολος* was com m only understood by either Greeks or Hellenistic Jews o f the day. Classical Greek writers usually used the term in an im personal way, m ost often to refer to a naval expedition for military purposes— even, at times, of the boat used to transport such an expedition. Josep h u s’ one clear use of άπόστολος* in Ant. 17.300 (the occurrence in Ant. 1.146 is textually uncertain) carries the verbal sense o f “to send o u t” (πρεσβεία is the noun in this passage for “delegation”) . In fact, there are only a few references in all the extant Greek and Jewish Greek writings from the fifth century b .c . through the second century a .d . where the term means, or could be taken to m ean, som ething like “envoy,” “m essenger,” or “delegate,” and so to signal the idea of personal,

Comment

3

delegated authority (cf. H erodotus 1.21; 5.38; Corpus Hermeticum 6.11-12; POxy 1259.10; SAGE/7241.48; 3 Kgdms 14:6 LXXA; Isa 18:2 Symm.). Karl R engstorf has p ointed out that though the N T ’s use of απόστολος cannot be readily paralleled in the Greek and Hellenistic Jewish writings of the day, it is com parable to the Jewish institution of the Šālîah as found in the Talm ud ( TDNT 1:414-20). For in these codifications,————(šālîah) has an assured place as a noun m eaning “envoy” or “m essenger” and carries the notion of delegated authority— as in, for example, the oft-repeated dictum: “A m an ’s Šālîah is as the m an h im self’ (m. Ber. 5.5; b. Ned. 72b; b. N azirl2b; b. Qidd. 43a; b.B. Qam. 113b; b. B.Mes. 96a; passim ). According to rabbinic sources, a m an could appoint a šālîah to en ter into an en gagem ent of m arriage for him (m. Qidd. 2.1; b. Qidd. 43a), to serve a notice of divorce for him (m. Git. 3.6; 4.1; b. Git. 21a-23b), to perform ceremonial rituals on his behalf (e.g., the heave offering, m. Ter. 4.4), to act as his agent in econom ic m atters (b. B. Qam. 102a, b ) , and so on. In fact, the authority of the sender was thought of as so tied up with the šālîah that even if the šālîah committed a sacrilege, so long as he did n o t exceed the bounds o f his com m ission, it was the sender and n o t the šālîah who was held responsible (m. Meg. 6.1-2; b. Ketub. 98b). R engstorf fu rth er argues (1) that the Jewish institution of the šālîah served as the m odel for Jesus in calling his disciples and sending them out on his behalf ( TDNT 1:424-37), and (2) that it was on the basis of Jesus’ usage that the early Christian church used this concept for its own purposes and translated ITbiB by the relatively rare Greek term απόστολος·, probably first at Syrian Antioch ( TDNT 1:420-24, 437-45). And Rengstorf has largely carried the day for the linguistic relation o f απόστολος* toITbc? (cf. 3 Kgdms 14:6 LXXA, where the passive participle ΙΤ^ώ is treated as a noun and translated απόστολος·) and for an early date for the origin o f the šālîah institution in Judaism . T here are, however, certain significant differences between the rabbinic idea of a šālîah and the Christian concept o f an apostle. In the first place, the appointm ent of an agent in Judaism was always a tem porary m atter; when the task was com pleted, his commission was over. T he rabbis did n o t think of a šālîah as having a life-long calling, as is taken for granted of an apostle in the narrow er sense of that term in the NT. M ore im portantly, the šālîah was n o t viewed in a religious context or as a religious office, except in the sense that law and religion were inseparably intertw ined in Judaism . T he term , however, was never used of missionaries, proselytizers, or prophets. So while the concept of the šālîah in Second Tem ple Judaism provides to some extent a reasonable background for the use of the term απόστολος· in the NT, it falls short of fully explicating that background or adequately highlighting some of the m ost im portant features of an apostle in early Christianity. For such m atters, we m ust look as well to ideas that developed within Israel’s religion having to do with a p ro p h e t (cf. Commenton 1:15-16) and to je su s’ reconstruction of both the šālîah concept and traditional prophetology. Playing on the inadequacy of the Jewish šālîah concept to explain fully the N T ’s use o f απόστολος·, W alter Schmithals has argued for a gnostic origin o f the term (see his The Office of Apostle in the Early Church). In support, he cites various patristic references th at use απόστολος· of the gnostic teachers (e.g., O rigen, Comm.onJohn 2.8;Eusebius,Eccl. Hist. 4.22a n d 2S.12;Tcrtu\\ian, DePraesc.Haer. 30;Ps.-Clem., Horn. 11.35). In n o n e o f these passages, however, is it directly said that the Gnostics used the term in designation of themselves. Rather, every reference can be read as

4

G alatians 1 :1 -5

a Christian use of the expression “false apostle” (also “false p ro p h e t” and “false C hrist”) to characterize the Gnostics— which, of course, hardly proves that the NT usage was rooted in gnostic nom enclature. ούκ α π ’ άνθρπώπων ουδέ δ ι’ ανθρώπου, “n o t from m en n o r through any m an ,” together with its accom panying positive assertions, is unique to the salutation of Galatians. In the salutations of his o th er letters, of course, Paul habitually identifies him self as an apostle (e.g.,Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1, etc.; though in Phil 1:1 only as a δούλος-, “slave” [together with Timothy; cf. the use of δούλος* in Rom 1:1 as well], and in Philem 1 as a δέσμιος-, “p riso n er”) . In none of his o th er salutations, however, does he take pains to emphasize, first negatively and then positively, how he came to be an apostle. It is in these negative and positive parenthetical statem ents that we have both apology (defensive response) and polem ic (aggressive explication) at their height. So by a process of “m irror reading ,” we can say with some confidence th at Paul’s converts had undoubtedly been given by the agitators at Galatia an account o f his apostleship quite different from what he told them or what they h ad been led to believe by his early evangelistic preaching— an account which claim ed that, despite what he asserted, Paul had actually received his authority from certain Christian leaders before him. T he authority of both a šālîah and an apostle stem m ed from the one who com m issioned him. So Paul affirms at the very beginning of his letter, in evident opposition to the claims of his opponents, that his apostleship was n o t derived from any hum an source (ούκ α π ’ ανθρώπων) n o r received through any hum an agency (ουδέ δι ’ ανθρώπου). O thers may have been appointed by one or the o th er o f the then-existing congregations (cf. his later m ention of such appointm ents in 2 Cor 8:23 and Phil 2:25). The source of his apostleship, however, was n o t any such body o f Christians, w hether at Damascus, Jerusalem , or Syrian Antioch. N or was it received through the m ediation o f Ananias (cf. Acts 9:10-19; 22:12-16), Barnabas (cf. Acts 9:27; 11:25-26; 13:lff.), Peter, Jam es, or any o th er apostle. T he double genitival use o f άνθρωπος- is undoubtedly generic, first in the plural with από to denote source and then in the singular with δια to refer to agency. It is n o t hard, however, to believe that behind these qualitative uses we should u nderstand some particular church and some particular Christian leader or leaders as being in m ind. And by the way Paul narrates events in 1:17-2:14, probably it was the Jerusalem church and the Jerusalem apostles who were being pointed to by the opponents— and who were being denied by Paul. άλλα διά ’Ιησού Χριστού και θεού πατρος-, “but through Jesus C hrist and [from] God the F ather,” sets out the converse to P aul’s denials with a positive statem ent as to the origin of his apostleship. Some find it strange that διά, “th ro u g h ,” is used as the preposition before both ’ I ησού Χριστού and θεού πατρόΞ, for, they believe, Paul would hardly have thought of either Jesus Christ or God the F ather as an interm ediary; so διά should be seen here m ore in term s o f ultim ate source than agency (e.g., Burton, Galatians, 5 -6 ; Bruce, Galatians, 72-73, citing Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 1:9; H eb 2:10). Stranger still is the fact that the o rd er here is first ‘Jesus C hrist” and then “God the Father,” which is a reversal of P aul’s usual ord er w hen referring to God and Christ together (cf. the bipartite references of Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1:12; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4 [perhaps also 2:13]; Philem 3; though, of course, the tripartite “grace” of 2 Cor 13:14 has Christ first) —with that usual order reappearing alm ost im m ediately after

Comment

5

this variant in the salutation of Galatians at v 3: “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”Jo h n Bligh argues that in the denials and affirmations o f Gal 1:1 we have “a neat chiasm ,” which, he insists, explains the reversal of o rd er in the second p art and allows us to understand από, “from ,” as the proper, though unstated, preposition for θεοί) πατρος* ( Galatians, 62). A nd while adm ittedly there is m uch in Bligh’s work—particularly his seeing all of Galatians in term s of one large chiasm us— that can legitimately be called arbitrary, speculative, and even eccentric, his drawing attention to the chiastic n ature of v 1 is, I believe, valid and to be applauded. Indeed, Christ is no interm ediary like Moses, as Paul labors to point o ut in Gal 3:19-20. N either is he to be thought of in term s com parable to any hum an agency, as the strong adversative αλλά, “b u t,” makes clear. Rather, he is to be seen as associated with God the F ather— here as the agent in P aul’s com m issioning as an apostle (on Christ as G od’s agent in Pauline though t, cf. 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Tim 2:5-6), with that ap pointm ent having its source in God himself. Probably Paul had in m ind his Damascus road experience when referring to Jesus Christ as the agent in his apostleship, for it was the risen and exalted Jesus who com m issioned him to be G od’s m issioner to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:15-16; 22:21; 26:16-18). του έγεί ραντο? αυτόν εκ νεκρών, “who raised him from the d ead.”As a jew, Paul need ed no argum ents for theism, no argum ents for G od’s concern as C reator for his creation, and certainly no argum ents for G od’s redem ptive interests in his people. Furtherm ore, as a jew he thought of God m ore in term s of function than ontology. Having been confronted by Christ, however, Paul came to think of God principally in relation to what he accom plished redem ptively through the work of Jesus Christ. So here when he speaks of God the Father, he speaks of him not in ontological terms b ut in categories m ore functional, redemptive, and Christocentric in nature: he is the one “who raised him [Jesus Christ] from the dead .” 2 καί οί συν έμοί πάντες* αδελφοί, “and all the brothers with m e.” The salutations of several of P aul’s letters include one or m ore nam es of persons associated with him in sending the letter in question: Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1), Tim othy (2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; Philem 1), and Silas and Tim othy (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1). These were probably those who served as P aul’s secretaries (see Introduction, “A m anuensis”) and when known to the recipients were m entioned by nam e (cf. also Rom 16:22). T he phrase ο! συν έμοί άδελφοί, “the brothers with m e,” occurs in Phil 4:21, identifying n o t am anuenses who aided in writing that letter bu t rather those who jo in ed with Paul in sending greetings and who may be presum ed to endorse what is said. And it is this latter nuance of endorsem ent that is probably to the fore h ere—i.e., though they were unknow n to the recipients personally, those associated with Paul at the time of writing add their endorsem ent to what he says. In fact, by the use of the em phatic πάντες*, “all,” Paul wants to suggest that he has solid support for what he writes. Just who πάντες* άδελφοί, “all the b ro th ers,” refers to depends largely on what is th o u g h t as to provenance and date. If the letter was written at Syrian Antioch to believers in the southern part of the Rom an province of Galatia, shortly after Paul and Barnabas retu rn ed from evangelizing in that area and before the Jerusalem Council, as we believe (see Introduction, “Addressees” and “D ate”) , then we should think of these “b ro th ers” as the leaders of the church there at Antioch. Barnabas is n o t singled out, which may seem at first glance somewhat strange, particularly

6

G alatians 1:1-5

because of his pro m inent role in the evangelization of Galatia. Perhaps, however, that omission is because of P aul’s disappointm ent over B arnabas’ behavior as n arrated in 2:11-13 and the judaizers’ use of that incident as an im plied endorsem ent of their activity (cf. R. J. Bauckham^&VT 2 [1979] 61-70). Likewise, the one who served as P aul’s secretary for Galatians is no t nam ed, n o r are any of the o th er leaders o f the church at Antioch. But that is probably because none of them was personally known to the addressees. O f course, if we date Galatians later in the Pauline mission, with its place of writing correspondingly viewed with m ore uncertainty, the impulse grows to see P aul’s reference here being to “fellow missionaries known to the Galatians, and n o t to the whole church from w here he sent the letter” (so Betz, Galatians, 40; see also those he cites in support). ταΐς* έκκλησίαις* τής* Γαλατίας*, “to the churches of Galatia.” P aul’s address in Galatians is exceedingly brief, w ithout the epithets and com plim ents found in the addresses o f all his other letters. T ogether with the absence of a thanksgiving section (see Comment below ), this rath er matter-of-fact address serves to signal P aul’s agitation and indignation over the situation faced and to set a tone of severity that perm eates the entire letter. T he address is also somewhat different from those in Paul’s other letters in its exclusively local use of εκκλησία— com parable to, though n o t the same as, “to the church of the Thessalonians in God th e /o u r Father and the Lord Jesus C hrist” of the Thessalonian letters (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1) and “to the church of God at C orinth” of the C orinthian letters (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1), but certainly m uch m ore locally constrained than the universalistic use of εκκλησία in the Prison Epistles (see Introduction, pp. lxxxv-lxxxvi). Also, o f course, P aul’s address h ere differs in its plural ταΐς* έκκλησίαις*, “the ch u rch es,” which raises questions regarding how many congregations there were, how they were related geographically, how they were m ade up ethnically, and how they were organized. T he answers to many of these m atters d ep en d to an extent on how one understands provenance and date. We have opted for a South Galatian destination and early date (see Introduction, “Addressees” and “D ate”), and so view these churches as assemblies o f believers scattered in the cities and towns o f the missionary ou treach recorded in Acts 13:14-14:25, as ethnically diverse, and as probably only functionally related (cf. Acts 14:23). Yet many of these questions, on whatever understanding o f provenance and date, cannot be answered precisely. All that seems evident from the address itself is that Galatians was m eant as a circular letter to various Gentile Christian congregations som ewhere in the Rom an province of Galatia. Its reference to “large letters” at 6:11 also suggests that it circulated am ong the churches n o t in various copies, but only in the one form in which it was sent, for P aul’s p o in t has to do with the im pression that his own large handw riting in the subscription should make on the consciousness of all his readers (see Commenton 6:11). 3 Χάρις* ύμίν καί ειρήνη, “grace and peace to you,” may seem to be nothing m ore than the u nion of Greek and Hebrew forms of address. O ne could expect such from a m an o f P aul’s background, for χαίρειν, “greetings,” is com m on in the G reek nonliterary letters of the day and————(salom), “peace,” was a com m on epistolary greeting am ong the Jews (cf. Str-B 1:154; 2:94-95; 3:1, 25; attributed also to N ebuchadnezzar in Dan 4:1 and expanded to ειρήνη και ελεος*, “peace and mercy,” in 2 Apoc. Bar. 78.2 [note Gal 6:16]; see also K. Berger, ZNW 65 [1974] 193-95, on the letters o f Simeon ben K osebah/bar K okhbah). For Paul, however, “grace” and “peace” had great theological m eaning, as his addition “from God o u r Father and

Comment

7

the L ord Jesus C hrist” makes evident. In Rom 5, for exam ple, “peace” is what characterizes (or should characterize, if the verb of v 1 is subjunctive and n o t indicative) the believer’s life (5:1-11) because of the “grace” b ro u g h t by Christ (5:12-21). So “grace” and “peace,” w hether jo in ed or m entioned separately, appear frequently in the blessings of P aul’s letters, as well as in those of o th er NT letters (e.g., Rom 15:33; 16:20 [perhaps also v 24]; 1 Cor 16:23; 2 Cor 13:11,14; Gal 6:16,18; Eph 6:23-24; Phil 4:9, 23; Col 3:15; 4:18; 1 Thess 5:23, 28; 2 Thess 3:16,18; H eb 13:20-21,25; 1 Peter 5:14; etc.). In fact, “grace” and “p eace” seem to be P aul’s (and the N T ’s) shorthand way of epitom izing the essence of the gospel, with particular reference to its cause and its effect. από θεοί) πατρό? ημών και κυρίου ’ Ιησού Χρίστου, “from G od ou r Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” “G race” and “peace” have their origin in God and Christ. In fact, th ro u g h o u t P aul’s letters God and Christ are presented as com pletely at one in m ankind’s salvation. In Galatians, for example, the grace which undergirds salvation is called indiscrim inately both “the grace of G od” (2:21; cf. 1:15) and “the grace of C hrist” (1:6), while elsewhere in P aul’s writings the peace which grace effects is called both “the peace of G od” (Phil 4:7) and “the peace of C hrist” (Col 3:15). Such a jo in in g of Christ with God is a reflection of the exalted place that the risen Christ had in P aul’s thought. And while this almost unconscious association o f Christ with God is here principally functional in nature, it very soon begins to assume a m ore elevated and C hristocentric focus in P aul’s o th er letters (cf. esp. the bipartite reference of 1 Thess 1:12 and the tripartite reference of 2 Cor 13:14)— which, of course, furnished im portant data for the C h u rch ’s later trinitarian creeds. 4— — — — του δόντος* εαυτόν υπέρ των άμαρτιών ημών, “who gave him selffor our sins.” W hen Paul speaks of Jesus Christ, he im mediately thinks in functional term s of C hrist’s redem ptive work: he “gave h im self’ (cf. 2:20; also Eph 5:2, 25; 1 Tim 2:6; Titus 2:14)—o r alternatively, was given by God (cf. Rom 4:25; 8:32)— “for o u r sins.” Both o f the expressions “to give him self” (δούναι εαυτόν) and “for our sins” (υπέρ των άμαρτιών ημών) are rooted in Jesus’ statem ent, as later recorded in Mark 10:45, about the purpose of his mission: “to give his life (δούναι την ψυχήν αύτου) a ransom for many (λύτρον αντί πολλών).” In turn, Jesus’ statem ent seems to have been derived from Isaiah’s fourth Servant Song (cf. esp. Isa 53:5-6,12), which he used to highlight his own consciousness of being G od’s Righteous Servant. H ere in this verse we have what appears to be an outcropping of one o f the early confessions of the Christian church. It begins with the adjectival, substantival participle το υ δό ν το ? (as does, of course, v lb in its use of το υ έγειρα ντο ς·, which may also be a reflection of early Christian language about “God the F ather”) . It highlights the affirm ation “Christ gave him self for our sins,” which is both similar to the confession “Christ died for our sins” (cited by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3 as being part o f early Christian preaching) and different from P aul’s usual way of identifying the referents o f C hrist’s death (cf. Rom 5:6-8; 14:15; 1 Cor 1:13; 11:24; Col 1:21-22). Furtherm ore, the verb έξ έ λ η τ α ι (“he m ight rescue”) is a Pauline hap. leg. (Paul uses σώ£ω, ρύομαι, έλευθερόω ,οΓ [έξ]α γορά £ω elsewhere as verbs of deliverance), though it is com m on in the LXX in this sense and is rep o rted by Luke in Acts to have been used in the early church (by Stephen quoting Scripture in 7:10, 34; by Peter in 12:11; by the Rom an com m ander in 23:27; and by the exalted Jesus in 26:17). Likewise, the phrase 6 αιώ ν ό ένεστώς* (“the present age”), which is the equivalent o f the

8

G alatians 1 :1 -5

Jewish expression hā ‘ôlām hazzeh (ό αιών ούτος*, “this age”) as contrasted to haolam habba’(o αιών ό ερχόμενος* or ό αιών ό μελλων, “the age to com e”), is a NT hap. leg. And though the evil character of this age is implied in Rom 12:2 (cf. 1 Cor 1:20) and assumed in all Paul’s writings, it is only here that the adjective πονηρός* is directly attached to αιών. Richard B. Hays has drawn attention to the very real possibility that underlying P aul’s theological argum ents of 3:1-4:11 is a Jesus narrative drawn from the confessions and preaching of the early church, which “while not alldeterm inative, is integral to P aul’s reasoning” (see his The Faith of Jesus Christ, 85137, citing particularly 3:13-14,21-22; 4:3-6). And here, too, it seems we have some such narrative substructure or confessional bit (the two being integrally intertw ined), which Paul, knowing well the preaching of the early church (cf. 1 Cor 15:11), alm ost unconsciously includes when speaking about Jesus Christ. W hether ύπερ (p51 B H 33 TR) or περί (p46vid K * A D G e t al.) is to be preferred is difficult to determ ine from the m anuscript evidence alone. Likewise, it is difficult to determ ine from P aul’s usage elsewhere, for he uses both prepositions with the genitive to m ean both “concerning” and “on behalf o f ’— though with περί most often signaling the form er and ύπερ m ost often the latter. And this same interchangeability o f prepositions appears in the extant Koine Greek m aterials outside the NT. Nevertheless, preference here should probably be given to ύπερ, principally because o f (1) the use of ύπε p in the confession of 1 Cor 15:3 to which we have com pared this affirm ation (Χριστός* απεθανεν ύπερ των άμαρτιών ημών), and (2) the parallel use of ύπερ in Gal 3:13 (γενόμενος* ύπερ ημών κατάρα) on which we m ust com m ent later—with the vicarious idea of “in place o f ’ being connoted in all these passages. όπως* έξεληται ημάς*, “in o rd er that he m ight rescue us.’’The conjunction όπωςsignals purpose (“in o rder th at”), and so interprets the functional Christology of v 4a (“Christ gave him self for our sins”) soteriologically (“in o rd er to rescue u s”). T he verb έξεληται, as in L uke’s reporting of its use in the early church (Acts 7:10, 34; 12:11; 23:27; 26:17, where the em phasis is on the idea of rescue), denotes not removal b u t rescue from the power of. So the deliverance spoken of here is n o t a removal from the world bu t a rescue from the evil that dom inates it. εκ τού αίώνος* τού ένεστώτος* πονηρού, “from the present evil age.” T he distinction between “this age” and “the age to com e” was com m on in Second Tem ple Judaism . 4 Ezra 7:50 only makes explicit what was widely accepted, that “the Most H igh has m ade n o t one age but two.” T he Sadducees, of course, did n o t hold such a view, for they ten d ed to see their tim es— i.e., since the M accabean rebellion and the reign o f the great H asm onean priest-king Sim eon— as the Messianic Age inchoate. But the Pharisees looked on “this age” as com ing to a climax in a period of awful “messianic travail,” which would usher in “the age to com e” a n d /o r “the Messianic Age.” The apocalyptic writers o f the day likewise viewed the present age as “already grown o ld ,... already past the strength of youth” (4 Ezra 5:55). Because o f A dam ’s sin, “the ways of this w orld,” as they viewed m atters, “becam e narrow and sorrowful and painful, and full of perils coupled with great toils . . . b u t the ways o f the future world are broad and safe, and yield the fruit of im m ortality” (4 Ezra 7:1213). More particularly, because of m ankind’s continued wickedness, “the world lies in darkness, and the dwellers therein are w ithout light” (4 Ezra 14:20). The literature from Q um ran parallels this attitude at m any places, often speaking of the cu rren t age as the “epoch of wickedness” (eg., lQ pH ab 5.7-8) during which Belial,

Comment

9

who opposes the will of God, has free rein. A nother parallel, this tim e from an early Christian source, appears in the so-called F reer Logion th at was som etim es ap p en d ed to M ark’s Gospel, w here the disciples say, “This age (ό αιών ουτος) of lawlessness and unbelief is subject to Satan” (Mark 16:14 W ). T he expression του αίώνος του ένεστώτος, “the present age,” is paralleled in m eaning, if n o t precisely in word, by P aul’s exhortation of Rom 12:2 n o t to be conform ed “to this age” (τώ αίώνι τούτω ). Paul also uses κόσμος as a synonym for αιών to denote n o t ju st the present period of world history b u t also the way o f life th at characterizes it (cf. 1 Cor 1:20; 2:12; 3:19; 7:31), as does also Jo h n (cf. Jo h n 17:15; 1Jo h n 2:15-17). T he climactic position of the adjective πονηροΞ, “evil,” at the en d o f the phrase gives it special emphasis, undoubtedly reflecting the attitude of the earliest C hristians— in line with that of religiously sensitive, nonconform ist Jews generally— toward attitudes and events of their day. P aul’s use here of this confessional portion (if, indeed, that is what it is), with its stress on C hrist’s having rescued us from this present evil world, is, in fact, particularly relevant to his argum ent in Galatians, for later he makes the point that the law to which his converts are being urged to subm it belongs to this present age and so can be characterized as one of “the weak and m iserable elem entary principles of the w orld” (4:3, 9). κατά τό θέλημα του θεού καί πατρός ημών, “according to the will of our God and F ather,” may be seen as referring only to δόντος, “who gave,” or to έξέληται, “he m ight rescue.” Probably, however, it has both C hrist’s giving of him self and our rescue in view, and so proclaims that both were “according to the will of our God and F ather.” T he phrase, then, underscores the fact that C hrist’s redem ptive work and m an k in d ’s salvation are to be understood in the context of G od’s will and fatherly concern. 5 ω ή δόξα εις τούς αιώνας τών αιώνων, αμήν, “to whom be glory for ever an d ever, A m en.” Only h ere am ong the letters of Paul is there a doxology at the en d o f a salutation, which may indicate th at the confession of v 4 originally included the doxology of v 5 as well. T he language o f the doxology suggests that it originated in the liturgical worship of a Jewish-Christian com m unity (cf. Rev l:5 b -6 ), with roots in the OT and Second Tem ple Judaism . T he relative p ro n o u n ω, “to w hom ,” undoubtedly has as its an teced en t τού θεού καί πατρός ημών, “of o u r God an d F ath er.” T he use of the article in ή δόξα, “glory,” signals “the glory of the God of Israel” (probably n o t C hrist’s work referred to in v 4, as B urton argues [ Galatians, 16], though Paul would n o t have been averse to such an inclusion)—i.e., the praise and worship o f God by his creatures, of which he alone is worthy (cf. Pss 29:2; 96:8). The phrase ε ις τούς αιώνας τών αιώνων (lit. “unto the ages of the ages”) is a m ore em phatic way of expressing the com m on Septu ag in talism c^ τον αιώνα τού αίώνος (lit. “unto the age of the age”), and so highlights unlim ited extent. To this praise and worship the early Christians, like their forefathers at the end of each of the first four books of Israel’s psalter (Pss 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48), added their αμήν, “A m en.” Paul, too, joins in this “A m en,” for his gospel is epitom ized in the early Christian confession o f v 4: “Christ gave him self for ou r sins in o rd er to rescue us from the p resen t evil age, according to the will of ou r God and F ath er.” All th at Paul desires to add to that in light o f the issues facing his converts in Galatia is what to him seems obvious: th at o u r deliverance is apart from any “works of the law.”

10

Galatians 1:1-5

Explanation P aul’s letter to his converts in Galatia begins (w 1-3) like the norm al Greek letter o f his day: the sender’s nam e, an identification of the addressees, and a greeting. Into this conventional epistolary form , however, Paul inserts a vigorous defense o f his apostleship (v 1), and so highlights at the very start one of the im portant them es of his letter vis-a-vis his o p p o n en ts’ charges— i. e., the legitimacy o f his apostleship. He also includes greetings from those with him (v 2), thereby suggesting, it seems, their endorsem ent o f what he writes. F urtherm ore, he expands the greeting to read “grace and peace” (v 3), thereby epitom izing the essence o f the Christian gospel. To this standard, though enriched, opening, Paul adds what appears to be a portion of an early Christian confession (v 4), which speaks of C hrist’s work and the purpose o f th at work for m ankind’s salvation. In so doing, he highlights a fu rth er im portant them e o f the letter— i. e., the full sufficiency o f C hrist’s work for m an k in d ’s salvation, apart from any works of the Mosaic law. In v 5 Paul then closes with a doxology in praise to God, which may have been a part of the confession he quotes or may be his own. T he doxology itself is unique am ong the salutations of Paul. But whatever its im m ediate source, it seems rooted ultim ately in Jewish Christian worship (in which, of course, both the earliest believers in Jesus and Paul participated) and is used to give praise to God for the com plete sufficiency of C hrist’s work for m ankind’s salvation. So in the salutation of Galatians, Paul sets out the two m ain issues dealt with in the letter: the nature of his apostleship and the nature o f the Christian gospel. And against those who were stirring up his converts to think otherwise, he enlists the support of, first, “all the brothers with m e ” (v 2), and then a confession drawn from the liturgy o f the early church (v 4). Also to be no ted in this salutation is the m ore functional (as distinguished from m ore speculative or ontological) nature of P aul’s statem ents. For when speaking o f God, there is no treatm ent of his person or attributes. R ather, the stress is entirely on God as the source of P aul’s apostleship (v 1), on God as having raised Jesus Christ from the dead (v 1), on God as the source of the C hristian’s “grace and p eace” (v 3), on G od’s will and fatherly concern as the basis for C hrist’s work and m an k in d ’s salvation (v 4), and on praise and worship as being G od’s due (v 5). Likewise when speaking of Jesus Christ, his function as the agent of P aul’s apostleship (v 1) and his redem ptive self-giving receive em phasis (v 4), ra th e r than who he is or his p erson. A n d when using the word c κ κλησ ί a , it is “the churches in Galatia” in a localized sense that are referred to (v 2) and n o t the universal C hurch (though Paul uses the term in both senses later, cf. 1:13, 22). Yet while set in functional contexts, it is noteworthy as well the way in which Paul associates Jesus Christ with God in this salutation, for they are spoken of as standing together b eh in d P aul’s apostleship (v 1) and as together being the source of the Christian gospel (w 3-4). Such statem ents relating Jesus Christ to God (as found also th ro u g h o u t P aul’s letters) are truly astonishing— particularly so when we stop to realize th at they were written by a m onotheistic Jewish Christian with reference to one who h ad lived on earth within recent memory.

II. Rebuke Section (1:6- 4:11) T he first m ajor section of Galatians is in troduced by the w ord θαυμάζω (“I am astonished”) , which was a conventional expression in Greek letters from the third century b .c . through the fourth century a .d. to signal astonishm ent, rebuke, disapproval, and disappointm ent—even at times irony and irritation. The θαυμάζω sections o f the Greek papyrus letters often included such features as: (1) a statem ent as to the cause of the astonishm ent and rebuke; (2) a rem inder of previous instructions no t carried out; (3) rebukes for foolishness, negligence, or change of mind; (4) expressions of distress; (5) rebuking questions p u t directly to the addressees; and (6) a summons to a given responsibility. These θαυμάζω sections were then customarily followed by a request to rem edy the disappointing, distressing situation, and this request was sometimes followed by further instructions. T he rebuke section of P aul’s letter to the Galatians conform s quite closely in its epistolary structure to the θαυμάζω sections of G reek letters of the day. It begins, as we noted, with a conventional expression of rebuke (“I am astonished,” 1:6a); it states the cause for this rebuke (“you are deserting the one who called you by the grace o f Christ and are turning to a different gospel,” 1:6b); and it rem inds us o f previous instruction (“as we have already said, so now I say again,” 1:9). Later it restates the original rebuke in the form of a series of questions (3:1-5; 4:8-10), with ap p en d ed rebukes for foolishness (3:1, 3) and for negligence in n o t being true to knowledge already possessed (4:9). It closes with an expression of distress (“I fear for you, th at somehow I have wasted my efforts on you,” 4:11), with then a fu rth er expression of distress interjected into the request section at 4:20. Even the various stages within the developm ent of P aul’s rebuke section in Galatians are fairly well set off by certain ra th e r conventional epistolary expressions, which ten d to be grouped at the start of each new subsection in the arg u m en t or to bring m atters to a close. For exam ple, the rebuke form ula of 1:6 (θαυμάζω δτι, “I am astonished th a t”) and the rem inder of past teaching at 1:9 (ώς προειρήκαμεν καί άρτι πάλιν λέγω, “as we have said before, so now I say again”) serve as the epistolary pegs for 1:6-10. Likewise, the disclosure form ulae of 1:11 (γνωρίζω δέ ύμΐν, “I want you to know”) and 1:13 (ήκούσατε γάρ, “for you have h e a rd ”) serve as the beginning points for th eir respective sections, 1:11-12 and 1:13-2:21— with these two subsections being closely related, the first as the thesis for w hat im m ediately follows and the second as an autobiographical elaboration in support o f that thesis. So too the rebuke for foolishness of 3:1 (ώ άνόητοι Γαλάται, “you foolish G alatians”) and the rebuking questions of 3:1-5 hold these five verses to gether as an epistolary unit, as do also the rebuking questions of 4:8 -1 0 for those th ree verses. Also to be observed is the fact th at the disclosure form ula of 3:7 (γινώσκετε άρα δτι, “you know, then, th a t”) , which draws a conclusion from the quotation o f Gen 15:6 in 3:6, provides a transition to the extended argum ent from Scripture in 3:6-4:10. Finally, the expression of distress at 4:11 (φοβούμαι υμάς*, “I fear for you”) serves to bring the rebuke section to a form al close. Surveying the m aterial in term s of its rhetorical genre, 1:6 -4 :11 has m any of the characteristics o f forensic rhetoric, at least up through the early p art of chap. 3. Paul defends him self against accusations (1:10), yet also takes the offensive in

12

G alatians 1 : 6 - 1 0

accusing his o p p o nents o f perverting the Christian proclam ation (1 :7 ). His vehem ent denials o f any d ep en d en ce on hum an authority ( 1 : 1 1 - 1 2 , 1 6 - 1 7 , 1 9 2 0 , 22; 2 : 5 - 6 ) and the setting out o f his experiences in support o f those denials ( 1 : 1 3 - 2 : 1 4 ) m ake the courtroom scene a feasible backdrop for this section of the letter. So while we m ust later insist that at 4 :1 2 a m ajor rhetorical shift takes place in the letter, 1 :6 - 4 :1 1 may appropriately be categorized as to its rhetorical genre as a type o f forensic rhetoric. Indeed, Paul seems to have used the basic features o f Greco-Roman forensic rhetoric for his own purposes, filling out those structures with his own content, particularly in 1 : 6 - 3 : 7 and 4 : 8 - 1 1 . T he structures and m odes o f forensic rh etoric were “in the air,” and Paul seems to have used them simply because they were a p art o f his way of thinking and served his purposes well. We need, therefore, to recognize these features in P aul’s presentation, an d may properly call them as they were known by th eir Latin names: exordium ( 1 : 6 - 1 0 ) , narratio ( 1 : 1 1 - 2 : 1 4 ) , propositio ( 2 : 1 5 - 2 1 ) , and probatio ( 3 : 1 - 4 : 1 1 ) .

A. Occasion fo r Writing/Issues a t Stake (Exordium ) (1:6-10)

Bibliography Behm, J. “ανάθεμα, άνάθημα, κατάθεμα.” TDNT 1:354-55. Burton, E. deW. Galatians, also A ppendix V: “'Έτερος* and ’Άλλος*,” 420-22. Dahl, N. A. “P aul’s L etter to the Galatians: Epistolary G enre, C ontent, and S tructure.” U npublished SBL Paul Sem inar paper, 1974. Elliott, J. K. “T he Use of ετερος* in the New T estam ent.” ZAW60 (1969) 140-41. Maurer, C.— — — “μ ετα τίθη μ ι.” TDNT8:161-62. Mullins, T. Y. “Form ulas in New T estam ent E p is tle s JBL .” 91 (1972) 380-90. O ’Brien, P. T. Introductory Thanksgivings. Ramsay, W. M. Galatians, 2 4 9 69. Schubert, P. Pauline Thanksgivings. White, J. L. TheForm and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter.

Translation 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christaand are turning to a different gospel— 7which is not at all the same gospel, except that some people are confusing you and desiring to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospelbother than the one we preached to you, let him be accursed! 9As we have said before,' so now I say again: I f anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be accursed! 10Am I now seeking the approval of men, or of God ? Or am I trying to please men ? I f I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Form/Structure/Setting

13

Notes aT he inclusion o f Χρίστου is supported by p51K A B Byzantine vg syrpesh copbo; ’ Ιησού Χρίστου by D 326 itde syrhel; Χριστοί) Ίησου by itz copsa. A pparently the C hester Beatty papyrus (p46vid) om its Χρίστου (and variants), as do also G H vid itar,gMcion T ert Cyp Ambst E phr Pel. T here is also some evidence for θεού in place o f Χρίστου (327 O r lat). bT he MS evidence is fairly m ixed as to w hether we should read ύμΐν εύα γγελί£η τα ι (p51vid B), or εύα γγελ ίζη τα ι ύμΐν (Dc) ,o r ευα γγελ ίζετα ι ύμΐν (K P Byzantine), or εύα γγελίσ η τα ι ύμΐν (Kc A ),o r εύα γγελίσ η τα ι (it9). cT he reading προειρηκα appears in K* syrpesh instead o f προειρήκαμεν.

Form/Structure/Setting Paul’s letters usually have a thanksgiving (ευχαριστώ, “I give thanks”) section that immediately follows the salutation (cf. Rom l:8ff.; 1 Cor l:4ff.; Phil l:3ff.; Col l:3ff.; 1 Thess l:2ff.; 2 Thess l:3ff.; 2 Tim l:3ff.; Philem 4ff.; see also Eph l:15ff., though here the thanksgiving is separated from the salutation by an extensive quasidoxology). In these thanksgiving sections Paul takes the occasion to com m end his addressees for whatever he can find to com m end them and to highlight the nature o f his prayers for them . T he thanksgiving sections of P aul’s letters also serve, as Paul Schubert points out, “to focus the epistolary situation, i.e., to introduce the vital them e o f the letter” (Pauline Thanksgivings, 180) — or, as R obert Funk puts it, they “ten d to ‘teleg rap h ’ the content of the letter” (Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God, 257). In Galatians, however, there is no thanksgiving section. This omission reflects P aul’s agitation and indignation over the situation faced. It fu rth er highlights the severity o f tone and urgency of purpose that is carried on th ro u g h o u t the letter. For though he refers to his Galatian converts with affection as “brothers” (1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28,31; 5:11,13; 6:1,18) and expresses his concern for them everywhere in the letter (particularly in his appeals), Paul evidently could not think of anything to com m end them for, and so enters directly into the issues at hand. He had just received, it seems, news of their im pending defection, and he reacts to that news on the spot. So θαυμάζω, “I am astonished,” takes the place of ευχαριστώ, “I give thanks,” in Galatians, and the exordium o f 1:6-10 takes the place of a thanksgiving section in setting the them e for the letter. In stating his occasion for writing, and so setting out the issues at stake, Paul begins with a conventional expression of rebuke (v 6a, θαυμάζω δτι, “I am astonished th a t”) , which is followed by a statem ent as to the cause for that rebuke (v 6b, “you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel”) . He then disassociates the gospel from the message of the errorists (w 6b-7a, theirs is “a different gospel—which is not at all the same gospel”) and defines the true gospel in term s o f its relational uniqueness (w 7b-9, it is “of Christ,” what “we preached to you,” and “what you accepted”) . In the process, Paul pronounces a double curse on anyone— him self or “an angel from heaven” inclu d ed — who would preach otherwise (w 8 -9 , “let him be accursed!”) and rem inds his converts of his previous instruction to this effect (v 9, “as we have said before, so now I say again”) . Finally, probably in contradistinction to the assertions o f his opponents, he disclaims any attem pt to seek m erely hum an approval in this m atter and insists that as “a servant of C hrist” his only desire is to please God (v 10).

14

G alatians 1:6-10

Comment 6 θαυμάζω δτι, “I am astonished th at,” is a conventional epistolary rebuke form ula, which, as we have proposed, signals the start of a m ajor section in the Galatian letter. T. Y. Mullins argues that in antiquity a letter writer who uses θαυμάζω “is rebuking, even scolding the addressee. He is n o t really astonished, he is irritated ” (JBL 91 [1972] 385). So Mullins speaks of P aul’s “ironic reb u k e” and depreciates the elem ent of astonishm ent here (ibid.). But while Mullins is able to p o in t to some ancient letters where a w riter in using θαυμάζω appears m ore irritated than surprised, there are others where the word is used with genuine surprise as well as displeasure (e.g., POxy 3063:11 -16). It is m ore accurate, therefore, to call θαυμάζω δτι an “astonishm ent-rebuke” form ula. Paul is certainly displeased with his converts, as the lack of a thanksgiving section in Galatians clearly indicates. But the note of astonishm ent in his rebuke seems m ore prom inent than the note of irony. O ne reason for P aul’s astonishm ent is that his converts h ad “so quickly” (ούτως ταχέ ω ς) com e to the verge of abandoning the gospel that he had preached to them and they had received. The expression ούτως ταχέω ς has, of course, often been used as an index to provenance and date (see Introduction, p. lxiv). Yet “so quickly” is a somewhat relative tem poral expression, and so fails to provide any precise indication as to how long it was between the Galatians’ conversion and P aul’s hearing about their im pending defection. It may very well be, in fact, as Franz M ussner suggests ( Galaterbrief 53), that by the use of this particular expression Paul m eant to suggest a correlation between his converts’ im pending apostasy and Israel’s defections (1) in the case of the golden calf (cf. Exod 32:8 LXX, “They have tu rn ed quickly from the way [ταχύ εκ τή ς οδού] that you com m anded th em ”) and (2) during the period of the judges (cf. Judg 2:17 LXX, “They would n o t listen to their judges because they prostituted themselves to o th er gods and w orshiped them and m ade the Lord angry. And they fled quickly from the way [ταχύ έκ τή ς οδού] in which their fathers had walked”) . Particularly suggestive are these parallels when it is rem em bered that “the Way” (ή όδος) was the earliest self-designation of those who believed in Jesus (cf. Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). So then, ούτως ταχέω ς m aybe m ore rhetorical than chronological in n atu re— though, of course, the shorter the interval between the Galatians’ conversion and their defection, the m ore apt the parallels with Israel’s apostasies and the m ore pointed P aul’s drawing attention to the tem poral factor. A fu rth er reason for Paul’s astonishm ent is that the Galatian Christians were “deserting the one who called [them ] by the grace of C hrist” (μετατίθεσθε άπό τού καλέσαντος υμάς εν χάριτι Χριστού). T he m iddle form of μετατίθημι has the special sense of “change over,” “turn away from ,” “fall away,” “desert,” and “becom e apostate,” being used in this m an n er in secular Greek (H erodotus 7.18.3; Plato, Republic 1.345b; Polybius 24.9.6), the LXX (Sir 6:9; 2 Macc 7:24), and by jo sep h u s (Ant. 20:38; Life 195). The substantival participle ό μεταθέμενος, in fact, m eant in the world of Hellenistic philosophy one who leaves one school of th o u g h t for an o th er (cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.1.37; 4.166). “T he present tense o f the verb μετατίθεσθε,” as B urton points out, “indicates clearly that when the apostle wrote, the apostasy o f the Galatians was as yet only in process. They were, so to speak, on the point, or m ore exactly in the very act, of tu rn in g ” ( Galatians, 1 8 -1 9 )— which is what is reflected in 4:9-10 and 5 :2 -4 as well.

Comment

15

T he focus o f P aul’s astonishm ent, however, appears to be on the substantival participle του καλέσαυτος*, “the one who called you,” whom they were deserting. It could, o f course, be argued that Paul had him self in m ind, for he was the Christian m issioner who first brought the gospel to them . O r it could be argued that Christ is in view as “the one who called you by grace” (as Luther, Calvin, Bengel, and many since have thought), particularly if p46vid, G, H ^ , M arcion, Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, et al. are right in their reading of the text (i.e., om itting Χρίστου). But P aul’s reference elsewhere in Galatians to God as the one who calls (cf. 1:15, “the one who called me by his grace”; 5:8, “the one who calls you”) and his continuance o f this practice in his o th er letters (cf. Rom 4:17; 8:30; 9:12,24; 11:29; 1 Cor 1:9, 26; 7:15,17-24; Eph 1:18; Phil 3:14; 1 Thess 2:12; 4:7; 5:24; 2 Thess 1:11; 2:14; 2 Tim 1:9)— with never, except in cases o f som eone “nam ing” or “inviting to a feast,” anyone else in view— make it reasonably certain that he is here referring to God. And this being so, Paul is astonished that his converts in their pious attem pt to be rigorously scrupulous are actually turning away from God, “the one who called you by the grace of Christ.” This was a shocking state of affairs. For by their turning away from “the truth of the gospel” (2:5,14), P aul’s converts were in actuality recapitulating the scenarios of Israel’s apostasies and rebuffing the very O ne whom they professed to be attem pting to worship m ore adequately. έυ χάριτι Χρίστου should probably be taken as a dative of m eans with a possessive genitive (i.e., “by the grace of C hrist”), equivalent to διά τής* χάριτος* αυτοί) of 1:15 (“by his [God’s] grace”). Indeed, έυ Χριστώ [’ Ιησού], “in Christ [Jesus],” appears in Gal 1:22; 2:4,17; 3:26, 28 (and with increasing frequency in P aul’s later letters) with local significance as a description of the situation of believers before God. H ere, however, the preposition έυ with the dative χά ριτι highlights the m eans by which the Galatians were first brought to G od— i.e., by G od’s unm erited benevolence ( “grace”), as contrasted to their “works of the law.” In 1:15 (cf. 2:21) it is God (αυτού) who is referent; here, however, the better texts read Christ (Χρίστου). But ju st as in the letter’s salutation God and Christ are presented as com pletely at one in m an k in d ’s salvation, so in these texts they are p resented interchangeably as the source o f redem ptive grace. 6b-7a εις* έτερου ευαγγελίου, δ ούκ έστιυ άλλο, “to a different gospel— which is n o t all the same gospel.” The spiritual direction in which P aul’s converts were moving is depicted in the words εις* έτερου ευαγγελίου, which are then qualified by the expression ούκ έστιυ άλλο. Generally speaking, έτερου and άλλος* are synonyms, with both words usually denoting an enum erative sense (“an additional one”) ra th e r th an a differentiative sense (“an o th er o f a different k in d ”) . In the LXX and the NT, however, as B urton points out, “in so far as there is a distinction between the two words άλλος* is enum erative and ε τε ρος* differentiative” ( Galatians, 421; see also J. K. Elliott, Z N W 60 [1969] 140-41). Usually Paul does n o t distinguish between έτερος* and άλλος* (cf. 1:19; also 1 Cor 15:39-41; 2 Cor 11:4). Yet here in context there seems little doubt that he m eans to suggest a qualitative difference, with ετερος* signaling “another of a different kind” and άλλος*’’another of the same kind.” In all likelihood the errorists were claiming that their message and activity should be seen as complementary to Paul’s preaching and ministry. As Paul viewed matters, however, theirs was “a different gospel— which is not at all the same gospel.” 7b εί μή τιυές* είσιυ οί ταράσσουτες* υμάς* και θέλουτες* μεταστρέψαι τό ευαγγελίου τού Χριστού, “except that some people are confusing you and desiring

16

G alatians 1:6-10

to pervert the gospel of C hrist.” T he idiomatic use of εί μή (“except th a t”; cf. πλήυ δτι o f Acts 20:23) suggests that no one would ever think o f calling the Judaizers’ message a “gospel” except with the intention of confusing the Christians o f Galatia. T he plural τιυές* (“some peo p le”) indicates a plurality of errorists in Galatia, no t a single person (as the singular τις* of Col 2:8 suggests was true at Colossae; the τις* o f Gal 1:9 is g en eric). The present tense of the verbs and participles points up the fact that these errorists were still in Galatia when Paul was writing this letter, and that he wrote with the intention o f stopping them in the very m idst of their activities. T he characterization of the errorists as οι ταράσσουτες* υμάς* (“those confusing you”) andoi θέλουτες* μεταστρέψαι τό ευαγγελίου του Χρίστου (“those desiring to pervert the gospel of C hrist”) is, of course, from P aul’s perspective and n o t how the Judaizers would have spoken of themselves. T he verb ταράσσω (“disturb,” “unsettle,” “confuse”) was used in the Greco-Roman world of political agitators who caused confusion and turm oil, bu t appears in the NT in a figurative sense to describe m ental and spiritual agitation. It is the word used to describe the Judaizers and their work again in 5:10 and 6:17 (cf. Acts 15:24), and may very well be an allusion to Achar “the troubler of Israel” (cf. 1 C hr 2:7). T he verb μεταστρέφω (“change,” “alter,” “pervert”) was also originally a political term , having revolutionary action particularly in view — though it is used here and elsewhere in the NT (cf. Acts 2:20; Jas 4:9) m ore figuratively. Paul’s characterization o f his message as τό ευαγγελίου του Χρίστου (“the gospel o f C hrist”) appears a num ber of times elsewhere in his letters as well (cf. Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; 4:4; 9:13; 10:14; Phil 1:27; 1 Thess 3:2; see also 2 Thess 1:8), being used synonymously with τό ευαγγελίου του θεού (“the gospel of G od”; Rom 1:1-3; 15:16; 1 Thess 2:2, 8 -9 ; 1 Tim 1:11). The genitive του Χρίστου is u n doubtedly both objective (referring to Christ as its content) and subjective (referring to Christ as its source). While the o th er genitive forms of Χρίστου in Galatians may very well be taken syntactically in o th er ways (see com m ents on 1:6; 2:16; 3:22; 5:24), the form ula τό ευαγγελίου του Χρίστου here and elsewhere in Paul m ust be taken in the same way as in Mark 1:1: the gospel which hasjesus Christ (and C od through Christ) as its focus and God (together with Christ) as its source. 8 άλλα και έάυ ήμεΐς* ή άγγελος* εξ ούραυοϋ ύμΐυ εύαγγελιζηται παρ’ ο εύηγγελισάμεθα ύμΐυ, “bu t even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel o th er than the one we preached to you.” The antithesis expressed by αλλά, “b u t,” a strong adversative, is probably between what Paul suspects his converts feel as to the Judaizers’ message—i.e., it is com plem entary to what they originally accepted—and P aul’s own conviction as to the serious difference between their preaching and his. T he και, “even,” is intensive, signaling the extrem e nature of the supposition to follow. T he protasis o f this verse is in the form of a third class “future m ore p ro b a b le” condition, where what is expressed is a m atter of some do u b t b u t with the possibility o f realization. T he protasis o f v 9 that follows is a first class “simple” condition, which assumes the reality o f what is stated. Such a pairing o f first and third class conditions is fairly com m on in Koine Greek, with some distinction between the two in view (cf. J o h n 10:37-38; 13:17; Acts 5:38-39; 1 Cor 10:27-28). H ere the subjunctive m ood is used because Paul is m aking a statem ent that is somewhat doubtful, though theoretically possible, about the preaching of heresy by either him self or a heavenly being. It is the message of the gospel that is all im portant and no t P aul’s authority

Comment

17

or anyone’s status, however exalted. O f course, the authority and character o f the p reacher are im portant, as Paul has asserted of him self in 1:1 and will continue to assert th ro u g h o u t the autobiographical section of 1:11-2:14 (cf. also 2 Cor 10:1 — 12:10; Phil 3:4-21; 1 Thess 2:1-12). T heir im portance, however, is secondary to that of the gospel itself. T he reference to άγγελος* έξ ούρανοϋ, “an angel from heaven,” carries a note of irony. Probably it is in response to the Judaizers’ claim either (1) to have im peccable credentials as m em bers in good standing in the Jerusalem church, or (2) to have the authority o f the Jerusalem apostles supporting th em — or both (cf. P aul’s rath er ironic references to the Jerusalem apostles in 2:6-10 and his opposition to Peter in 2:11-14). Paul saw the p re ach e r’s authority as derived from the gospel, and n o t vice versa. So he was no t prep ared to allow any change in the focus or content of that gospel on the basis of som eone’s credentials or by an appeal to some m ore im posing authority. ανάθεμα έστω, “let him be accursed!” T he apodosis of both the future m ore probable condition ofv8 and the simple condition ofv9 is the solem n im precation: “Let him be accursed!” T he noun άνάθε μα is a Koine variant of the classical ά νάθη μα, with both m eaning (1) som ething dedicated or consecrated to God, and so (2) som ething delivered over to divine wrath for destruction. It is the regular translation o f Din (hērem), “b an ,” in the LXX (e.g., Lev 27:28-29; D eut 7:26; 13:17; Josh 6:17-18; 7:11-13, 15), where what is u n d er the ban is rem oved from ordinary circulation and given over to destruction. In the NT ανάθημα is used in Luke 21:5 in the sense of som ething dedicated or consecrated to God. Paul, however, uses άνάθεμα here and in Rom 9:3; 1 Cor 12:3; 16:22 (cf. Acts 23:14; also the intensified κατάθεμα of Rev 22:3) along the lines of the LXX emphasis on destruction. The basic idea in P aul’s usage, as Johannes Behm points out, is “delivering up to the judicial wrath of G od” ( T D N T 1:354). F urtherm ore, as Behm continues to observe, “We can hardly think o f an act o f C hurch discipline [as later expressed by the C hurch against heretics, invoking the anathem a form ula of Gal 1:8-9 and 1 Cor 16:22], since the apostle uses the phrase άττό του Χρίστου (R. 9:3) and also considers that an angel from heaven (G1.L8) or even jesus H im self (1 C. 12:3) m ight be accursed” (ibid., 354-55). 9 ώς* προειρήκαμεν, καί άρτι πάλιν λέγω, “as we have said before, so now I say again,” is a typical Hellenistic epistolary form ula used to rem ind readers of past instruction. Elsewhere in his letters Paul frequently rem inds his readers of what he taught them before and repeats that instruction for em phasis (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 7:3; 13:2; Gal 5:3, 21; 1 Thess 4:1, 6; 2 Thess 2:5). In m any cases it is clear that he is referring to some teaching he gave his converts while with them personally and which he is now repeating by letter. H ere, however, it is n o t clear w hether he m eans instruction given on a previous visit (so BAG, s.v. προεΐ π ο ν , 2a; W. Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics, 18-19; et al.) or instruction given previously in the same docum ent (so Chrysostom; Schlier, Galater, 40; Bruce, Galatians, 84; et a l.). Gal 5:3 and 21 lean in the direction of a form er visit, and that is probably how we should understand m atters here as well. All that can be said with certainty is that “the two curses are related in such a way that the second actualized the first” (Betz, Galatians, 54). ει τις* υμάς* ευαγγελίζεται παρ’ δ παρελάβετε, άνάθεμα έστω, “ifanybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be accursed!” Whatever the tem poral relationship between the two curses, Paul here repeats

18

G alatians 1:6-10

ανάθεμα έστω, “let him be accursed,” in order to impress it forcibly on his converts’ minds. No longer is the protasis in the subjunctive m ood bu t in the indicative, thereby stressing the reality of the situation. The singular τις*, “anybody,” is generic. T he use o f παρελάβετε, “you accepted,” signals the passing on of an authoritative tradition (cf. 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; Gal 1:12; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 3:6), which Paul had received “by revelation from Jesus C hrist” (1:12) and proclaim ed to the Galatians. If, then, anyone proclaims som ething different, he comes u n d e r the judicial wrath o f God! 10 άρτι γάρ ανθρώπους πείθω ή τον θεόν, “am I now seeking the approval o f m en, or o f God?” The relation of this verse to what precedes and what follows has been extensively debated. Is it part of the paragraph that begins at v 6 (so Souter, jb , Wey, Lightfoot, D uncan, et al.) ? Does it introduce what follows (so WH, Nestle, Moffatt, AmT, Berkeley, et al.)? Does it serve along with v 11 as a literary transition from the exordium of 1:6-9 to the narratio of 1:12-2:14 (so Betz)? O r should it be seen as standing alone as som ething of an em otional outburst? Most recen t translators and com m entators treat v 10 as an em otional outburst that is to be related in some m anner to the curses of vv 8 -9 , yet to be set off as a separate paragraph (so UBSGT, rsv, neb, niv, Burton, Bruce, et al.) or by parentheses in the same paragraph (so Phillips). άρτι, “now ,” picks up the άρτι, o f v 9, and so refers us back to the strong language o f vv 8 -9 . T he postpositive γάρ would be expected to have a causal or explanatory force, b u t probably should be taken here in m ore an illative or asseverative sense (cf. Phil 1:8; Acts 16:37). πείθω m eans “seek the favor or approval of,” with the suggestion of “conciliate” (cf. 2 Macc 4:45; M att 28:14; Acts 12:20). Evidently the Judaizers were claim ing th at Paul only presen ted h alf a gospel in his evangelistic mission in Galatia, purposely trim m ing his message so as to gain a m ore favorable response. They m ight, in fact, have applied to him such epithets a s o άρεσκος- (“the m an p leaser”) a n d o κόλαξ (“the flatterer”), so com paring him to the com m on rhetoricians o f the day who sought to gain influence over others for th eir own ends (cf. P aul’s assertions to the contrary in 1 Cor 10:33; 1 Thess 2 :4 -5 ). It seems, therefore, that P aul’s response h ere “is as if one reproved for u n d u e severity should reply, ‘My language at least proves th at I am no flatterer,’ the answer tacitly implying that this fact justified the severity” (B urton, Galatians, 31). ή £ητώ άνθρωποι^ άρέσκειν, “or am I trying to please m en?’’repeats the thought ju st expressed a bit m ore distinctly, with £ητώ άρέσκειν taking the place of πείθω to signal m ore directly the idea o f attem pt. T he Judaizers, it seems, had told the Galatians th at Paul really did believe in and preach the necessity of circum cision (5:11) — at least, he preached it elsewhere in his mission. U ndoubtedly, therefore, they were saying th at his failure to do so to Gentiles in Galatia was because he did n o t w ant to offend them , b u t ra th e r w anted to win th eir favor. Paul, o f course, does n o t deny th at he him self continued as a C hristian to live a basically Jewish lifestyle (cf. 1 Cor 9:1 9 -2 3 ), or that he saw it as legitim ate for Jewish believers in Jesus to continue to express their faith in the traditional form s o f Judaism (cf. 1 Cor 7:1720). But he m ade a distinction between Jewish Christians and G entile Christians with regard to the Mosaic law. And so, he insists, he was attem pting no subterfuge by n o t bringing in the law in his Galatian mission, eith er as a m eans o f acceptance before God or as the norm ative expression of the Christian life.

Explanation

19

el 6TL άνθρώττοις* ήρεσκον, Χρίστου δούλος* ούκ αν ή μην, “if I were still trying to please m en, I would n o t be a servant of Christ.” This last p art of v 10 is an im plied answer to the questions of the first part. T he sentence is in the form of a second class “contrary to fact” conditional sentence, which assumes the condition to be u n tru e. Paul is here n o t speaking against being pleasing to others for the sake of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 10:33, “I try to please everybody in every way; for I am n o t seeking my own good b u t the good of many, so th at they may be saved”) , b u t against gaining the favor of others for o n e ’s own advantage and as the m otivation and goal o f Christian ministry. F urtherm ore, his words are n o t to be taken in an absolute sense, as though renouncing all desires to please others u n d e r any circum stance, b u t in a com parative sense to m ean the disavowal o f pleasing others in preference to God. Paul recognizes the incongruity of trying to be both a “servant o f C hrist” and a “m an pleaser.” T he errorists, of course, were m inim izing his claim to be C hrist’s servant. But he asserts it and bases his whole ministry on th at prem ise (cf. 1:1). So he tells his Galatian converts that his own consciousness o f apostleship (“servant of C hrist”) would n o t have allowed the m otivation ascribed to him by others. Explanation P aul’s designation of him self as an apostle in 1:1 goes far beyond statem ents as to his apostolic status found elsewhere in his letters, and so suggests at the outset that apostolic authority will be an im portant feature in his Galatians argum ent. Yet 1 :6 -9 is not, as m ight have been expected, a direct developm ent of P aul’s claim to apostolic authority. Instead, Paul moves to an analysis of the problem at Galatia and a definition o f the gospel that excludes any possible alternative version. H e then subordinates all authority and status— including his own and that of even an “angel from heaven”— to the one true gospel. So Paul responds to the judaizing threat am ong his converts by setting out as the touchstone for all Christian thought and life the gospel of Christ, which he preached and which they received. In fact, if any one preaches an o th er gospel, insists Paul, he forfeits his claim to authority and comes u n d er G od’s curse. After the twice-repeated anathema, Paul rath er em otionally interjects two somewhat defiant questions, which may be paraphrased as follows: “Now, does that sound like the language of one whose m ain concern is to gain the favor of others?” He th en asserts that knowing him self to be a servant of Christ, the stance of a “m an pleaser” would be impossible. Paul’s statem ent as to the occasion for writing Galatians is forceful and unyielding. His setting o u t of the issues is pointed and his initial response em otional. Many have no ted elsewhere in his letters attitudes of openness, tolerance, and accom m odation to issues in his churches (e.g., 1 Cor 7 -14, passim) and a breadth of spirit (e.g., Phil 1:15-18; 4 :8 -9 ), and have contrasted those features to what we find here. Yet Paul seems able to be m agnanim ous with regard to certain m atters (the so-called adiaphora) only because he knows what the fundam ental issues are. W here, however, foundational m atters are at stake, he is prepared, w ithout hesitation, to draw clear lines and to speak with fervor in defense of “the truth o f the gospel” (2:5, 14). And that is what he does here, as well as elsewhere in his letters where the gospel itself is at stake (cf. 2 Cor 11:13-15; Col 2:8).

B. Autobiographical Statements in Defense (Narratio) 1:11-2:14 After the exordium of 1:6-10, Paul uses two com m on epistolary disclosure formulae. T he first (γνωρί£ω 8e ύμίν, “I want you to know”) introduces the thesis statem ent of 1:11 -1 2 regarding the nature and origin o f the gospel he proclaims. T he second, which is a form ulaic use of the verb of hearing (ήκούσατβ yap,“for you have h e a rd ”), introduces the autobiographical presentation that runs from 1:13 through 2:14 in support of that thesis. Taken together, the thesis statem ent of 1:1112 and the autobiographical m aterial of 1:13-2:14 make up P aul’s narratio— i.e., the “statem ent o f facts” as to what has occurred of relevance to the case.

1. Thesis Statement (1:11-12) Bibliography Bornkamm, G. “T he Revelation of Christ to Paul on the Damascus Road and P au l’s D octrine of Justification and Reconciliation: A Study in Galatians I.” Tr. J. M. Owen, in Reconciliation and Hope. FSL. L. Morris, ed. R. Banks. Exeter: Paternoster, 1974,90-103. Dahl, N. A. “P aul’s L etter to the Galatians: Epistolary G enre, C ontent, and S tru ctu re.” U npublished SBL Paul Sem inar paper, 1974. Dupont, J. “T he Conversion of Paul an d Its Influence on His U n d erstanding of Salvation by F aith.” In Apostolic History and the Gospel FS F. F. Bruce, ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin. Exeter: Paternoster, 1970,176-94. Jeremias, J. “Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen.” ZAW49 (1958) 145-56. Menoud, P. H. “Revelation and T radition: T he Influence of P aul’s Conversion on His Theology.” Int 7 (1953) 131-41.

Translation 111 want you to know,a brothers, that the gospel I preached to you is not simply human. 121 did not receive it from any man, norb was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Notes aT he reading γάρ, “fo r,” after γνωρίζω, “I w a n t. . . to know ,” appears in B D* G it copsa. T he b etter reading, however, is probably 8e, “b u t,” w hich is su p p o rte d by p46K* A Byzantine syr co p bo. bT he MS evidence is alm ost equally divided as to the negative c o n ju n c tio n befo re έδιδάχθηυ, “was I ta u g h t”: οϋτε in P46 B Byzantine, o r ουδέ in K A D* G et al. T h ere is, however, no d ifference o f m eanin g, for b oth are translated “n o r.”

Form/'Structure,/Setting

21

Form/Structure/Setting Joachim Jerem ias viewed 1:11 -1 2 as the first p art of an ex tended chiasm us that runs th ro u g h o u t the entire body of Galatians (ZN W 49 [1958] 152-53). Asjerem ias u n d ersto o d the le tte r’s structure, κατά άνθρωπον, “h u m an ,” of v 11 and παρά ανθρώπου, “from any m an ,” ofv 12 are spelled ou t in reverse o rd e r th ro u g h o u t the rest o f the body of the letter: first in 1:13-2:21, with its elaboration o f the them e th at the gospel is n o t παρά άνθρωπον; then in 3:1-6:10, w here it is stressed th at it is n o t κατά άνθρωπον. So a s jerem ias saw it, Galatians is a carefully constructed chiasm us w herein P aul’s defense of the divine origin o f his message in the autobiographical section o f 1:13-2:21 elaborates παρά ανθρώπου o f 1:12 and his theological argum ents drawn from his biblical exposition of 3:1- 6:10 pick up on κατά άνθρωπον of 1:11. Franz M ussner explicitly uses Jerem ias’ chiastic analysis in his 1974 Galatians com m entary, structuring his treatm ent of the letter as follows: I. T he Pauline gospel n o t παρά ανθρώπου (1:13-2:21); II. T he Pauline gospel n o t κατά άνθρωπον, but κατά την γραφήν (3:1-6:10) ( Galaterbrief, vii-viii, 77). Likewise, Jerem ias’ analysis is reflected in J. Christiaan B eker’s 1980 m agnum opus, where in speaking of the literary structure of Galatians Beker says: The theme, which is subsequently unfolded chiastically, is stated in Gal. 1:11-12: “T he gospel which was preached by me is n o t m an ’s gospel (kata anthrōp on) . For I did n o t receive it from m an (para anthrōp ou), n o r was I taught it, b u t it came through a revelation about (of?) Jesus C hrist.” 1. “The apostle”: Gal 1:13-2:21. Paul’s gospel does n o t derive “from a hum an source” (para anthrōpou); to the contrary, it is directly from God, and this constitutes his apostleship. 2. “The gospel”: Gal 3:1-5:25. Paul’s gospel is not “according to hum an standards” (kata anthrōp on); to the contrary, it is according to Scripture (kata graphēn, Gal. 3:1-4:31) and verified by the Spirit (Gal 5:1-15)” (Paul the Apostle, 44 -4 5 ). T he attem p t to see the body o f Galatians as one large chiasmus, however, falters on several grounds: (1) the inability of its p ro p o n en ts to identify significant repetitions within its parts; (2) the difficulty of laying ou t a well-balanced structure between its parts; and (3) uncertainties as to where one them e ends and an o th er begins (cf. N. A. Dahl, “P aul’s L etter to the G alatians,” 7 6 -7 7 ). It can even be debated, in fact, w hether κατά άνθρωπον and παρά ανθρώπου are really set o u t by Paul in balanced fashion, or w hether the latter is n o t an explication of the form er and to be paired with έδιδάχθην that im m ediately follows (see Comment on v 12). Indeed, Paul ’s autobiographical presentation o f 1:13 - 2:14 is, asjerem ias insists, a defense o f the divine origin of his message. But it is also an introduction to the essential n ature of his gospel, and is probably best seen com ing to a climax in the propositio o f 2:15 - 21. T h ere are, o f course, com m on them es that ru n th ro u g h o u t 1:11 -2:21. Yet the structure o f this m aterial seems better highlighted by the two epistolary disclosure

22

G alatians 1:11- 12

form ulae of 1:11 and 1:13, and better described by rhetorical argum entative m odes o f narratio (1:11-2:14) and propositio (2:15-21). So we conclude that 1:11-12 functions as the thesis statem ent for the autobiographical elaboration that follows in 1:13-2:14. Comment 11 γνωρίζω δε ύμΐν, αδελφοί, “I want you to know, b ro th ers.” W hether γάρ, “fo r,” or δε, “b u t,” should be read as the postpositive conjunction is difficult to determ ine from the MS evidence alone. B D G et al. read γάρ, and so WH, Souter, Burton, rsv, UBSGT3, Betz, and others favor that; p46 K A et al., however, read δ ε , which has been accepted by UBSGT2and o th er interpreters (also Lightfoot som ewhat cautiously). T he issue is of some im portance, since γάρ as an explanatory conjunction suggests that v 11 should be seen as sum m arizing or concluding what has gone before, whereas δέ as a resumptive a n d /o r mildly adversative conjunction would indicate that Paul m eant to begin a new section in his argum ent at v 11— which as resumptive picks up the them es of 1:1-5 and as adversative stands in contrast to 1:6-10. In addition to the slight tipping of the scales in favor o f δε in the MS evidence (esp. p46 and IS), the issue is influenced by an epistolary analysis of Galatians. For if P aul’s disclosure form ulae of vv 11 and 13 introduce his narratio (as we have arg u ed ), then δε is m uch to be preferred. F urtherm ore, though Paul can use the disclosure form ula γνωρίζω ύμΐν δτι without any conjunction (cf. 1 Cor 12:3), elsewhere in his letters where he begins a new section with such a formula the conjunction is δέ (cf. 1 Cor 15:1; 2 Cor 8:1: γνωρίζω [~ομεν] δέ ύμΐν, αδελφοί). T he verb γνωρίζω, as we have seen, was p art of a com m on disclosure form ula in Hellenistic letters (for papyri references, see MM, 129). Paul also uses it to introduce somewhat formal and solem n assertions (cf. 1 Cor 12:3; 15:1; 2 Cor 8:1). Here, as Burton points out, “the assertion that follows is in effect the proposition to the proving of which the whole argum ent of 1:13-2:21 is d irected ” ( Galatians, 35). T he άδε λφοι, “brothers,” of 1:2, w hether leaders of the church at Syrian Antioch or P aul’s fellow missionaries, were mainly, if n o t entirely, Jewish Christians. H ere, however, the αδελφοί are Gentile Christians who were being enticed into apostasy. Jews spoke o f oth er Jews as brothers (Lev 19:17; D eut 1:16; 2 Macc 1:1; Acts 7:2; Rom 9:3); likewise, m em bers of Hellenistic religious com m unities designated each o th er as brothers (see MM, 9). The practice of calling one an o th er “b ro th ers” in the early church may have derived, in part, from both such usages— though probably it stem m ed principally from Jesus’ having called his disciples “b ro th ers” because of their relationship to him and their doing the F ath er’s will (cf. Matt 23:8; Mark 3:31-35). Paul, too, views Christians as brothers because of their com m on relationship to Christ (cf. Rom 8:29; see also vv 16-17). And from this basis of shared relationship he goes on in his use of “b ro th ers” to stress the fraternal, affectionate, mutually helpful attitude of Christians to one an o th er (Rom 14:10,13, 15; 1 Cor 5:11; 6:5-8; 8:11-13; 15:58; 2 Cor 1:1; 2:13). So in Galatians even am idst tones of sternness and severity Paul speaks of his wayward converts as “b ro th ers” (see also 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11,13; 6:1,18)—in effect, therefore, rem inding them of his and their fraternal relationship, even though they were beginning to forget it. το εύαγγέλιον τό εύαγγελισθέν ύπ ’ έμοϋ, “the gospel I preached to you,” is P aul’s somewhat cum bersom e way of identifying his message preached at Galatia,

Comment

23

which he calls m ore concisely “my gospel” (τό εύαγγέλιόν μου) in Rom 2:16 and 16:25. His preaching, of course, focused on “Christ crucified” (3:1). M ore particularly, however, it laid stress on Gentiles who believed in Christ being accepted by God apart from any Jewish rituals and living before God apart from a Jewish lifestyle. For Paul, “Christ crucified” m eant a proclam ation com pletely different from that o f the Judaizers, simply because nothing could be added to what Christ h ad already done. Indeed, in its focus on the redem ptive work of Christ, P aul’s preaching was identical to that of the Jerusalem apostles (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11). It was, however, distinctly P aul’s gospel (“the gospel I preached to you” or “my gospel”) because o f his clear recognition of its law-free nature. It was, therefore, no t his preaching of “Christ crucified” that was being called into question by the Judaizers in Galatia, b u t the im plications which Paul drew from that regarding G od’s acceptance of Gentile believers apart from their conform ity to the Mosaic law. ότι ούκ εστιν κατά άνθρωπον, “is not simply hum an.”The aorist adjectival participle εύαγγελισθέν, “p reached,” of the previous clause referred the reader back to what Paul preached in his original mission am ong the Galatians. H ere, however, εστιν, “is,” suggests th at P aul’s gospel is always the same. This converse use of aorist and present tenses occurs with similar effect in 2:2, άνεθέμην αυτοί? τό εύαγγέλιόν δ κηρύσσω εν τοΐ? έθνεσιν, “I set before them the gospel that I preach am ong the G entiles.” ούκ κατά άνθρωπον, “n o t simply h u m an ,” is P aul’s basic negative statem ent, in line with ούκ α π ’ ανθρώπων ούδε δ ι’ ανθρώπου, “n o t from m en n o r through any m an ,” of v la , and will be spelled out m ore fully in v 12a. T he preposition κατά m eans “according to ” or “after the m anner of,” and connotes “stem m ing from the will or authority of.” T he nou n άνθρωπον conveys simply the thought of “h u m an ” w ithout any m ore exact discrim ination. The com plete phrase κατά άνθρωπον suggests both source and agency (as do its parallels in v l a ) , bu t these ideas are left to be elaborated in the statem ents of v 12a. 12 ούδε γάρ εγώ παρά ανθρώπου παρέλαβον αύτό, ούτε έδιδάχθην, “I did n o t receive it from any m an, n o r was I taught it.’’T he explanatory γάρ, “for,” signals that this sentence with its two negatives is m eant to be an elaboration and clarification of ούκ εστιν κατά άνθρωπον, “is n o t simply h u m an .’’T he preposition παρά is often used in the NT in the sense of ultim ate source, with από and παρά appearing indistinguishably in parallel accounts (cf. Mark 5:35 and Luke 8:49; Matt 12:28 and Luke 11:16). T he nou n άνθρώπου, “any m an ,” is generic, as used before. So it seems we should understand ούδε παρά ανθρώπου, “n o t from any m an,” here as equivalent to ούκ α π ’ ανθρώπων, “n o t from m en ,” ofv la , with b oth expressions referring to source and denying that P aul’s law-free gospel had its origin in any hum an tradition. Likewise, ούτε έδιδάχθην, “n o r was I taught it,” should probably be paralleled with ούδε δ ι’ άνθρώπου, “n o r through any m an ,” of v la , with both referring to agency and denying that P aul’s law-free gospel came to him by m eans of any hum an instruction. αλλά δ ι’ άποκαλύψεω? ’Ιησού Χριστού, “rath er . . . by revelation from Jesus C hrist.” T he ούκ. . .ούδε . . .ούτε .. .αλλά construction o f w 11-12 corresponds to the ούκ.. .ούδε .. .άλλα construction of v 1, which necessitates that we in terp ret the two sets of statements in similar fashion. Likewise, just as the negatives are to be taken as parallels, so we should interpret δ i’ άποκαλύψεω? ’Ιησού Χριστού in line with the positive affirm ation of v lb . Admittedly, m ost com m entators take’I ησού Χριστού

24

G alatians 1:11- 12

as an objective genitive and so understand Jesus Christ as the content of the revelation, mainly because of v 16a (see also 2:20a) where Paul says that G od’s purpose in calling him was “to reveal his Son in m e (άποκαλύψαι τον υιόν αύτοϋ ev έμοί) so that I m ight preach him am ong the G entiles” (so B urton, D uncan, Betz, Bruce, et al.). But ju st as Paul viewed the preaching o f “Christ crucified” to entail a law-free gospel, so he u nderstood a Gentile mission as involved in G od’s sending o f his Son. T he word άποκαλύψεως*, “revelation,” may signify either content or means. With the preposition δια, “by,” and in parallel with P aul’s statem ent ofv lb , it is probably best seen here in the sense of means. T he question Paul faced at Galatia was where his message of a law-free gospel came from. His assertion in v 1, as we have seen, is: Jesus Christ is its agent and God the Father its source. So here too we should probably understand δι ’ αποκαλύψεων in the sense of m eans and ’ I ησοϋ Χριστού as a subjective genitive (so Bring; cf. Rev 1:1). Paul’s thesis, therefore, in line with his affirm ation o f 1:1, is that he received authority for preaching Christ in law-free term s to Gentiles by m eans o f a revelation of which Jesus Christ was the agent. In all probability he had his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road in m ind, with that revelation including (at least embryonically) a mission to Gentiles. Explanation Q uestions as to P aul’s dependence and independence vis-a-vis early Christian tradition have always been of concern to interpreters, with some stressing d ep en dence and others independence. The issue comes to the fore particularly h ere in the thesis statem ent of 1:11-12 and in the autobiographical section of 1:13-2:14 th at follows. In fact, there appears to be a direct contradiction in P aul’s disavowal here of having “received” (παρέλαβον) his message from others and his various acknowledgem ents elsewhere in his letters of having “received” (παρέλαβον) the central kerygmatic traditions from those who preceded him in the Christian faith (e.g.,1 Cor 11:23-26; 15:3-11). It is a mistake, however, to read such statem ents apart from their contexts, or to set them in rath er w ooden opposition to one another. P aul’s gospel given him by revelation was n o t a message that differed in kerygmatic content from that of the early church. Rather, it was a message that included a new understanding of what m ight be called the “redem ptive logistics” for these final days— i.e., (1) a direct outreach to Gentiles apart from Judaism ’s rituals, (2) authentic Christian living for Gentiles apart from a Jewish lifestyle, and (3) the equality of Jewish and Gentile believers in the C hurch. As for the basic content of the gospel, Paul was d ep e n d en t on those who were his Christian predecessors, as his repeated use of early Christian confessional materials indicates (for such m aterials in Galatians, see R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ; for a survey of such m aterials elsewhere in P aul’s letters, see A. M. H unter, Paul and His Predecessors). However, as for Gentiles being accepted by God and living as Christians apart from the regulations of the Mosaic law— and so, as for the legitimacy of a Gentile mission apart from the Jewish law— Paul saw this as a “mystery” (μυστήριον) enigmatically rooted in the prophetic Scriptures but now m ade known to him by revelation (cf. Rom 16:25-26; Eph 3:2-10; Col 1:2627), and so uniquely his. T h e ju d aizers in Galatia were no t arguing against the C h u rch ’s basic kerygmatic confessions. W hat they opposed were the im plications Paul drew from these

Translation

25

confessions for a law-free gospel am ong Gentiles. Paul, however, saw in the proclam ation o f full salvation in Christ the attendant truth of acceptance and life for Gentiles apart from the Mosaic law. This is what he calls “the gospel I preached to you” (1:11) or “my gospel” (Rom 2:16; 16:25; see also 2 Tim 2:8; and “our gosp el” at 2 Cor 4:3; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Thess 2:14). And this is what he asserts in 1:11-12 did n o t com e to him from any hum an source or through any hum an agency, but rath er was received “by revelation” (the means) “through Jesus C hrist” (the a g e n t). Paul could n o t claim the usual apostolic qualifications as expressed in Jo h n 15:27 and Acts 1:21-22. H e was d ep e n d en t on those who were believers before him for m uch in the Christian tradition, as his letters frankly indicate. But he had been confronted by the exalted Lord, directly com m issioned an apostle by Christ himself, and given the key to the pattern of redem ptive history in the present age. T he Jerusalem apostles had the key to many of the prophetic mysteries and were the living canons of the data in the gospel proclam ation. He, however, had been entrusted with a fu rth er aspect of that message, which came to him “by revelation through Jesus C hrist” and so was uniquely his. T oge th e r, the apostolic kerygma and the mystery revealed to Paul regarding a law-free gospel for Gentiles com bined to enhance the fullness of the Christian message.

2. Early Life, Conversion and Commission (1:13-17) Bibliography Bruce, F. F. “F u rth e r T houghts on P au l’s Biography: G alatians 1:11-2:14.” In Jesus und Paulus. FS W. G. K üm m el. T ü b in g e n : M ohr-Siebeck, 1975. 21-29. D onaldson, T. L. “Zealot and Convert: T he O rigin of P aul’s C hrist-Torah A ntithesis.” CBQ51 (1989) 6 5582. D upont, J. “La Revelation du Fils de D ieu en faveur de P ierre (Mt 16, 17) et de Paul (Gal 1, 16).” RSR 52 (1964) 411-20. H olm berg, B. Paul and Power. L ongenecker, R. N. Paul, Apostle ofLiberty, 33-36 (Paul’s persecution o f the C hurch) an d 160-70 (“in C hrist”) . ————. “T he Acts of the A postles.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 9. Ed. F. E. G aebelein. Zondervan, 1981,367-79.————. The Christology of EarlyJewish Christianity, 9 3 99 (“Son of G od”) . Martyn, J. L. “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: T he B ackground o f G alatians.” M QR 22 (1983) 221-36.

Translation 13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 141 was advancing in Judaism beyond manyJews of my own age, beingfa r more zealousfor the traditions of my fathers. 15But when the One who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleaseda 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately thereafter consult

26

G a la tia n s

1:13-17

with anyone;17nor did I go upb toJerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Notes aT he reading εύ δ ό κ η σ εν (or η ύ δ ό κ η σ εν) ό θεό ? appears in K A D Byzantine syrhel copsa’ bo et al., so m aking explicit by the addition o f ό θεό s ' what is plainly to be understood. However, εύ δ ό κ η σ ευ alone, as in p46 B G, is to be preferred. bT he m ajority o f MSS (K A etal.) read ά νή λ θ ο ν (“w e n tu p ”) εις* ' Ιερ ο σ ό λ υ μ α , though α π ή λθ ο ν (“w ent away”) appears in p51 B D G an d ήλθου (“w ent”) in p46vid.

Form/Structure/Setting In support o f his claim that “the gospel I preached to you is n o t simply hu m an — I did n o t receive it from any m an, n o r was I taught it” (1:11-12), Paul sets ou t in 1:13-2:14a nu m b er o f incidents having to do with his life in Judaism , his conversion to Christ, his commission to m inister am ong Gentiles, his visits to Jerusalem , and his contacts with the Jerusalem apostles. T he section begins with the epistolary disclosure form ula ή κούσατε γάρ (“for you have h e a rd ”) , which directly introduces the statem ents about his life in Judaism o f 1:13-14, though probably it is m eant as well to stand over all the autobiographical narration from 1:13 through 2:14. For while it may be assum ed that Paul, when with them , had told his converts som ething about many, if n o t all, of these incidents, his opponents evidently had an o th er version and had circulated that version am ong the Galatian churches. Thus Paul feels com pelled to rehearse the incidents in question, setting m atters right and so elaborating on the thesis of 1:11-12. H ere in 1:13-17 he speaks of his life in Judaism , his conversion to Christ, and his commission to a Gentile mission, obviously rebutting rum ors to the contrary. As for his life in Judaism (w 13-14), he denies that he was in any way p rep ared for preaching a law-free gospel to Gentiles. Far from it! Rather, he was a faithful and zealous observer o f the Jewish religion and way o f life, even to the p oint of persecuting Christians and trying to destroy “the church o f G od.” We know from some second-, third-, and fourth-century writings th at opposition to Paul am ong Jewish Christians was often bitter and intense. T he Ascension of James, whose au th o r probably lived in or n ear Pella and wrote som etim e after the m iddle o f the second century, speaks of P aul’s law-free approach as reducing the n u m b er o f Gentiles who cam e to C hrist through the outreach of Jewish Christians an d characterizes Paul as follows: Paul was a m an of Tarsus—indeed, a Hellene [Greek], the son of a Hellenist m other and a Hellenist father. Having gone up to Jerusalem and having rem ained there a long time, he desired to marry a daughter of the (high) priest and on that account submitted himself as a proselyte for circumcision. W hen, however, he did not obtain the girl, he became furious and began to write against circumcision, the sabbath, and the law (cf. Epiphanius, Ραηαήοη [“Medicine Chest”] or Adv. Haer. 30.16; see also 30.25). T he late-second-century Kerygmata Petrou “Preachings of P e te r” repeatedly refers to Paul as “the enemy m an ” who proclaim ed a “lawless and absurd do ctrin e.”

Comment

27

Likewise, the third- and fourth-century pseudo-Clem entine Homilies and Recognitions, in addition to accusing Paul of short-circuiting the Jewish Christian mission to the entire world, vehem ently discredit him u n d er the cover figure of Simon Magus, who is constantly opposed by Peter and James. It is impossible, of course, to be certain that such attacks against Paul were explicitly m ounted by any branch of Jewish Christendom during the first century a.d. Yet they undoubtedly had roots in earlier times, and so it may be assumed that Paul’s opponents in Galatia were insinuating something of the kind. And it is against any such suggestion as to the inferiority of his experience in Judaism that Paul speaks in vv 13-14. As for his conversion to Christ and his commission to m inister am ong Gentiles, Paul seems to be rebutting in vv 15-17 certain suggestions to the effect (1) that his Christian profession can be explained along the lines of hum an motivations and events, and (2) that his subsequent activity included instruction under the Jerusalem apostles, from whose teaching he then deviated. To such assertions, Paul answers that it was God who called him in prophetic fashion to minister to Gentiles and that he had no contact with his Christian predecessors at Jerusalem until m uch later. Comment 13 ήκούσατε γάρ την έμήν αναστροφήν ποτέ έν τω ’ Ιουδαϊσμω, “for you have h eard of my previous way of life in Judaism .” T he force of the explanatory γάρ, “for,” extends, in effect, through 2:14, since the argum ent of the narratio is cumulative. So too ήκούσατε is probably m eant to stand over all the autobiographical narration o f 1:13-2:14. P aul’s evangelistic practice, it seems, included certain of his own experiences in proclaim ing the gospel, though these were twisted by his opponents for their own purposes. T he n o u n αναστροφή am ong classical authors m ean t “re tu rn ,” b u t it becam e in Koine Greek a locution for “behavior,” “co n d u ct,” or “way of life” (see the inscriptional evidence cited by MM, 38; also Polybius 4.82; Tob 4:14; 2 Macc 3:23; Eph 4:22; 1 Tim 4:12; H eb 13:7; Jas 3:13; 1 P eter 1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16; 2 P eter 2:7; 3:11). It is n o t found in the canonical writings o f the LXX or in the papyri, which may only m ean that it was n o t cu rren t in Egypt. ’ Ιουδαϊσμός, m eaning “the Jewish religion and way of life,” appears in the NT only here and at v 14. It may originally have been coined by Gentiles as a term of contem pt (similar to believers in Christ being called Χ ριστιανός). However, its use in 2 Macc 2:21; 8:1; 14:38; 4 Macc 4:26 for the Jewish religion and way of life as contrasted to Seleucid H ellenism indicates that, whatever its origin, it becam e for Jews an h o n o red title. ότι καθ’ υπερβολήν έδιωκον τήν εκκλησίαν του θεού και έπόρθουν αυτήν, “how intensely I persecuted the church o f God and tried to destroy it.” Elaborating exegetically on τήν έμήν αναστροφήν, “my previous way of life,” Paul gives two examples of pertinence for his argum ent: (1) his intense persecution of Christians (v 13), and (2) his extrem e zeal for everything Jewish (v 14). καθ’ υπερβολήν, “intensely,” is a classical comparative that signals an excess of either quality or character (or both) over what m ight be expected. It appears in the NT only in P aul’s letters (cf. Rom 7:13; 1 Cor 12:31; 2 Cor 1:8; 4:17). T he im perfect verbs έδιωκον and έπόρθουν, with their connotations of past repeated action, highlight the continuance o f P aul’s earlier persecuting activity, πορθέω, the latter of these verbs,

28

G alatians 1:13-17

was used from H om er on to m ean “devastate,” “sack”, or “destroy” cities, and so intensifies the verb διώκω, “persecute” (cf. v 23; see also Acts 8:3). P aul’s use o f την εκκλησίαν του θεού, “the church of G od,” is especially interesting, particularly since it signals a m ore elevated understanding of “c h u rch ” than appears in the localized uses of 1:2 and 22 (cf. 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). In context, “the church of G od” stands in opposition to ‘Judaism ,” and so the m ore universal sense of εκκλησία may be claim ed to have arisen from the need for Christian self-definition vis-a-vis Judaism . In his earlier letters (including Galatians, as we have arg u ed ), Paul usually thinks o f churches as local com m unities o f Christians. His use here, however, indicates th at he also, when defining his position vis-a-vis Judaism , began to think m ore universally of all such com m unities as m aking up the one church of God. F urtherm ore, it should be n o ted that “the church of G od” here, while referring directly to Jewish Christians, has relevance to P aul’s Gentile converts as well, so indicating in P aul’s thinking the u nion o f Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ. Yet, as B urton points out, “inasm uch as the church which Paul persecuted was a Jewish church, no t only in that it was com posed of Jews, bu t probably mainly of those who still observed the Jewish law, his characterisation o f it as the church o f God shows how far he was from denying the legitimacy of Jewish Christianity in itself’ ( Galatians, 45-46). C om m entators have frequently seen in P aul’s persecution of the Christian church an attem pt to slay externally the dragons of doubt that he could n o t silence within his own h eart and to repress “all h u m an er tendencies in the interests of his legal absolutism ” (C. H. Dodd, The M ind of Paul: Change and Development, 36; see also his The Mind of Paul: A Psychological Approach, esp. 12-13). But the day of the psychological in terpretation of P aul’s conversion appears to be over, and deservedly so. It is probable that Paul took up his task of persecution with full knowledge o f the earnestness o f his opponents, the stam ina of martyrs, and the agony he would necessarily cause. Fanaticism was n o t so foreign to Palestine as to leave him unaware o f such things, and it is quite possible that he was p rep ared for the em otional strain involved in persecuting those he believed to be dangerous schismatics within Israel. M ore im portant, however, in days when the keeping of the Mosaic law was considered by Pharisaic Jews to be the vitally im portant prerequisite for the com ing of the Messianic Age (cf. b. Sanh. 97b-98a; b. B. Bat. 10a; b. Yoma 86b), Paul could very well have validated his actions against Christians by reference to such godly precedents as (1) Moses’ slaying of the im m oral Israelites at Baal-peor (cf. N um 25:1-5); (2) P hinehas’ slaying of the Israelite m an and M idianite wom an in the plains o f Moab (cf. Num 25:6-15); and (3) the actions o f M attathias and the Hasidim in rooting out apostasy am ong the people (cf. 1 Macc 2:23-28, 42-48). Perhaps even the divine com m endation of P hinehas’ action in N um 25:11-13 rang in his ears: Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has tu rn ed my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as jealous as I am for my h o n o r am ong them , so th at in my zeal I did n o t p u t an end to them . T herefore tell him I am m aking my covenant of peace with him. He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the h o n o r of his G od and m ade atonem ent for the Israelites.

Comment

29

2 Macc 6:13 counsels that “it is a m ark of great kindness when the im pious are n o t let alone for a long time, bu t punished at once.” T he DSS define a righteous m an as one who “bears unrem itting hatred toward all m en of ill repute” (1QS 9.22). They speak o f unswerving allegiance to God and his laws as alone providing a firm foundation for the Holy Spirit, truth, and the arrival of Israel’s hope (IQ S 9.3-4, 20-21) and call for volunteers who are blameless in spirit and body to root out apostasy in the final eschatological days (1QM 7.5; 10.2-5). T he Q um ran psalmist, in fact, directly associates com m itm ent to God and his laws with zeal against apostates and perverters of the law when he says: T he n earer I draw to you, the m ore am I filled with zeal against all that do wickedness and against all m en o f deceit. For they th at draw near to you cannot see your com m andm ents defiled, and they that have knowledge of you can brook no change of your words, seeing that you are the essence of right, and all your elect are the p ro o f of your truth (1QH 14.13-15). With such precedents and parallels, coupled with the rising tide of messianic expectation within Israel, Paul may well have felt justified in m ounting a persecution against Jewish Christians. Probably he reasoned that in light of Israel’s rising messianic hopes the nation m ust be unified and faithful in its obedience to the law and kept from schism or going astray. And in this task he doubtless expected to receive G od’s com m endation. 14 και προέκοπτον έν τω Ίουδάΐσμω υπέρ πολλούς* συνηλικιώτας* έν τω γένει μου, “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews o f my own age,” continues P aul’s epexegetical elaborations on his earlier αναστροφή, “way of life,” in Judaism . T he verb προκύπτω, which seems to have been originally a nautical term for “make headway in spite of blows,” came to connote in the philosophical and religious writings of the Hellenistic world “the process of moral and spiritual developm en t” in an individual (cf. G. Stählin, “προκοπή, προκύπτω,” TDNT6:704—7). Itis used in this way by Josephus o f his own “great progress in ed u catio n ” (Life 8), by Luke o f Jesu s’ growth “in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and m e n ” (Luke 2:52), and in the Pauline letters some eight times total (here and at Rom 13:12; Phil 1:12, 25; 1 Tim 4:15; 2 Tim 2:16; 3:9, 13). Its im perfect form (προέκοπτον), in line with the two im perfects ofv 13, lays stress on the past durative idea—i.e., th at th ere was a continuing process of moral and spiritual development throughout Paul’s life in Judaism. συνηλικιώτας*, which appears in the NT only here, is a Hellenistic term for “a person of o n e ’s own age” or “a contem porary” (cf. ηλικία, “age”), γένος* (“race,” “family,” “class”), particularly in tandem with ’Ιουδαϊσμός*, refers to the Jewish nation w ithout any fu rth er discrim ination (so also 2 Cor 11:26; Phil 3:5; cf. Acts 7:19; 13:26). Thus the com parison is with o ther Jews of P aul’s age generally, w ithout any attem pt to rank his progress am ong Pharisees specifically. περισσοτέρως* ζηλωτής* ύπαρχων των πατρικών μου παραδόσεων, “being far m ore zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” Paul uses the comparative adverbs περισσοτέρως* (“far m o re,” 2 Cor 1:12; 7:13, 15; 12:15) and υπερβαλλόντως* (“to a m uch greater d eg ree,” 2 Cor 11:23) synonymously. H ere the com parison is with “many Jews o f my own age.” Contrary to Lightfoot, who understood Paul to m ean th at he “belonged to the extrem e party of the Pharisees” and so was what later

30

G alatians 1:13-17

becam e known as a Zealot ( Galatians, 81 - 8 2 ) , ίηλωτή? here should be taken only as “an ard en t observer of T o ra h ”— as it appears also in Acts 22:3 in one of P aul’s defenses (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.271, of Mattathias; Acts 21:20 of Jewish Christians at Jerusalem; see also 1 Macc 2:26-27,50; 2 Macc 4:2; 4 Macc 18:12; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.30; 2.253; Abr. 60; Virt. 175). των πατρικών μου παραδόσεων, “for the traditions o f my fathers,” refers to (1) the teachings and practices developed in the Pharisaic schools o f Second Tem ple Judaism , which later becam e codified in the M ishnah, Palestinian and Babylonian Gemaras, M idrashim , and the various individual halakic and haggadic collections of rabbinic lore, and (2) the interpretations of a m ore p o p u lar n atu re th at arose within the synagogues o f P aul’s day, as rep resen ted in the extant Targum im . W hat Paul is insisting on is that as far as his standing in Judaism is concerned, his credentials are im peccable (cf. Acts 22:3; Phil 3:5-6). Or, as Betz puts it, “As a Jew he had no reason to leave Judaism ” ( Galatians, 68). 15 ότε δέ εύδόκησεν ό αφόρισα? με εκ κοιλία? μητρό? μου καί καλεσα? διά τή? χάριτο? αυτοί), “But when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased.” The crux of Paul’s argum ent in vv 15-17 comes near the end: “I did n o t consult immediately thereafter with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before m e” (w 1 6 b -l7 a). He prepares for these assertions, however, by first setting out in positive fashion the bases for his ministry— i.e., G od’s good pleasure (εύδόκησεν), ordination (αφόρισα?), and call (καλεσα?). T he subject o f the substantival participles αφόρισα? and καλεσα? is clearly God (cf. 1:6; 2:8; 3:5; 5:8; also Rom 8:11; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:24), so that the addition of ό θεό? in ft A D etal. is uncalled for. ό αφόρισα? με εκ κοιλία? μητρό? μου, “the O ne who separated m e /set me apart from birth,” is an expression rooted in the call of certain OT prophets (cf. Jer 1:5) and that of the Servant of Yahweh (cf. Isa 49:1-6). Its use by Paul o f his own apostleship— with evident intent (cf. Rom 1:1 ,άφωρισμένο? εί? ευαγγελίου θεού, “having been set ap art for the gospel o f G od”)—suggests that he th o u g h t of his apostleship n o t ju st along the lines of a Jewish understanding of mliah (i.e., representative m essenger or envoy; cf. Comment on 1:1), bu t also in term s of Israelite prophetology. έκ κοιλία? μητρό? μου, “from my m o th er’s wom b,” is a Septuagintalism that may m ean either “from my b irth ” or “from before my b irth ,” with its specific tem poral determ ination being heavily dependent on context. It is probably best, however, as with any idiomatic expression, to allow a measure of ambiguity and to translate it here simply “from birth.” καλεσα? διά τή? χάριτο? αυτού, “c a lle d .. .by his grace, ’’com pletes the couplet “set ap a rt” and “called.” T here is no necessary logical or chronological o rd er in P aul’s m ind as to G od’s ordination and call, as his reversal of these ideas in Rom 1:1 shows(κλητό? άπόστολο?, άφωρισμένο? εί? ευαγγελίου θεού, “called an apostle, set apart for the gospel of G od”) . W hat Paul is stressing, w ithout any thought expended as to logical or chronological relationships, is that his apostleship stems from G od’s good pleasure, ordination, and call. As a dative of m eans with a possessive genitive, the expression διά τή? χάριτο? αυτού, “by his grace,” is equivalent to εν χάριτι Χριστού, “by the grace of C hrist,” of v 6. T he interchange o f God (αύτού) and Christ (Χριστού) in the phraseology highlights the fact that Paul th o u g h t of God and Christ as com pletely at one in m an k in d ’s salvation. 16 άποκαλύψαι τον υιόν αύτού εν έμοί, “to reveal his Son in m e.” The language of v 16a raises a num ber of difficult questions and has caused a great deal

Comment

31

of speculation. T he Christological title “Son of G od,” “his [G od’s] Son,” or simply “the Son” appears in P aul’s writings fifteen times (“Son of G od”: Rom 1:4; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; “his Son” or “the Son”: Rom 1:3, 9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32; 1 Cor 1:9; 15:28; Gal 1:16; 4:4, 6; 1 Thess 1:10), which warrants W erner K ram er’s com m ent: “In com parison with the passages in which the titles Christ Jesus or L ord occur, this is an infinitesimally small figure” ( Christ, Lord, Son of God, 183). F urtherm ore, in that all o f these fifteen instances are in Paul’s earlier letters (i.e., the Hauptbriefe and 1 Thessalonians, b u t none in the Prison or Pastoral Epistles), it can be argued that “Son of G od” as a Christological title was derived by Paul from his Jewish Christian heritage (cf. ibid., 185). During the first half of the twentieth century, of course, scholars influenced by G. H. Dalman and W. Bousset tended to separate “Son of G od” from itsJewish roots and to see it as a Hellenistic epiphany accretion. O f late, however, the tide is being increasingly related to Jewish messianology (cf. 4QFlor on 2 Sam 7:14; 4 Ezra 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9) and seen as a feature of early jewish Christian Christology (cf. my The Christology of EarlyJewish Christianity, 93-99). In Galatians the title “Son of God” or “his Son” appears elsewhere at 2:20 and 4:4, 6, with each of these occurrences situated in a confessional or quasi-confessional portion (see Comment on these verses). So it may be claimed that “Son of God” is a title carried over from both Paul’sJewish and his Christian past, and that he uses it here as a central Christological ascription because (1) it was ingrained in his thinking as a Jewish Christian, and (2) it was part of the language of his opponents, who were also Jewish Christians. P aul’s use o f άποκαλύψαι, “to reveal,” raises the question as to exactly what form o f revelation he had in m ind, for the term carried a num ber of nuances in both Hellenism and Judaism (cf. A. Oepke, “αποκαλύπτω, άποκαλυψις*,” TDNT 3:56392). Most com m entators com pare his words here with those of 1 Cor 9:1 (“have I n o t seen jesus o u r Lord?”) a n d l Cor 15:8 (“last of all he appeared to m e”), and view these latter passages as alluding to C hrist’s encounter with Paul on the road to Damascus (cf. Acts 9:1-19; 22:3-16; 26:12-18). But the verb used in 1 Corinthians is όράω, “see,” rath er than αποκαλύπτω, “reveal”— first in the active (9:1, έώρακα) and th en in the passive (15:8, ώφθη). όράω suggests an external vision whereas αποκαλύπτω has been taken to signify an internal experience (cf. A. W iken hauser, Pauline Mysticism, 134-36). However, to quote H. D. Betz: “We should n o t suppose that Paul feels he contradicts him self in Gal 1:16 and 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8. Apparently for him the two forms of visions (external and internal) are n o t as distinct as they may be for some com m entators” ( Galatians, 71). The accusative τον υιόν αύτοϋ, “his Son,” is the direct object of the verb άποκαλύψαι, and so cannot be taken as anything o th er than the content of what was revealed to Paul on the Damascus road. The usage here, however, is not determ inative for w hether ’Ιησού Χριστού of v 12 is an objective genitive (specifying content) or a subjective genitive (specifying ag e n t), even though m ost have so concluded (see Comment on 1:12). W hat Paul received by revelation on his way to Damascus was (1) a new understanding ofjesus Christ, which he shared with others who had come in contact with the resurrected Lord, and (2) a new understanding o f G od’s strategy of redem ption (or, G od’s “redem ptive logistics”) for this final age, which included his law-free mission to Gentiles, b u t which he found was n o t always appreciated by others. These two features of that one revelation always went together in Paul’s mind, though at times depending on context he emphasized one over the

32

G alatians 1:13-17

other. Thus in Galatians, where issues relating to both justification by faith in Christ and the legitimacy of a law-free mission to Gentiles are intertw ined, Paul speaks of Jesus Christ as (1) the content of the Damascus road revelation (here and passim), as well as (2) the agent of that revelation on which he bases his ministry to the Gentiles (1 :1 , 1 2).

T he expression έν έμοι, “in m e,” corresponds to “Christ lives in m e” of 2:20 and “God sent the Spirit of his Son into our h earts” of 4:6, with all three of these passages pointing to the inward reality of Christian experience. Christ “in m e ” is the flip side o f the Christian being “in Christ Jesus” (see 3:26, 28, and Comment there). ινα εύαγγελι£ωμαι αυτόν εν τό ίς εθνεσιν, “so that I m ight preach him am ong the Gentiles.” In being confronted by Christ while traveling to Damascus, Paul was both converted and com m issioned (cf. Rom 1:5, “T hrough him and for his n am e’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from am ong all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith”) . So having spoken of the content of that revelation (“his Son”), he goes on to speak of its purpose: “so that [ινα] I m ight preach him am ong the Gentiles.” We n eed n o t suppose that Paul im mediately grasped all that was either stated or im plied in that en counter—i.e., that he fully u n d erstood in a m om ent everything pertaining to “his Son” or everything p ertaining to preaching Christ “am ong the Gentiles.” P aul’s own letters suggest that his u n d erstanding o f Christ developed thro u g h o u t his life as a Christian, and the Acts of the Apostles indicates that there were stages in his com prehension of what a mission to Gentiles involved. In good Semitic fashion, Paul speaks in ultim ates w ithout any attention to stages or progression of thought (cf. Acts 26:16-23). As F. F. Bruce aptly says: “Indeed, the logic of ‘the gospel according to P aul’ was im plicit in his Damascus-road experience. Paul grasped this in essence there and then, although the fuller im plications of the experience becam e plain to him m ore gradually” ( Galatians, 93). T he phrase εύαγγελί£ωμαι αυτόν, “that I m ight preach h im ,” is som ewhat rem arkable, for elsewhere in Galatians Paul speaks of preaching “the gospel” (τον εύαγγέλιον, cf. 1:8,9,11; 2:2; 4:13) or “the faith” (την ττίστιν, cf. 1:23). In his other letters, however, Paul easily equates “the gospel,” “the faith,” and “C hrist,” for the co n ten t of the Christian gospel and of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 15:18-20; 2 Cor 1:19; 4:5; Phil 1:15-18; Col 1:28)— or m ore precisely, “Christ crucified” (cf. 1 Cor 1:23; 2:2; Gal 3:1) and “Christ raised from the d ea d ” (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-12). T he present tense of ευαγγελι£ωμαι, particularly following the aorists άφορίσας (“set ap art”), καλέσας (“called”), and άποκαλύψαι (“to reveal”), lays stress on P aul’s continued preaching of Christ (i.e., “the gospel” or “the faith”) am ong the Gentiles, as based on G od’s ordination, call, and revelation. The preposition έν (“am ong”) indicates the sphere and scope of his mission—i. e., the regions of the Gentiles and all who lived in those areas (cf. 2:2, 8). And while in P aul’s quotation o f the Abraham ic blessing έθνη m eans “nations” in a general sense (3:8b), elsewhere in Galatians it uniform ly m eans “G entiles” as distinguished from Jews (cf. 2:2, 8 ,9 , 12, 14, 15; 3:8a, 14). 16b-17a εύθεως ου προσανεθεμην σαρκ'ι κα'ι αϊματι, ούδέ άνήλθον εις* Ι ε ρ οσόλυμα προς τού^ προ έμου αποστόλους, “I did not immediately thereafter consult with anyone; n o r did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were aposdes before m e.” The crux of Paul’s argum ent in vv 15-17, as we noted above, comes in this statement. So despite the versification, we must treat vv 16b and 17a together.

Comment

33

C om m entators differ as to w hether ευθέως· (“im m ediately”) should go with the negative assertions here (so Zahn, Schlier, Mussner, Betz; cf. Luther, kjv, Knox, Berkeley) or with the first of the affirmative clauses to follow, “I w ent into A rabia” (so Lightfoot, Burton, Bruce; cf. Moffatt, jb , neb, gnb, niv)—or, in fact, should be seen only as an enthusiastic particle (similar to the extensive use of ευθύς- in Mark 1 -2 , passim) and n o t to be translated at all (so rsv, Phillips). The strongest argum en t for taking ευθέως- as modifying no t the two immediately following negative clauses (ου προσανεθέμην . . . ουδέ άνήλθον, “I did n o t c o n su lt... n o r did I go u p ”) b ut the affirmative clause which they lead up to (άλλ’ άπήλθον, “bu t I went away”) is that “by its m eaning ευθέως- calls for an affirm ation, n o t simply a statem ent of n o n action” (Burton, Galatians, 53-54). Indeed, it may seem somewhat strange that Paul focuses first on what he did not do, rather than affirm what he did (as in Acts 26:20, “first [πρώτον] to those in Damascus”) . Yet the issue at Galatia had to do with where Paul got his message and how he received certification as an apostle, with his opponents claiming that he was d ep en d en t on and subordinate to the apostles at Jerusalem . So it is understandable that the thrust of his argum ent in these verses should be on the negative aspects of his thesis statem ent of 1:11-12—as it is, in fact, th ro u g h o u t the rem ainder of his autobiographical narratio. In this context, then, ευθέως- makes em inent sense at the beginning o f his negative assertions. It should probably be translated “immediately thereafter,” so tying together Christ’s revelatory en co u n ter (vv 15-16a) and the crux of the polem ic of this passage (vv 16 b -l7 a). προσανατίθημι in the middle voice means “betake oneself to,” and so connotes “consult,” “confer” or “communicate with.” It appears in the NT only here and at 2:6— the first as a first person singular, aorist, indicative, m iddle verb (προσανεθέμην) suggesting the purpose of obtaining instruction (cf. D iodorus Siculus 17.116, where it is used in the context of consulting soothsayers); the second as a third person plural, aorist, indicative, m iddle verb (προσανέθεντο) suggesting the p u rpose of giving instruction. In both cases, however, Paul denies (ου, ούδέν) that he received or was given such instruction, σα ρξ καί al μα is a m etonymy for “m ankind in its finitude and frailty” or “hum anity as tem porally and corporeally conditioned,” in contrast to beings of a higher order, especially God (cf. Sir 14:18; 17:31; Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Eph 6:12; H eb 2:14). Its use here is general (“anyone”), though expressing the same concerns as in 1:1a, 11-12. The prefix dvd (“u p ”) of the aorist verb άνήλθον conform s to the expression εις- 'Ιεροσόλυμα (see also v 18), for one regularly “goes u p ” to jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam 8:7; Ezra 1:3; 7:7; 1 Esd 2:5; 1 Macc 4:3637; 3 Macc 3:16; Mark 10:32-33; Luke 2:42;John 2:13; 5:1; Acts 11:2; 18:22; 21:12, 15; 24:11; 25:1, 9). Probably the reading άπήλθον (p51, B, D, G) came about by assimilation to άπήλθον εις- ’Αραβίαν (“I went away into A rabia”) of v 17b. Paul’s use of 'Ιεροσόλυμα, ‘Jerusalem ” (cf. also 1:18; 2:1), may raise questions, particu larly w h en com paredw ithhisuseof ’ Ιερουσαλήμ at 4:25-26. NT references to jeru salem , however, are almost equally divided between ’ Ιερουσαλήμ, the H ebraic and LXX nam e with sacred connotations, and 'Ιεροσόλυμα, the profane designation used m ore by Gentile writers and Jews addressing a Greek-speaking audience. T he form er appears seventy-six times in all in the NT; the latter sixtythree times. The authors of Hebrews and Revelation, of course, always use ’Ιερουσαλήμ, for they are speaking of the heavenly and eschatological city. Mark and Jo h n , on the o ther hand, never use the m ore sacred form. Luke in his Gospel usually reworks M ark’s 'Ιεροσόλυμα to ’Ιερουσαλήμ (using Ιεροσόλυμα only four

34

Galatians 1:13-17

times and ’Ιερουσαλήμ twenty-six times), and he continues to use ’Ιερουσαλήμ th ro ug h o u t Acts 1-7 (with 1:4 being an exception). From Acts 8 onward, however, he uses both forms w ithout m uch distinction. So too Paul refers to Jerusalem in Galatians using both forms. If any difference o f m eaning is to be seen, it is probably that in 1:17-18 and 2:1 he has simply the geographical site in m ind, whereas in 4:25-26 his em phasis is m ore on the religious significance of the city. T he απόστολοι, “apostles,” at Jerusalem included Peter and “the Twelve” (1 Cor 15:5), and also James (cf. v 19) and others (cf. 1 Cor 15:7; see also Rom 16:7 for a wider use o f έν τόι? άποστόλοι?, “am ong the apostles”), προ εμού, “before m e,” is temporal, and so not to be taken as denoting precedence of status. The whole phrase προ? τού? προ εμού αποστόλου?, “to those who were apostles before m e,” on the one hand, involves P aul’s recognition of the apostolic status of the Twelve and implies th at he regarded his apostleship as of the same essential character as theirs. O n the other hand, however, set as it is as evidence for his assertion in 1:11-12, it culm inates the claim of this section that his gospel did n o t originate with them . άλλα άπήλθον εί? ’Α ραβίαν, “b u t I w ent away into A rabia,” is somewhat vague, for it n eith er specifies exactly w here Paul w ent n o r for w hat purpose. T he Nabatean kingdom o f Arabia was a rather large and somewhat am orphous geographical entity in P aul’s day. It lay to the east of the Jo rd a n valley rift, and traditionally extended from the Red Sea on the southwest to the E uphrates River on the northeast. Its m ain cultural centers were Petra in the south and Bostra in the north, b u t it included at various times also some of the Decapolis cities of eastern Syria (e.g., Damascus) and the Transjordan (e.g., Philadelphia/Am m an; G erasa/Jerash). It was ruled from 9 b.c. to a.d. 40 by Aretas IV, with Damascus being a part of the Nabatean kingdom at certain periods during his reign (cf. 2 Cor 11:32). Its exact borders, how ever, seem to have shifted a t v arious tim es, a n d it m ay b e a ssu m ed fro m P a u l’s

statement, “I went away [from Damascus] intoArabia,” that when Galatians was written (c. a.d. 49?) Damascus was no longer included within Arabia. Except that it was away from Damascus, we have no way o f telling exactly where Paul went in Arabia. He refers in 4:25, of course, to M ount Sinai as being in Arabia, and from th at some have thought that it was to the Sinai peninsula that he went. But Paul seems to m ean by Arabia only the N abatean kingdom , and the boundaries of that kingdom were near at hand. In fact, as B urton points out: “T here is nothing to necessitate the supposition that he went far from Damascus, n o r anything to exclude a far-distant journey except that if he had gone far to the south a return to Damascus would perhaps have been im probable” ( Galatians, 58). N or can we tell from Paul’s b rief statem ent why he went to Arabia. Many have supposed that it was for the purpose o f missionary outreach. But it could ju st as well be argued that it was principally for solitude to rethink his life and learning from the perspective of C hrist’s revelatory encounter, away from Jewish jurisdiction and pressures. και πάλιν υπόστρεψα εί? Δαμασκόν, “and re tu rn ed again to Damascus,” is an indirect confirm ation o f Acts that P aul’s conversion and commission took place at Damascus (cf. Acts 9:1-22; 22:5-16; 26:12-20a). Damascus was a large and thriving com m ercial center at the foot of the Anti-Lebanon m ountain range. Since 64 b .c . it h ad been officially part of the Rom an province of Syria and was granted certain civic rights by Rome as one of the ten cities of the Decapolis. Its architecture and inscriptions show that during P aul’s day it was extensively influenced by Hellenism (cf. F. V. W innett and W. L. Reed, Ancient Records from North Arabia) . It had, how-

Bibliography

35

ever, a large Arab population and was even included at certain times u n d er N abatean rule. It also had a large Jewish population, 10,500 of whom Josephus reports were killed by the people of Damascus at the outbreak of Jewish-Roman hostilities in a .d . 66 (cf. j. W. 2.561; though the figure is 18,000 in j . W. 7.368). To this city Paul went with Sanhedrin authority to persecute Jewish believers in Jesus; on the way to this city he was confronted by the resurrected, ascended Christ; here he first preached that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G od” (Acts 9:20-22); and it was to this city that he retu rn ed after living for a time in Arabia. N either Arabia n o r Damascus, however, were places where Paul would have been in contact with the Jerusalem apostles, and that is his point in referring here to these locations. Explanation Paul presents in 1:13-17 a brief account of his great reversal from a zealous p ro p o n en t of the traditions o f Judaism (vv 13-14) to a proclaim er of the Christian gospel that has as its content G od’s Son and as its legitim ate sphere of outreach the Gentiles (vv 15-16 a). Both his life in Judaism and his life as a Christian are viewed as having been u n d er G od’s sovereignty, for he was “set apart from birth.” But it was the call o f God and the encounter by Christ which together form ed the basis for P aul’s proclam ation of G od’s Son to the Gentiles. No claim can be m ade for his d ependence on the Jerusalem apostles, for, as Paul takes pains to em phasize (vv 1 6 b -l7 ), he h ad no contact with them in the period of time im mediately following his Damascus-road encounter. Though referring to his past life in Judaism (cf. Phil 3:4-6; also Acts 22:3; 26:5) and setting out the basis for his Christian conversion and commission, the crux of Paul’s argum ent in these verses is in vv 16b-l7a: “I did not immediately thereafter consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before m e.” His defense here is a type of “alibi-reasoning (`I was not there’) ,” as B. Holm berg calls it (Paul and Power, 15). This type of defense is continued in 1:18-24. Why does Paul feel it necessary to make these statem ents of denial? Evidently, because the judaizers in Galatia were asserting that he was really d ep en d en t on and subordinate to the Jerusalem apostles. T heir accounts of his early life, conversion, and commission were undoubtedly different, with suggestions of deviation, dependence, and subordination included. So Paul speaks here in explication of his contention in 1:11-12 and to counter the judaizers’ innuendoes.

3.— — — — First Visit to Jerusalem (1:18-24) Bibliography Bammel, E. “G alater 1:23.” ZNW 59 (1968) 108-12. Bauem feind, O. “Die B egegnung zw ischenP aulusu n d K ep h a s,G a ll, 1 8 -2 0 .” Z N W ·47 (1956) 268-76. Brown,R.E.;Donfried,

36

G a la tia n s

1:18-24

K. P.; Fitzmyer, J. A. and Reumann. J., eds. Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. Philadelphia: Fortress; New York: Paulist, 1978. 65-72, 270-78. Howard, G. “W asjam es an Apostle? A Reflection on a New Proposal for Gal. i.19.” NovT 19 (1977) 63-64. Kilpatrick, G. D. “Galatians 1:18 ΙΣΤΟΡΗΣΑΙ ΚΗΦΑΝ.” In New Testament Essays. FS T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins. M anchester: University of M anchester Press, 1959,144-49. Lightfoot, J. B. ‘T h e B rethren of the L ord.” In Galatians (1890), 252-91. Longenecker, R. N. “Christianity in Jeru sa le m .” In Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 271-88. Sampley, J. P. “‘Before God, I Do N ot Lie’ (Gal. 1.20): Paul’s Self-Defence in the Light o f Rom an Legal Praxis.” ATS23 (1977) 477-82. Trudinger, L. P. “ΈΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΙΔΟΝ ΕΙ ΜΗ ΙΑΚΩΒΟΝ: A Note on Galatians 1:19.” ΝονΤ 17 (1975) 200-202.

Translation 18Then after threeyears, I went up toJerusalem to get acquainted with Cephasaand stayed with him fift een days. 19I did not see any o f the other apostles— only James, the Lord’s brother. 201 assure you before God that what I am uniting you is no lie. 21After that I went into the districts o f Syria and Cilicia.b 221 remained personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only kept hearing, “The one who formerly persecuted us is now preaching thefaith he once tried to destroy.” 24A nd they praised God because o f me.

Notes *Κηφάν is supported by p46,51*8l* A B syrpesh’helmg copsa bo; Πέτρον byKc D F G Byzantine lat syrhel. See also 2:9, 11, 14. b OnlyK* and the Greek minuscules 33 (9th cent.) and 1611 (12th cent.) om it the article τ η ? before Κιλικίας·.

Form/Structure/Setting T he structure o f 1:18-2:10 is governed by the adverb επειτα (“th e n ,” “n e x t”) at 1:18, 21; 2:1, with these three occurrences introducing a series of events that stem from P aul’s Damascus-road experience b u t are n o t a p art o f that experience or of P aul’s im m ediate reaction to it. The events introduced by επ ειτα are clearly m eant to be taken in successive order. Their precise tem poral relations, however, particularly vis-a-vis the Damascus-road experience, d ep en d heavily on how one interprets pc τά τρία ε τη (“after three years”) of 1:18 and διά δεκατεσσάρων ετών (“after fourteen years”) of 2:1—i.e., (1) w hether P aul’s prim ary referen t is the Damascus-road experience or his later retu rn to Damascus; (2) w hether Paul is using the enum eration “th re e ” and “fo u rte en ” in consecutive or concurrent fashion; and (3) w hether Paul m eans by “years” full years or is using a m ethod of com putation w herein parts of years are counted as com plete years. T he Judaizers were evidently claiming th at Paul was d e p e n d en t on and subordinate to the apostles at Jerusalem . P aul’s defense is to lay out an account of his career since C hrist’s encounter with him on his way to Damascus, with particular attention to his contacts with the Jerusalem leaders. So in the narrative of 1:18-2:10 he uses επειτα to assure his readers that there are no gaps in his account. A nd so in 1:18-24 he tells o f his first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian (w 18-20) and of his retu rn thereafter to Syria and Cilicia (vv 21-24), continuing the alibi type of argum ent (T was n o t th e re ”) begun in vv 16b-l7.

Comment

37

Comment 18 έπειτα μετά τρία έτη, “then after three years.” The adverb έπειτα, “then,” appears frequently in Koine Greek (at times with its cognate ε ίτα ) in enum erations to denote chronological sequence or the logical succession of ideas (cf. 4 Macc 6:3; Josephus, Ant. 12.92; 1 Cor 15:5b—7) and is often contrasted with πρώτον, “first” (cf. lC orl5:46;lT hess4:16b-17;H eb7:2;Jas3:l7;seealsothedπα pχή .. .έπ ε ιτα .. .έιτα series of 1 Cor 15:23-24). H ere it is contrasted with ευθέως, “immediately thereafter,” of v 16b. Therefore, just as “immediately thereafter” refers back to Paul’s Damascusroad experience, so “after three years” has as its referent that same experience—i.e., the three years are not to be counted from the immediate antecedent, Paul’s return to Damascus after residence in Arabia, but from the earlier antecedent of vv 15-16a, the crisis in Paul’s life that occurred on his way to Damascus. The exact interval of time between this revelatory experience and his first visit as a Christian to Jerusalem, however, cannot be determ ined— and so the precise length of time spent in either Arabia or Damascus cannot be calculated—for “after three years” is probably to be understood in an inclusive m anner to m ean “in the third year” rather than “after three full years” (cf. μετά τρεΐς* ημέρας, “after three days,” of Mark 8:31; 10:34 par.). άνήλθον εις* 'I εροσόλυμα Ιστορήσαι Κηφάν, “I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with C ephas.” O n the expression άνήλθον εις* a n d th e form Ιεροσόλυμα, see Comment on v 17 above. The verb Ιστορέω is used in classical Greek to m ean “make inquiry o f ’ or “inquire about.” In 1 Esd 1:33 (twice) and 42 it is used in the sense of “n arrate” or “re p o rt” (also in Aristotle and some later w riters). T here is as well, however, considerable evidence for Ιστορέω as m eaning “get acquainted with (som eone)” (cf. Josephus,/. W. 6. 81; Plutarch, Theseus 30, Pompey 40, Lucullus 2, De Cunositate2\ Epictetus, Diss. 2.14.28; 3.7.1). And this seems to be the sense in which Paul uses it here. T he W estern and Syrian MSS generally read Πέτρον, “P eter,” which is probably a case of substituting the m ore familiar nam e of the apostle for the less familiar. But Paul regularly designates him Κηφάς* (Aramaic Κ 3Ό , “rock” or “stone,” with a Greek case ending), as in Gal 2:9, 11, 14 (see also 1 Cor 1:12; 15:5). Only in Gal 2:7-8 does Paul speak of him as Πέτρος*. Outside of P aul’s letters Κηφάς* occurs in the NT only at Jo h n 1:42, b u t then with the explanation δ ερμηνεύεται Πέτρος*, “which is translated P eter.” και έπέμεινα προς* αυτόν ημέρας* δεκαπέντε, “and stayed with him fifteen days.” T he preposition πρός* with the accusative to m ean “w ith” is probably a colloquialism o f Koine Greek (cf. Mark 6:3, προς* ημάς*, “with us”;Jo h n 1:1, προς* τον θεόν, “with G od”; 1 J o h n 1:2, προς* τον πατέρα, “with the F ather”). “Fifteen days” with Peter is in contrast to “three years” absence from Jerusalem , thereby highlighting the comparatively short period of time and suggesting how impossible it is from that to conceive o f Paul as a disciple of Peter. Certainly an inform al visit with the forem ost disciple of Jesus three years after P aul’s dram atic conversion carries no idea of subordination or dependence. It is of itself quite understandable w ithout any onerous im plications for P aul’s apostolic integrity. In fact, one could w onder why it did n o t h appen sooner. O n the o th er hand, though Paul did no t go up to Jerusalem διδαχθήναι (“to be tau g h t”) by Peter, b ut ιστορήσαι Κηφάν, “to get acquainted with C ephas,’’that does n o t m ean, as F. J. A. H o rt concluded, that he only went “to ‘explore’ St. Peter, to find out how he would be disposed to treat the persecutor now become a cham pion”

38

Galatians 1:18-24

(Judaistic Christianity, 56). With P aul’s stress on the unity o f believers in Christ (cf. 3:26-29; see also 1 Cor 1:1 Off*.; 12:12ff., passim), it is quite understandable that he would at some time want to establish fellowship with Peter. T he fact that he waited three years before making the attem pt n eed n o t indicate either aloofness from or disagreem ent with Peter. As A. S. Peake observed: “Jerusalem would n o t be the safest place for Paul to visit after he had n o t merely failed to fulfill his commission from the High Priest bu t had gone over to the C hristians” (Paul and the Jewish Christians, 8 η. 1). F urtherm ore, while being with the acknowledged leader am ong Jesus’ earthly com panions, Paul could n o t have failed to be interested in a firsthand account o f Jesus’ earthly life (cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, “Galatians 1:18 ΙΣ ΤΟ ΡΗ Σ Α Ι ΚΗΦΑΝ,” 14 4 -4 9 ). Certainly their fifteen days together were n o t spent “talking about the w eather.” They discussed, w ithout a doubt, m atters pertaining to their com m on com m itm ent to Christ. And it is n o t beyond the range of reasonable probability to believe that such discussions included P eter’s accounts of Jesus’ ministry, and that from such accounts Paul learned m uch. But to learn about the details of Jesus’ earthly life from Peter and to be subordinate to or d ep e n d en t on Peter for his apostleship and Gentile mission are clearly quite different matters. Paul is willing to acknowledge the form er, bu t he is adam ant in his rejection of the latter. 19 ετερον δε των αποστόλων ούκ εΐδον, cl μή Ιάκω βον τον αδελφόν του κυρίου, “I did n o t see any of the o th er apostles—only Jam es, the L o rd ’s b ro th e r.” T he m ajor issue o f v 19 is w hether Jam es is classed by Paul am ong the apostles (cf. v 17) o r distinguished from them . The question has usually been discussed in term s o f w hether the idiomatic expression εί μή (“except,” “only”) which has exceptive force, refers to the whole clause, “I did n o t see any of the o th er apostles,” or only to th e v erb , “I did n o t see.” T h e la tte r is p o ssib le (cf. 2:16; also M a tt 12:4; Luke 4:26— 27; Rev 21:27). Yet as Lightfoot pointed out, “the sense of ετερον naturally links it with εί μή, from which it cannot be separated w ithout harshness, and ετερον carries των αποστόλων with it” ( Galatians, 84-85). So with L ightfoot m ost have concluded: “It seems then that St Jam es is here called an Apostle, though it does n o t therefore follow that he was one of the Twelve” (ibid., 85; cf. Acts 9:27). L. P. T rudinger has argued that ετερον, “other,” here has a comparative force that differentiates (“other than the aposdes”) and so excludes Jam es from the apostles (NovT 17 [1975] 200-202). George Howard, however , observes that while such a use of ετερον is possible, the examples cited by Trudinger from classical literature to support his thesis actually com pare persons or things o f the same class; and he fu rth e r rightly argues that if Paul wanted to distinguish Jam es from the apostles, he would have written ετερον δε ή τούς* αποστόλους·, “other than the aposdes,” or used ετερον in com bination with παρά, “th a n ,” or the dative case (NovT [1977] 63-64). T hus whatever ambiguity remains in this verse about Jam es being classed am ong the apostles, it has to do with the re feren t o f εί μή and n o t with the use o f ετερος·. And this being so, ετερον here should probably be seen as enum erative and n o t differentiative, εί μή as referring to the whole previous clause, and Jam es as included am ong the apostles (also, then, am ong the τούς· προ εμού άποστόλους·, “apostles before m e,” of v 17). Jam es, τον άδελφόν τού κυρίου, “the L o rd ’s b ro th e r,” is in all probability the Jam es nam ed first am ong the four brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3 (cf. Matt 13:55). He is n o t to be confused with Jesus’ two disciples of the same nam e, Jam es the son

Comment

39

of Zebedee an d jam es the son of Alphaeus (cf. Mark 3:17-18, par.; Acts 1:13; 12:2). D uring Jesus’ ministry, Jam es seems to have been skeptical of his b ro th e r’s activities and so was n o t a follower of Jesus (cf. Mark 3:21, 31-35, par.; Jo h n 7 :3-5). He was, however, converted by an appearance of the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15:7), and along with others of Jesus’ family becam e a m em ber of the Jerusalem church (Acts 1:14). H e rose to prom inence quickly in the church (cf. Acts 15:13; 21:1819; Gal 2:1-10), and after P eter’s departure from Jerusalem (cf. Acts 12:17) becam e the leading figure within that church. It would be unfair to attribute his rank in the Jerusalem church simply to a veneration of one who was physically related to jesus. Probably it is m ore accurate to say that his prom inence came about as a result of the need for som eone to lead the growing n um ber of scrupulously m inded Christians in the Jerusalem church, and that his physical relation to jesus, his Davidic descent, and his personal qualities fitted him for the task (cf. R. N. Longenecker, “Christianity in Jerusalem ,” 272-73). His death as a m artyr took place in a .d. 62 when the High Priest Annas, during an interim between two Rom an governors, persecuted Christians in Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.200; Hegesippus, in Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 2.23.10-18). He was known for his deep, ascetic piety, and so bore the title 6 δίκαιος (“the Ju st”; cf. Hegesippus, in Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 2.23.4-7). Later the Ebionites (Symmachians) thought of him as the twelfth apostle (cf. Victorinus, Marii Victorini Afr i commentam in epistulas Pauli, 14 on Gal 1:19), which opinion may have been held by some Jewish Christians earlier. T here has been considerable discussion within the C hurch as to exactly how we should understan d the NT references to Jesus’ “b rothers.” Tertullian (c. a.d. 160after 220), in what appears to be the standard view of his day, speaks of them as simply oth er sons o f Joseph and Mary (Adv. Marc. 4.19; De Car. 7), which view was explicitly affirm ed by Helvidius of Rome about a .d. 380. So this view is called Helvidian. T he Protevangelium of James, however, whose roots may go back to about a .d. 150, takes them as sons of Joseph by a previous m arriage (9:2), and this view was defended by Epiphanius (c. 315-403) in a letter subsequently incorporated into his Panarion or “M edicine C hest” (Adv. Haer. 78). So this view is called Epiphanian. In opposition to Helvidius, Jerom e (c. a .d. 347-420) in a.d. 383 argued that Jesus’ “b roth ers”were really first cousins, the sons of Alphaeus and Mary of Clopas— which Mary he inferred from Jo h n 19:25 to have been the virgin Mary’s sister (cf. Mark 15:40)—and so sought to safeguard the perpetual virginity of Mary (Adversus Helvidium de perpetua virginitate beatae M anae). And this view is called H ieronym ian. T he controversy obviously has been occasioned by doctrinal interests. A part from such polem ical considerations, there appears to be no reason to regard Jam es as anything o th er than Jesus’ uterine brother. 20 a δέ γράφω ύμΐν, ιδού ενώπιον του θεού δτι ού ψεύδομαι, “I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie.” Against the accusation that his is a second-hand gospel, being d ep e n d en t on and subordinate to the apostles at Jerusalem , Paul has offered in vv 15-19 two lines of evidence: (1) that his authority and message stem from a prophetic ordination by God and a revelatory encounter with Christ (vv 15-16a; cf. 1:1, 12b), and (2) that his activities following his conversion show that he was n o t d ep e n d en t on any sanction from Jerusalem (vv 1 6 b -19; cf. 1:1, 11-1 2 a ). H ere in v 20 he reinforces these lines of defense by an oath as to the truthfulness of what he has said. The phrase d γράφω ύμΐν, “what I am writing to you,” therefore, refers to all that precedes in vv 15-19— perhaps even

40

G alatians 1:18-24

beginning at v 13 (so Burton, Galatians, 61; contra F. Sieffert, Galater, 71, who argues for vv 18-19 alone as the referent, and H. Schlier, Galater; 62, who sees it only as v 19). R om an legal practice provided for the use of an oath as one way for a trial to be concluded short of running its full course, with oaths also being m ade outside of court proceedings to attest to veracity and to warn the o th er party that one was prepared to stand before a court of inquiry on the m atter (cf. J. P. Sampley, N TS 23 [1977] 477-82). Since a broad knowledge o f Rom an law was com m on th ro u g h o u t the em pire, it may be assum ed that the use of oaths was p art of the consciousness of both Paul and his Galatian converts. So in swearing that “before God what I am writing you is no lie,” it may plausibly be concluded that, asj . P. Sampley puts it, Paul “n o t only reinforces the thrust of his two lines of defence b u t signals his readers th at he is p rep ared to take the ultim ate step that resolves a m atter in the courts— even though we know from 1 Cor vi.1-8 that Paul thinks it w rong for C hristians to take one an o th er to co u rt” (ibid., 481). Elsewhere in P aul’s letters there are sim ilar affirm ations th at “before G od” he is speaking the tru th (cf. 2 Cor 1:23; 11:31; 1 Thess 2:5). His use of an oath h ere in Galatians suggests th at his judaizing o pponents were claim ing in particular that it was d uring his first visit to Jerusalem that Paul both learned the gospel from the Jerusalem leaders and received his authority to be an apostle. Against such claims, Paul affirms in the strongest m an n er possible the surety o f his two lines o f defense and puts his readers on guard against any challenge to w hat he has said. 21 επβιτα ήλθον εις* τά κλίματα τής* Συρίας* καί-τής* Κιλικίας*, “after that I w ent into the districts o f Syria and Cilicia.” The adverb έπειτα, “after th a t,” introduces a fu rth er set of events after Paul’s first visit as a Christian to Jerusalem , with the inference being that nothing intervened between that visit and what is now referred to. The word κλίματα should probably be re n d ere d m ore generally as “districts” or “territories” in a nonpolitical sense (cf. Rom 15:23; 2 Cor 11:10), and n o t as “regions” which could connote adm inistrative subdivisions of a Rom an province (cf. W. M. Ramsay, Galatians, 278-80). T he repetition o f the article τής* suggests that two geographical districts are in view: the district of Syria and that of Cilicia. From v 22 it seems evident that Paul does n o t regard Ju d ea (here probably the Rom an province of Judea, which included the districts o f Judea, Samaria, and Galilee; cf. Comment on v 22) as part of Syria. So by the district of Syria he probably m eans the area aro und Antioch and by the district of Cilicia the area around his hom etow n of Tarsus (cf. Acts 9:30; 11:25-26). W hat Paul did between his first postconversion visit to Jerusalem (1:18-20) and his second postconversion visit (2:1-10) can be inferred from the verb ε υ α γ γελίζετα ι (“he is preaching”) o f v 23. So it may be concluded that this was a period o f evangelization, though probably n o t a full-blown Gentile mission as he later took up. Many, of course, have seen in v 21 an extensive missionary outreach that included M acedonia and Achaia as well (see Introduction, lxxv), agreeing with Jo h an n es Weiss that “Gal. 1:21 cannot be taken to m ean that for the fourteen years, he worked only in Syria and Cilicia. The statem ent merely indicates the point from which his work at th at time b eg an , b u t does n o t in any way describe this work as a whole” ( The History of Primitive Christianity [New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1937] 1:204; cf. C. H. Buck and G. Taylor, Saint Paul, 251). But to include evangelistic missions to M acedonia and Achaia within the statem ents of 1:21-24 makes a m ockery of language and discredits P aul’s claim to truthfulness so fervently stated ju st above in v 20.

Comment

41

Some have speculated th at a num ber of the hardships Paul m entions in 2 Cor 11:23-29 occurred during his early evangelizing in Syria and Cilicia, for they do not appear in the accounts of his later missionary activities in Acts—particularly his being lashed five times by the Jews and beaten three times by the Rom ans (cf. my Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 247-48). Indeed, he may have been witnessing about Christ within the synagogues of the Diaspora in such a m an n er as to bring about persecution from both the religious and the civil authorities, though that cannot be proven. “At any rate,” as F. F. Bruce observes, “enough was happening for news of P aul’s activity to get back to Ju d e a ” ( Galatians, 103). 22 ήμην δε αγνοούμενος* τω προσώπω ταΐς* έκκλησίαις* τής* Ίουδαίας* ταΐς· έν Χριστώ, “I rem ained personally unknow n to the churches of Ju d ea that are in Christ.” T he im perfect, periphrastic ή μην Be αγνοούμενος* emphasizes the continuance of the state described, and so suggests “I rem ained unknown.” τω προσώπω (“by face”) is a locution (both then and today) for “personally.” ταΐς* έκκλησίαις* . . . ταΐς* έν Χριστώ, “the churches . . . that are in C hrist,” is a com m on way for Paul to designate locally gathered groups of believers who share an incorporative relation with the risen Christ (cf. the salutations of 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1, Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Thess 1:1). The phrase έν Χριστώ, “in C hrist,” is a favorite of P aul’s to signal the personal, local, and dynamic relation of the believer to Christ (cf. my Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 156-70). In Galatians it comes to expression a total o f eight times (here, 2:4,17; 3:14, 26, 28; 5:6,10 [έν Κυριω]), most significantly in 3:26-29. T he expression ταΐς* έκκλησίαις* τής* Ίουδαίας* ταΐς* έν Χριστώ is paralleled exactly in 1 Thess 2:14, where “the churches of God that are in Ju d ea in Christ Jesu s” are spoken of as having suffered persecution from their own countrym en. “J u d e a ” in both Gal 1:22 and 1 Thess 2:14 probably denotes the whole of the Rom an province of Judea, which included the districts of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee (cf. Acts 9:31) — and which, of course, included Jerusalem as well. P aul’s purpose in speaking of his dep artu re to Syria and Cilicia (v 21) and of his being unknow n to the Ju d ea n churches (v 22) is undoubtedly to show th at his work during the time between his two Jerusalem visits was not in such areas as would have been expected had he been u n d e r the supervision o f the Jerusalem apostles. 23 μόνον δέ άκούοντες* ήσαν δτι 6 διώκων ημάς* ποτέ νυν εύαγγελίζεται την π ίσ τιν ήν ποτέ έπόρθει, “they only kept hearing, ‘T he one who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.’” T he n eu ter μόνον (“only”) is used as an adverb to limit the previous clause o f v 22, so indicating that what follows is the only exception to the ignorance referred to. T he im perfect, periphrastic άκούοντες* ήσαν (as in v 22) lays em phasis on the continuance of the action, “they kept h earing”— with the subject being the Ju d ean churches. The gender o f the participle άκούοντες*, however, is masculine (rather than fem inine to agree with ταΐς* έκκλησίαις*), which is a construction ad sensum: that it was the m em bers of the Ju dean churches who heard the reports about P aul’s activities, δτι is recitative and n o t to be translated. It serves only to call attention to the quotation that follows and so functions like our quotation marks. T he latter part of v 23 is in the form of direct speech. Ernst Bammel sees this as a quotation from the Ju d ean churches themselves, and so one of the oldest Christian statem ents (ZNW 59 [1968] 108-12). As Bammel views it, the quotation reflects an early Jewish-Christian provenance particularly in its non-Pauline use of πίστις*, “faith,” and its Jewish m artyrological them e w herein the conversion of a

42

G alatians 1:18-24

persecutor comes about by a m iraculous act of God. But while this may be so, it is necessary to point out that Paul also uses mans* in Galatians in an absolute sense in 3:23, 25 to m ean the content of the Christian gospel and in 6:10 as p art o f a descriptive phrase for C hristians. F u rth erm o re, a com m on topos in m any martyrologies was th at of the miserable end o f the persecutor (e.g., 2 Macc 9:5-12, 28; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 8.16.3-5; Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum) , which, of course, is n o t the case here. Thus, w ithout denying the possibility of a direct quotation, what we probably have here is a sum m ation of reports that Paul heard were circulating about him am ong the Ju d ean churches, the gist o f which he presents in his own words in the form of direct speech. Paul, o f course, is the persecutor tu rn ed proclaim er, with the particle ποτέ, “form erly,” and the adverb νυν, “now,” signaling the tem poral shift, την ττίστιν, “the faith,” is used absolutely as a synonym for the Christian gospel (cf. 3:23,24; see also Phil 1:27). T he same set of verbs, διώκω, “persecute,” and ττορθέω, “destroy,” are used in v 13 and here of P aul’s preconversion activities, though with different objects— in v 13, “the church of G od”; here it is “us” and “the faith” (i.e., the Christian gospel). All of this suggests an easy association in P aul’s m ind of “the C h urch,” “the faith,” “the gospel,” and Christians themselves. No account is taken, however, o f any differences of content or em phasis between the gospel as the Ju d ean Christians understood it and the gospel as Paul proclaim ed it. T he point m ade, in fact, is quite the reverse: Paul is now preaching the very same gospel that the Ju d ea n Christians held, which earlier he had opposed. 24 καί έδόξα£ον εν έμοί τον θεόν, “and they praised God because of m e.” The dissatisfaction of the Judaizers with Paul is here dramatically contrasted with the satisfaction th at the Ju d ean Christians had in his earlier missionary activity. For whereas the opponents denigrated P aul’s authority and message, “they praised God because of m e.” T h e u se of cv (so “becauseof”) as the ground or basis of an action is paralleled in Rom 1:24; 9:7 (based on Gen 21:12; cf. Heb 11:18) and 1 Cor 7:14. T he thought and language of this verse are similar to G od’s statem ent regarding his Servant Israel in Isa 49:3 LXX: έν σοί δοξασθήσομαι, “because of you I shall be praised.” Explanation P aul’s rem arks as to his first postconversion visit to Jerusalem and his preaching after that in Syria and Cilicia are brief, com prising only what is need ed for the purpose o f his defense. His use o f an oath with respect to his activities during that first visit suggests that his opponents were claim ing that it was particularly then that Paul both learned the gospel from the Jerusalem leaders and received his authority to be an apostle. P aul’s insistence, however, is that such was n o t the case: (1) a fifteen-day visit with first Peter and then Jam es is hardly sufficient to establish dependency or to suggest subordination (vv 18-19), and (2) his m inistry th ereafter in Syria and Cilicia, when he was personally unknow n to the Ju d ea n churches, shows that he was hardly u n d er the supervision of the Jerusalem apostles (vv 2122). In fact, the response of the Ju d ean Christians, including those at Jerusalem , to his early missionary activities was to give praise to God because of his preaching (vv 23-24), which is quite the opposite to the Judaizers’ carping about his authority and message. This, in fact, as Paul sees it, gives the lie to the Judaizers’ reconstruction of events.

4. Second Visit to Jerusalem (2:1-10) Bibliography Aus, R. D. “T hree Pillars and T hree Patriarchs: A Proposal C oncerning Gal 2:9.” Z N W 70 (1979) 252-61. Barrett, C. K. “Paul and the ‘Pillar’ Apostles.” In Studia Paulina, FS J. de Zwaan, ed. J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van U nnik. H aarlem : Bohn, 1953, 1-19. ————. “T itus.” In Neotestamentica et Semitica. FS M. Black, ed. E. E. Ellis an d M. Wilcox. E dinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969, 1-14. Bammel, E. “π τω χό?.” TDNT 6:888-915. Bauckham, R. J. “Barnabas in Galatians.” JSN T 2 (1979) 61-70. Berger, K. “Almosen für Israel: Zum h istorischenK ontextderpaulinischenK ollekte.”iVTS23 (1977) 180-204. Filson,F.V. Three Crucial Decades. Foerster, W. “Die δοκοϋντε? in Gal 2.” ZNW 36 (1937) 286-92. Geyser, A. S. “T he Earliest N am e o f the Earliest C hurch.” In De Fructu Oris Sui. FS A. van Seims, ed. I . H . Eybers et al. Leiden: Brill, 1971,58-66. H all,D .R . “St. Paul an d Fam ine Relief: A Study in Galatians 210.” ExpTim82 (1971) 309-11. Hay, D. M. “P aul’s Indifference to A uthority.” JB L 88 (1969) 36-44. Keck, L. “T he Poor am ong the Saints in the New T estam ent.” ZNW 56 (1965) 1 0 0 -2 9 .————. “The Poor am ong the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Q u m ran .” Z N W 57 (1966) 54-78. Longenecker, R. N. “Christianity and Judaism . ’’A ppendix in Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 271-88. Lührmann, D. “Gal 2, 9 u n d die katholischen Briefe: Bem erkungen zum Kanon u n d zur regulafidei.” ZNW 72 (1981) 65-87. Munck, J. “Paul, the Apostles, and the Twelve.” ST 3 (1951) 96-110. Orchard, B. “T he Ellipsis between Galatians 2, 3 and 2, 4.” Bib 54 (1973) 469-81. Pfitzner, V. C. Paul and the Agon Motif. Robinson, D. W. B. “The Circumcision of Titus, and P aul’s ‘Liberty.’” ABR 12 (1964) 24-42. Schmithals, W. P aul and James. Wilckens, U. “στυλό?.” T D N T 7:732-36.

Translation 1Then fourteen years later I went up againa toJerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along as well. 21 went up in response to a revelation. And I set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles— only privately before those reputed to be important, lest somehow I should run or had run in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4Now this happened because certain false brothers infiltrated our ranks, who intruded to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.b 5We did not give in to themc in this matter even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 6A sd for those reputed to be important— whatever they were at one time makes no difference to me; God does not take into account human credentials— those seemingly important men added nothing to me. 7On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching to the uncircumcised just as Peter was entrusted with preaching to the circumcised— 8for the One who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised was also at work in my ministry to the Gentiles—James, Cephase and John (that is, those reputed to be “pillars”), knowing that divine grace had been given to me, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, on the understanding that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, which is what I have always been eager to do.

44

G a la tia n s

2:1-10

Notes ^ ά λ ιν άυέβην, “I w ent up again,” is widely supported by p46K Α Β ,είο.ίάνέβην πάλιν by D G it (except itc) P eljerom e; άυέβην alone by itc copbo Mcion I r(lat) T ert Am bst (H ilary). Also πάλιν άνήλθον, “I w ent up again,” by C. ^αταδουλώσουσιν, “they m ight m ake us slaves” (future indicative active), is well supported by IS A B* C D, etc.; καταδουλώσωσιν, “they m ight m ake us slaves” (aorist; subjunctive active), appears in B2and G; καταδουλώσωνται, “they m ight m ake us slaves for them selves” (aorist subjunctive m iddle), in TR. εοΤς- ουδέ, “n o t . . . to th em ,” is om itted in D* itd,e Ir (or his Latin translator) an d a n u m b er o f Latin church fathers (e.g., T ert Ambst [Hilary] Vic P e l). It receives strong support, however, from the G reek uncial MS tradition (except D*), p46, all the versions except it de (even the vg), an d the G reek church fathers (with the possible exception o f Ir ) . T he relative p ro n o u n οΐς- is om itted in a few texts th at have ουδέ and retain ed in some that om it ουδέ, b u t generally the two are retained o r om itted together. dM arcion om itted vv 6-9a (so Tert. A d v . M arc. 5.3). εΚηφάς· is om itted in A; Πέτρος- is read for Κηφάς- in p46 and itr; Πέτρος- καί Ί άκωβος- for Ί άκωβοςin D G itab Mcion Am bst (Hilary). See also 1:18; 2:11, 14.

Form/Structure/Setting T he adverb εττβιτα (“th e n ,” “n ex t”) stands over all that Paul recounts in 2:1-10, identifying this as the third enum erated event following his time at Damascus (cf. l:18ff. and 1:2Iff. for the first two) and assuring his readers that there are no gaps in his narrative. P aul’s em phasis in this section is on the fact that though he conferred with the apostles at jerusalem (i.e., with those “pillars” of the Jerusalem church to whom the Judaizers appealed) he did n o t receive from them any rep ro o f or orders. O n the contrary, they acknowledged the validity of his m inistry and considered it to be parallel to their own, asking only that he “continue to rem em ber th e p o o r .” P a u l’s a r g u m e n t vis-a-vis th e J u d a iz e rs ’ ac cu satio n s h ig h lig h ts th e fo llo w in g

three points: (1) that though he m et with P eter and Jam es at jerusalem three years after his conversion, a m uch longer period elapsed (“fourteen years later”) before he m et with the body o f apostles and leaders at jeru salem ; (2) that he w ent to Jerusalem in response to a divine revelation and n o t at the request of the Jerusalem authorities or to subm it him self to them ; and (3) that the result of m eeting with the so-called pillars o f the Jerusalem church was their full recognition o f the validity of his Gentile mission, which they accepted as parallel to their own Jewish mission. T he first h alf o f this section (w 1-5) deals with the events o f p ertinence th em selv es: P aul’s com ing to jeru sale m w ith B arn a b as and Titus; the absence o f pressure from the Jerusalem apostles to have Titus circum cised; and the opposition stirred u p by certain “false b ro th ers.” Syntactically, P aul’s n arratio n of events is broken; contextually, it is also abrupt. For unless we accept the highly disputed W estern reading for v 5, there is a gram m atical anacoluthon at the beginning o f v 4. Structurally, vv 3-5 are a parenthesis in the n arratio n —perhaps, though less likely, a prim ary parenthesis (vv 3ff.) th at contains a secondary parenthesis (vv 4 -5). T he second half of the section (vv 6-10) is one long, com plex, and seemingly convoluted sentence th at tells us o f the Jerusalem apostles’ response to Paul and his mission to Gentiles. T here is in this latter section no hiding o f the fact that there were differences betw een Paul and the Jerusalem leaders, principally as to the logistics o f their respective missions. T here was also, however, a basic unity betw een them , which was signaled by the Jerusalem apostles in their giving the “right h an d o f fellow ship” to Paul and

Comment

45

Barnabas. O n P aul’s p art this unity was to be expressed by his continuing “to rem em ber the p o o r.”

Comment 1 έπειτα διά δεκατεσσάρων ετών, “then fourteen years later.” Having used the adverbs ευθέως* (“im m ediately,” 1:16) and έπειτα (“th e n ,” “nex t,” 1:18, 21) to m ark off the successive stages of his narratio, Paul here begins the next episode in his account with έπειτα again. His purpose in the use of these tem poral adverbs, as we have seen, is to lay out in successive fashion his contacts with the Jerusalem apostles and to assure his readers that he has om itted nothing. O n the tem poral use of διά with the genitive, see Mark 2:1 (δι’ ήμερων, “a few days later”) and Acts 24:17 (δι’ ετών . . . πλειόνων, “after several years”) . T he variation between μετά with the accusative (1:18) and διά with the genitive (2:1) is purely stylistic, reflecting (1) a Jewish mind-set that treats parallelisms in term s of verbal synonyms, and (2) a Greek linguistic facility that seeks to avoid m onotony. T he language and syntax o f 2:1a do not, however, aid us in any direct m anner in answering the question as to w hether the fourteen years of P aul’s second Jerusalem visit should be counted from his conversion (1:15) or from his first Jerusalem visit (1:18-20). T he probability is that the three years of 1:18 and the fourteen years of 2:1 are to be understood concurrently, n o t consecutively— that is, that both are to be m easured from P aul’s conversion and n o t that the fourteen years are to be counted from his first Jerusalem visit. D eterm ination of that m atter, however, can only be m ade in connection with a num ber of o th er issues having to do with the addressees and date of the letter, and it is to those discussions that we m ust here direct the reader (see Introduction, “Addressees” and “D ate”). πάλιν άνέβην εις*f Ιεροσόλυμα, “I w ent up again to Jerusalem .” While contextually the έπειτα, “th e n ,” of this verse follows on from the έπειτα ofv 21 and P aul’s time in Syria and Cilicia, historically πάλιν, “again,” refers back to the έπειτα of v 18 and Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem. So Paul speaks here of his second visit to Jerusalem as a Christian. T he omission of πάλιν in a few versions (itc copbo) and by M arcion, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Am brosiaster (Hilary) probably stems from attem pts to square this second visit with P aul’sJerusalem Council visit of Acts 15, which in Acts is his third visit (or fourth, if εις* ’ Ιερουσαλήμ of 12:25 is accepted). T he use of άνήλθον, “I went u p ,” for άνέβην, “I went u p ,” in C is probably byway of assimilation to άνήλθον of vv 17 and 18, n o t realizing that the variation in the use of these two aorists is simply a stylistic feature. T he prefix άνά (“u p ”) of άνέβην conform s to the expression ή δέ άνω ’Ιερουσαλήμ, “the Jerusalem that is above,” of 4:25-26 (see discussion at 1:17). H ere, however, Paul simply has the geographical site of Jerusalem in m ind, whereas in 4:25-26 his em phasis is m ore on the religious significance o f the city. μετά Βαρναβά, “with Barnabas.” Barnabas was a major figure in the early church. H e appears in Acts a nu m b er of times as som ething of a bridge betw een the Christian mission to Jews and that to Gentiles (cf. 9:27; 11:22-30; 13:1-14:28; 15:24,12, 22,36-41). H e is m entioned in Gal 2:1 for the first time in Paul’s letters, and appears soon after in 2:9,13 as well (also in 1 Cor 9:6). A ccording to Acts, Joseph was his real nam e. T he apostles, however, gave him the sobriquet B arnabas (“son o f en co u rag em en t”), probably in description o f his character and to distinguish

46

G alatians 2:1-10

him from others o f the same nam e (cf. 1:23). H e was a Levite from Cyprus who becam e a C hristian while in Jerusalem and who supported the nascent church by selling a piece o f land and giving the proceeds to the apostles (4:36-37). Later, he intro d u ced Saul o f Tarsus to the apostles and vouched for the genuineness of his conversion (9:27). H e was sent by the Jerusalem church to A ntioch of Syria to check o u t an d th en direct the Christian mission there, and into th at m inistry he b ro u g h t Paul as an associate (11:22-26). D uring th at m inistry the A ntioch Christians sent Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem with a gift of m oney for the im poverished believers of Ju d ea (11:27-30). Later they sent them o u t on a missionary jo u rn ey th at started on the island of Cyprus and extended into southern Calatia (13:1-14:28). T hen, after their retu rn , they sent them again to jerusalem to discuss the vexing issue of Jewish-Gentile relations within the church, particularly the need for Gentiles to be circumcised (15:1-35). After the Jerusalem Council, Paul and Barnabas separated to carry on th eir own missions (1 5 :3 6 -4 1 ), though the tone o f P aul’s reference to Barnabas in 1 Cor 9:6 (perhaps also 2 C or 8:18-19) suggests th at they rem ained friends. Acts 11:25-26, 30 implies that at the time of Paul’s famine visit to jerusalem (with which we have identified Gal 2:1-10) Barnabas was Paul’s senior colleague, whereas Gal 2:1-10, particularly in its rep eated use o f the first person singular, reads as though Paul was the leader. Such a description fits well the situation of Acts 15:1-30. But it is also to be expected— at a time after the missionary party’s return from southern Galatia when Paul was not only the chief speaker but also the leader defacto— th at Paul would reco u n t earlier events from such a perspective, particularly when, as he saw it, Barnabas had vacillated on the issue at hand (cf. Gal2:13). The preposition μετά , “with,” here, however, signals only association, without any necessary idea of inferiority or subordination, as does also the reference to “me and Barnabas” in 2:9. συμπαραλαβών καί T itov, “taking Titus along as well.” As for Titus, however, the situation was different. T he participle συμπαραλαβών (“taking along”), com b ined with the adverbial use o f καί (“as well”), suggests a distinctly subordinate status for him: one who was “taken along.” Titus was a Gentile (v 3) who seems to have been converted by Paul (cf. Titus 1:4) evidently at Syrian Antioch. T he fact th at he is m en tio n ed in Galatians suggests th at he was known to believers in Galatia, either personally or by nam e. Perhaps he had been with Paul and Barnabas on th e ir first foray in to th e are a . In 2 Cor 2:12-13; 7:5-16 he appears as P aul’s representative to the C orinthian church, and in 2 Cor 8 :6 -2 4 , 9:35; 12:18 as the chief organizer for the Jerusalem collection. S o m ew h at su rp risin g ly , he is n o t referred to at all in Acts. William R am say a n d A lfred S o u te r p o s tu la te d th at T itu s was L uke’s b ro th e r a n d so was om itted by Luke from Acts, as is Luke him self (W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 390; A. Souter, “A Suggested R elationship betw een Titus and L uke,” ExpTim 18 [1906-7] 285; idem, “T he Relationship between Titus and Luke,” ibid., 335-36). M ore likely, Titus was om itted because of his close association with the Jerusalem collection, which, except for its m ention at 24:17 in P aul’s defense before Felix, also finds no place in Acts (cf. C. K. Barrett, “T itus,” 2; also the com m ents on L uke’s om ission o f the Jerusalem collection in my “Acts of the A postles,” 519). 2 Tim 4:10 speaks o f Titus going to Dalmatia, the southern p art of the Rom an province o f Illyricum; the letter to Titus presents him as P aul’s delegate to Crete. O n the basis of Titus 1:5, later tradition identified him as the first bishop o f Crete.

Comment

47

With συμπαραλαβώυ, “taking along,” of 2:1 being singular, it is im plied th at it was Paul who took the initiative to bring Titus along to Jerusalem . But ju st why he was b ro u g h t along we are n o t told. L uther suggested that Paul was attem pting to dem onstrate his Christian liberty by bringing with him bo th Barnabas and Titus: “to make it clear that he was at liberty to be a Gentile with Titus and a Jew with Barnabas; thus proving the freedom o f the gospel in each case, namely, th at it is perm issible to be circum cised and yet th at circum cision is n o t necessary, and that this is the way one should think of the entire Law” (Luther’s Works, 27:200). And many have seen P aul’s purpose in bringing along T itus— particularly, indeed, if Gal 2:1-10 is P aul’s account of the Jerusalem C ouncil— as being som ething o f a test case. Yet if Titus had accom panied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary venture, it m ight n o t have been tho u g h t exceptional that he should also accom pany them to Jerusalem , even though Gentile Galatia and Jewish Jerusalem were far different places. If this trip to Jerusalem was, in fact, the fam ine visit o f Acts 11, th en it may be assum ed th at issues were n o t at th at time as clearly drawn or positions as firmly fixed as later. F urtherm ore, p rio r to the Judaizers’ active opposition, Paul may n o t have been as aware of all the possible ram ifications of bringing along Titus as he would have been later. It was probably, therefore, only from a later perspective — th at is, after his mission to southern Galatia and the Judaizers’ agitation both at Syrian Antioch and throughout southern Galatia— that Paul realized the full significance of events surrounding the presence o f Titus at Jerusalem . And it is in that later light that he reports those earlier circum stances here. 2 άυέβηυ δε κατά άποκάλυψιυ, “I w ent up in response to a revelation.” In saying th at he went to Jersualem “in response to a revelation” (κατά άποκάλυψιυ), Paul wants to make clear that his visit did not stem from any hum an m otivation, either on his part or that of the Jerusalem leaders, b u t m ust be seen in the same way as his call and commission (cf. 1:1, 12, 16). Revelations, of course, were of great significance to Paul (cf. 2 Cor 12:1)— n o t ju st as mystical experiences confirm ing a spiritual relationship, bu t also as giving directions for specific courses of action. Acts recounts a nu m ber of ways by which revelations came to Paul: by dream visions (16:9; 18:9-10; 23:11; 27:23-24), by ecstatic trances (22:17-21; cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4), by signs given by the Spirit in some m anner (13:2; 16:6,7; 20:22- 23; 21:4), and by signs given by a prophet (11:28; 21:10-11). Which of these, if any, Paul has here in m ind is impossible to say. It is tem pting, however, along with W. M. Ramsay, (St. Paul the Traveller, 57), C. W. Emmet (Galatians, 13), G. S. Duncan (Galatians, 38), and a num ber o f o th er “South Galatianists” (see Introduction, “Addressees”), to postulate that the “revelation” in view is that given by Agabus in Acts 11:28 which resulted in Paul’s fam ine visit to Jerusalem . καί άυεθέμηυ αυτοίs* τό ευαγγελίου δ κηρύσσω ευ τοΐς* εθυεσιυ, “and I set before them the gospel that I preach am ong the G entiles.” T he p ro n o u n αύτοΐ^, “th em ,” w ithout an expressed antecedent, may have in m ind (by anticipation) the Jerusalem leaders referred to later in the sentence (also in vv 6 -1 0 ). Probably, however, it refers to the Jerusalem Christian com m unity generally. The verb άυατίθημι in the m iddle voice has the sense of “p resen t” or “set o u t” a m atter for consideration or “com m unicate”with a view to consultation. This is a m eaning not found in classical Greek. But it is attested in later Greek writings (cf. Mic 7:5 LXX; 2 Macc 3:9; Acts 25:14, its only other occurrence in the NT).

48

G a la tia n s

2:1-10

Paul’s use of τό εύαγγέλιον, “the gospel,” has already been com m ented on at 1:11-12. It has to do with the character and purposes of God, the work of Christ, the nature of salvation being offered, and how this salvation is operative — particularly, how operative am ong the Gentiles. The presen t tense of κηρύσσω, “I p reach ,” suggests that Paul, when writing, was still preaching the same gospel that he did before going to Jerusalem . Use of the past tense έκήρυξα or (έκήρυσσον) would imply that what he then preached he is no longer preaching. T he phrase εν τοΐς* έθνεσιν, “am ong the Gentiles,” is com parable to cls* τά έθνη, “to the G entiles,” of 2:8, though here by “am ong the G entiles” Paul seems to have in m ind m ore his preaching to people living in Gentile lands, w hether Gentiles alone or also Jews, whereas there “to the Gentiles” is distinguished from “to the circum cised.” κ ατ’ ίδιαν δέ τοΐΕ94 [1975] 266-76; see the rebuttal by E. M. Young, “‘Fulfil the Law of C hrist’: An Exam ination o f Galatians 6.2,” StBibT 7 [1977] 31-42). T he adverb ούτως* (“in this m an n er,” “thus,” “so”) with the conjunction καί (“a n d ”) correlates what follows with what has im mediately preceded, thereby setting o ut a logical connection between the two. Greek prepositional prefixes often strengthen the verb to which they are attached. Thus the future verb άναττληρώσετε (“you will fulfill”)—or the aorist imperative verb άναπληρώσατε (“fulfill”), if that is the better reading (see Note b )—expresses with conviction the fact of a direct correlation between the directive to bear o thers’ oppressive burdens and the assurance that in so doing one is fulfilling “the law of Christ.” T he expression ό νόμος* του Χρίστου (“the law of C hrist”) has been the focus o f extensive discussion. Does it have reference to the principles of the exam ple and teachings o f Jesus, as incorporated in the catechetical tradition o f the early church, th at in some way have external relevance for Christian living, so, in effect, while n o t being of the same n atu re as the law of Moses, taking the place of the law o f Moses in ethical guidance for the Christian (e.g., B urton, Galatians, 329-30; W. D. Davies, Paul and RabbinicJudaism, 111-46; C. H. D odd, Gospel and Law, 64-83; idem , ΈΝΝΟΜΟΣ XPIΣΤΟΥ,” 96-110; R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 181-208) ? O r is it to be in terp reted strictly in term s of the com m and to love given in 5:13b-14, and so und ersto o d apart from external principles or propositions (e.g., A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, tr. W. M ontgom ery [London: Black, 1931] 303; R. Bultm ann, Theology of the New Testament, tr. K. Grobel, 2 vols. [London: SCM, 1952], 1:262, 268; W. Schrage, Die konkreten Einzelgebote, 99-100, 250; V. P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, 51-98)? F urtherm ore, is the expression intrinsic to P aul’s th o u g h t (as seems true of the phrase εννομος* Χρίστου o f 1 Cor 9:21), or did Paul use it only polem ically in an ad hominem fashion either to outclass his op p onents in their use of νόμος* or to m ock his Galatian converts’ obsession with Mosaic legislation (e.g., E. Bammel, “Νόμος* Χρίστου,” 12-28; Betz, Galatians, 299-301)? To u n d erstand what Paul m eant by “the law of C hrist” here, m uch depends on how we u n d erstand the purpose and focus of 5:13-6:10. For if we view 5:13-6:10 as a continuation of P aul’s argum ents and exhortations against the Judaizing threat, then “the law of C hrist” m ust have relevance to what the Judaizers were proposing. O ne can then, in fact, w onder why this expression does no t appear earlier in the Galatian letter. Likewise, if we take 5:13-6:10 to reflect the polemics o f Paul’s antinom istic stance, then νόμος* here may very well be used in contradistinction to the Judaizers’ usage. If, however, 5:13-6:10 be seen m ore in term s of the libertine issues that were also present in the churches of Galatia, then “the law of C hrist” may be taken as an expression stem m ing from P aul’s own ethical vocabulary that is used here to check libertine tendencies am ong his Galatian converts. Taking this latter approach, and abbreviating a lengthy discussion quite considerably, I propose t h a t o νόμος* του Χρίστου here (as does εννομος· Χρίστου of 1 Cor 9:21) stands in P aul’s thought for those “prescriptive principles stem m ing from the h eart of the gospel (usually em bodied in the exam ple and teachings of

276

G a la tia n s

6:1-10

Jesu s), which are m eant to be applied to specific situations by the direction and enablem ent o f the Holy Spirit, being always m otivated and conditioned by love” (so my New Testament Social Ethics for Today, 15). Paul is n o t setting forth Jesus as a new Moses. N or does he viewje su s’ teachings as ethical prescriptions to be carried o ut in rabbinic fashion. Nonetheless, ju st as the designation of his readers as ol πνευματικοί (“who are spiritual”) probably reflects P aul’s own u nderstanding of his converts’ status “in C hrist” and is n o t used either ironically or polemically (see Comment on 6:1), so ό νόμος* του Χρίστου should probably be seen as expressing an im portant feature of P aul’s own ethical understanding and n o t taken in an ad hom inem o r polem ical fashion. T he expression does n o t appear earlier in P aul’s antinom istic argum ents or exhortations, evidently because it did n o t arise from or have direct relevance to those concerns. H ere in countering his converts’ libertine tendencies, however, it highlights what Paul sees to be an appropriate check to such tendencies. For when there is m utual concern am ong believers to “bear one a n o th e r’s oppressive b u rd en s”—which, o f course, is the exact opposite o f libertine attitudes based on a desire to live solely for o n e ’s own self—the whole in ten t of Jesus’ exam ple and teaching comes to fulfillm ent within the church. 3 cl γάρ δοκεΐ τις* είναι τι μηδέν ών, φρεναπατα εαυτόν, “for, Tf anyone thinks he is som ething w hen he is nothing, h e deceives him self.’” T he verbs δοκεΐ (“he thinks”), and φρεναπατα (“he deceives”) o f this verse are third person singulars, with th eir p resen t tenses, active voices, and indicative m oods giving them a gnom ic quality. T he postpositive γάρ (“fo r”) is explanatory. It seems to function n o t only by way o f support for w hat is said in v 2 b u t also to set off the statem ent o f v 3 as being a traditional m axim (cf. the use of γάρ at vv 5, 7 an d 9; see also its use to in troduce traditional m aterial at 3:26, 27-28). O f note also in su p p o rt o f the theory that what we have here is a traditional m axim of the GrecoRom an world th at is being quoted by Paul in general support of his previous statem ent are the following three observations: (1) the verb δοκέω here has a slightly different nuance than it does in 2:2 and 6, for th ere it m ean t “to be esteem ed (by others) to be im p o rtan t” whereas h ere it m eans “to think oneself to be im p o rtan t”; (2) the concessive phrase μηδέν ών (“th o u g h ” o r “w hen being n o th in g ”) is a som ewhat harsher statem ent about the h um an condition than one usually finds in P aul’s letters (cf. Rom 12:3; Phil 2:3-4); and (3) the verb φρεναπατάω (“deceive”) is a hap. leg. in the NT, which also fails to ap p ear in the LXX or any o th er Jewish G reek writing. U nderstanding, then, the statem ent of v 3 to be a traditional m axim of the Greco-Roman world, Paul uses it by way of general support for his directive to “bear one an o th e r’s oppressive b u rd e n s” of v 2. His point, it seems, is that conceit—that is, thinking oneself to be som ething when in actuality we are nothing (as the maxim has it)—results in m aking one unwilling to bear o th ers’ burdens. In effect, the maxim q u oted h ere roughly parallels the exhortation of 5:26, with the warnings against conceit o f 5:26 and 6:3 serving as som ething o f an inclusio for the exhortations regarding restoring the wayward and bearing one a n o th e r’s oppressive burdens of 6:1-2. 4 το δέ έργον εαυτού δοκιμ αστώ έκαστος*, και τότε εις* εαυτόν μόνον τό καύχημα έξει και ούκ εις* τον έτερον, “each one should test his own actions. T hen he will have a basis for boasting in himself, and n o t by com parison with som eone else.” T he first part o f v 4 is in the form o f a directive or com m and, like those of

Comment

277

vv 1 and 2. T he postpositive δε (untranslated) connects v 4 n o t with v 3 (ούν, “th erefo re,” in th at case would probably have been a m ore appropriate connective) b u t with vv 1 and 2. T he adjective έκαστος* (“each,” “every”), serving as a substantive in the nom inative case, is the subject of the sentence; it is om itted by some MSS (see Notec) , evidently inadvertently. The presence of έκαστος* at the start o f v 5 in parallel fashion to v 4 indicates that this substantive was in Paul’s m ind when he dictated v 4, despite its omission by some worthy textual authorities, δοκιμάζω is a freq u en t verb in the Greek classical writings, the LXX, o th er Jewish Greek literature, and the NT. It appears elsewhere in P aul’s letter in three different, though roughly com plem entary, senses: (1) “test” or “exam ine” (1 Cor 3:13; 11:28; 2 Cor 13:5; 1 Thess 5:21; 1 Tim 3:10); (2) “accept as proven” or “approve” (Rom 2:18; 14:22; 1 Thess 2:4; 2 Cor 8:22); and (3) “think best” or “choose” (1 Cor 16:3); Rom 12:2 could be classified u n d er any or all of these m eanings. H ere in v 4 the sense is clearly that of “test” or “exam ine.” T he second p art of v 4 gives a rationale for the directive ju st given. T he correlative adverbial particle τότε (“th e n ”) undoubtedly has tem poral force to m ean “then, w hen he has tested his own actions, the following will ensue.” T he n o u n καύχημα (“boast”) appears frequently in G reek writings and a total of ten times in Paul (elsewhere in P aul’s letters at Rom 4:2; 1 Cor 5:6; 9:15,16; 2 Cor 1:14; 5:12; 9:3; Phil 1:26; 2:16). “It is,” as B urton observes, “in itself a less opprobrious term th an the English word ‘boast,’ referring ra th e r to exultation, gratulation, w ithout the im plication of the English word that it is excessive or unjustified” ( Galatians, 333). With the article, τό καύχημα carries the idea of “the g ro u n d of boasting” or “the basis for boasting.” T he article also serves to m ake the nou n restrictive (i.e., “his basis for boasting”), with such a nuance em phasized by the n eu ter particle μόνον (“only,” “alo n e”). T he substantival use of the adjective ετερος* (“o th e r”) has in m ind “som eone else” than those spoken to in the directive. T he articular form o f the substantival adjective (i.e., τον ετερον in the accusative) restricts those in view to eith er (1) a particular w rong-doer with whom som eone in the church may com pare himself, or (2) a general class o f w rongdoers with whom som eone in the church may com pare himself. With, therefore, the third person singular future verb εζει (“he will have”) and the contrast between εις* εαυτόν (“in h im self’) and εις* τον ετερον (“in som eone else”), the rationale for testing o n e ’s own actions is so that “th e n ” such a one “will have a basis for boasting in himself, and n o t by com parison with som eone else.” T he w arning here is not to live as spiritual people in a state of pride or conceit, always com paring o n e ’s own attainm ents to those of others and so feeling superior, b u t rath er to test o n e ’s own actions and so to minim ize the possibility of selfdeception. Christian feelings of exultation and congratulation should spring from o n e ’s own actions as seen in the light of G od’s approval and n o t derive from com paring oneself to what others are or are n o t doing. 5 έκαστος* γάρ τό ίδιον φορτιον βαστάσει, “for, ‘Each one shall bear his own b u rd e n .’” As in v 3, so here the postpositive γάρ (“fo r”) n o t only connects v 5 to v 4 in an explanatory fashion b u t also seems to set off the statem ent of v 5 as being a traditional m axim (cf. also the use o f γάρ at vv 7 and 9). T he n o u n φορτιον (“b u rd e n ”) is a com m on w ord in G reek literature, including the LXX and o th er Jewish G reek writings o f the Second Tem ple Period. It is used in Acts 27:10 o f a sh ip ’s cargo (so also by jo sep h u s, Ant. 14.377, and o th e rs), in M att 23:4 and Luke

278

G a la tia n s

6:1-10

11:46 o f Pharisaically im posed legal burdens, and in M att 11:30 of jesus’ “b u rd en ” im posed on his disciples vis-a-vis the “b u rd e n ” o f the Mosaic law. φορτιον is, of course, synonymous with βάρος. H ere in differing contexts it may be used by Paul simply as a parallel to βάρος. Probably, however, the change of nouns has som ething to do with βάρος in v 2 being P aul’s own term and φορτιον here being that o f the m oral m axim he quotes. T he m axim itself, as Betz points out, likely originated within ancient philosophic speculations regarding αύτάρκεια, or “selfsufficiency” (i.e., the ability to “carry o n e ’s own lo ad ”) , which was the ideal am ong many ancient philosophers (cf. Betz, Galatians, 303-4, and the philosophic literature he cites). Paul, however, uses the m axim in general support of his directive th at “each one should test his own actions” in v 4, with έκαστος (“each o n e ,” “everyone”) as the subject o f both the directive and the m axim , tying these two statem ents to g ether and the co n ten t o f the maxim being generally confirm atory, though adm ittedly used ou t o f context. 6 κοινωνειτω δέ ό κατηχούμενος τον λόγον τω κατηχούντι εν πάσιν άγαθοΐς, “the one who receives instruction in the word m ust share all good things with his instructor.” The exhortation of v 6 is the m ost puzzling of all P aul’s directives in 6:1-10—or for that m atter elsewhere in his Galatian letter. In form it has no supporting ethical maxim attached, as do the directives of vv 2-4 before it and those o f vv 7-9 following. In content, it is somewhat different from P aul’s o th er statem ents regarding financial rem uneration for m inisters of the gospel. For whereas elsewhere in his letters Paul asserts the right of those who preach and teach to claim support (cf. 1 Cor 9:3-14; 1 Tim 5:18, citing both Scripture and the words of jesus), here he speaks of the duty of those who are taught to make m aterial provision for their teachers. And whereas in his own practice he personally ren o u n ced his rights to such m aterial provision (cf. 1 Cor 9:15-18; 1 Thess 2:9; also Acts 20:33-35) and evidently felt some em barrassm ent when such was given him (cf. the tone of Phil 4:10-19), here he com m ands his Galatian converts to “share all good things” with their teachers. O f course, Paul is n o t h ere asking for any m aterial provision for himself; rather, he asks on behalf of his converts’ teachers in the churches o f Galatia—that is, those teachers who teach in accord with P aul’s d octrine (cf. 6:16), n o t the judaizing teachers. Nonetheless, the directive of this verse is still somewhat different from P aul’s o th er statem ents elsewhere in his letters on the topic of m aterial a n d /o r financial rem uneration to Christian ministers and teachers. D om inating v 6 are two present substantival participles: ό κατηχούμενος (“the one who receives instruction”) and τω κατηχούντι (“the one who instructs”). T he participles are both singular, thereby signaling a class of persons rath er than particular persons themselves. T he bringing together of these two classes of people assumes some type of form al association between them . W hat they have in com m on is spoken of as τον λόγον (“the w ord”), which m ust here certainly m ean the Christian message (cf. 1 C or 1:18; 2 C or 5:19; E p h 1:13; P h il 1:14; Col 1:25; 4:3; 1 T h ess 1:6; 2:13; 2 T im 4 :2 )—that which was taught by the one and received by the other. T he verb κοινωνέω (“share”) when used with reference to things connotes “be a p artn er o f ” or “share in ,” though with persons m eans “give to ” or “contribute a share to ” som eone. H ere as a present im perative coupled with a personal object in the dative (“the one who instructs”) it is a hortatory com m and: “Let him share with his in stru cto r.” W hat “the one who receives in stru ctio n ” is

Comment

279

to share is also expressed in the dative, viz. έv πάσιv άγαθόίς* (“in all good things”) . T he phrase “in all good things” is a rath er general expression that may include spiritual benefits as well as m aterial sustenance, bu t it certainly cannot be u n d erstood apart from m aterial sustenance—probably m ore directly financial support. Set within the context of exhortations urging m utual helpfulness am ong Christian believers, as expressed particularly in vv 1-2 and vv 9-10, the directive of v 6 may n o t be o u t of place at all. It is ju st that we today have no knowledge of the circum stance to which this directive was addressed. In fact, no one beyond Paul and his readers has ever been in a position to have any knowledge of the circum stance being addressed, for n eith er he n o r they has ever told us. N onetheless, certain inferences seem able to be legitimately m ad e: (1) that form al Christian instruction was going on in the churches of Galatia; (2) that the teachers were called as a class 6 κατηχών (from whence comes the title “catechist” for one who instructs in the basics of the Christian fa ith ); (3) that those instructed were called as a class 6 κατηχούμενος* (from whence comes the title “catechum en” for one taking instruction in the basics of the Christian fa ith ); (4) that the content of what was instructed and learned was the Christian message; (5) that Christian teaching was th en a full-time—or at least a heavily tim e-consum ing—occupation that deserved m aterial a n d /o r financial com pensation; (6) that for some reason Christian teachers were n o t being adequately com pensated materially in some or all o f the churches of Galatia; and (7) that Paul tho u g h t it incum bent on those who received instruction to take the initiative to rectify this wrong. Paul, of course, had no teachers’ u nion to which to appeal for correcting injustices. His recourse was to lay the onus on those who benefited from Christian instruction to com pensate adequately those who gave the instruction, which is still the m ost appropriate course o f action today. 7 μή πλανάσθε, θεός* ού μυκτηρίζεται* ο γάρ εάν σπείρη άνθρωπος*, τούτο καί θερίσει, “do n o t be deceived: God is n o t m ocked. For, ‘W hatever a m an sows, that he also reaps.’” Verses 7-9 com prise a w arning with an explication and an appeal. T he u n it seems to consist of (1) an introductory form ula (“do n o t be deceived”), (2) the w arning itself cast in proverbial form (“God is not m ocked”), (3) a traditional maxim given in support of the warning (“whatever a m an sows, that he also reaps”), (4) P aul’s explication in term s of his own “flesh-Spirit” antinom y (“the one who sows to the flesh, from the flesh shall reap destruction; the one who sows to the Spirit, from the Spirit shall reap life etern al”) , (5) P aul’s appeal to apply the w arning and his explication to circum stances within Galatia (“let us no t become weary in doing good”) , and (6) another traditional maxim given in support of the appeal and prom ising a good Outcome when such an appeal is heeded (“at the p ro p er time we shall reap a harvest if we do n o t give u p ”) . H ere in v 7 the first three items appear (with the fourth in v 8 and the fifth and sixth in v 9). Byway of introducing the warning, Paul uses the present im perative expression μή πλανάσθε (“do n o t be deceived”). M arcion and Tertullian seem both to have known o f a text that om itted the negative μή, and so they read πλανάσθε as a present indicative (“you are deceived”) rath er than a present im perative (see Noted ) . But μή πλανάσθε is used in Stoic writings (cf. H. Braun, “πλανάω κτλ.,” TDNT 6:244), in 2 Macc 7:18, and elsewhere in the NT (cf. 1 Cor 6:9; 15:33; Jas 1:16; also Luke 21:8) as an interjection before some solem n warning, and so may be assum ed to have been a com m on introductory form ula to a statem ent of w arning in P aul’s day.

280

G a la tia n s

6:1-10

T he statem ent θεό? ού μυκτηρίζεται (“God is n o t m ocked”) appears to be a p ro verbial statem ent o f warning, as m ost com m entators since H ans Lietzm ann (cf. Galater, ad loc.) have assumed. The anarthrous use o f θεό? (“G od”) as the subject o f the sentence (which is infrequent), the use of the indicative negative ού following the negative μή, and the p resent tense of the verb all tend to support the gnom ic quality of this brief statem ent. F urtherm ore, while the verb μυκτηρίζω (“tu rn up the nose at,” “treat with contem pt,” “m ock”) and its n o u n μυκτηρισμό? (“m ockery”) both appear frequently in the LXX (cf. 3 K dm s 18:27; 4 Kdm s 19:21; 2 C h r 36:16; 1 Esd 1:49; J o b 22:19; Pss 44:13 [43:14]; 80:6 [79:7]; Prov 1:30; 11:12; 12:8; 15:5, 20; 23:9; Isa 37:22; J e r 20:7; Ezek 8:17; 1 M acc 7:34) and o th er Jewish Greek writings of the Second Tem ple Period (cf. Pss. Sol. 4.8; T. Jos. 2.3; Sib. Or. 1.171), neith er appears in the NT except the verb here in this verse, which makes it both a NT and a Pauline hap. leg., and thus presum ably n o t a term rooted in P aul’s own vocabulary bu t attributable to som ething he quotes. T he purpose o f P aul’s use of the statem ent “God is not m ocked” is n o t ap p a ren t until one comes to v 8, where Paul gives his own explication. To sum m arize briefly what he says there, here by way of anticipation, P aul’s p o in t in the w arning statem ent o f v 7 followed by the explication o f v 8 is that one can n o t expect to sow to the flesh and th en reap eternal life, and so m ock the justice of God, for “God is n o t m ocked!” W hat follows the warning statem ent appears to be a traditional maxim given in support. It is introduced by the conjunction γάρ (“fo r”) , which n o t only functions in an explanatory fashion b u t also seems to identify what follows as being quoted m aterial (cf. also the use of yd p a t w 3 ,5, and 9). What, then, follows is a well-known agricultural proverb that was used com m only and in various ways in the literature o f the Greco-Roman world (cf. Plato, Phaedr. 260C; Aristotle, Rhet. 3.3.4 [1406B]; D em osthenes, Cor. 159; Cicero, Oral. 2.65; Plautus, Mer. 71), in the LXX (cf.Job 4:8; Ps 126:5; Prov 22:8; Hos 8:7; 10:12-13), in o th er Jewish Greek writings of the Second Tem ple Period (cf. Sir 7:3; T. Levi 13.6; 4 Ezra 4:28-30; see also Philo, Confus. 21; Mutat. 268-69; Somn. 2.76), and elsewhere in P aul’s letters and the rest o f the NT (cf. 1 Cor 9:11; 2 Cor 9:6; see also Luke 19:21-22; Jo h n 4:35-36). P aul’s em phasis in the use of this maxim seems to be twofold: (1) that there is a direct correlation between sowing and reaping, which is how God has established matters; and (2) that the onus rests on the person (άνθρωπο?) him self as to w hether life eventuates in blessing or judgm ent, for God is n o t a deity who reverses his laws or can be tricked into believing som ething to be so when it is not. Thus, generally the maxim supports the proverb: “God is n o t m ocked” by m ankind’s attem pts to ignore the cause-and-effect relationships of justice or to trick God into bestowing blessings instead of judgm ent. 8 ότι b απείρων cl? την σάρκα εαυτού εκ τη? σαρκό? θερίσει φθοράν, 6 δε απείρων εί? τό πνεύμα εκ τού πνεύματο? θερίσει ζωήν αιώνιον, “the one who sows to his own flesh, from the flesh shall reap destruction; the one who sows to the Spirit, from the Spirit shall reap life etern al.” H ere in v 8 Paul interprets the proverb o f v 7a in the context of his own theology, explicating it in term s of his sharply drawn “flesh-Spirit” antinom y of 5:16-25 and using the m etaphors of sowing and reaping that appear in the maxim of v 7b. In effect, the m etaphors are now transposed into allegories, for the sower sows either εί? την σάρκα (“to the flesh”) or εί? τό πνεύμα (“to the Spirit”) , as though casting seed into two entirely

Comment

281

different fields, and from these two different fields he reaps a harvest that corresponds to the nature of the fields themselves: either φθοράν (“destruction”) from “the flesh” or £ωήν αιώνιον (“life etern al”) from “the Spirit.” W hereas o n (untranslated) often is a causal conjunction, here it probably functions in a declarative fashion to set off what follows as being P aul’s own explication (cf. M ussner, Galaterbrief, ad loc.). T he association of “the Spirit” with “life etern al” is in line with P aul’s references to living by the Spirit in 5:16,18, 22-25. T hat of “the flesh” with “destruction,” however, goes somewhat beyond what Paul has said explicitly about the flesh in 5:16-21, though it picks up on and expresses in a graphic m an n er the warning of 5:21b that “those who do such things [i.e., live in terms of “the works of the flesh”] shall n o t inherit the kingdom of G od.” W hat Paul seems to have in m ind here in speaking about sowing to the flesh are the libertine tendencies of his Galatian converts that he has alluded to earlier in this section: quarrelsom eness (5:15, 26), conceit (5:26), envy (5:26), living aloof from the needs of others (6:1-2; perhaps also 6:6), and pride (6:3-4). Such things no t only reflect a misuse of Christian freedom (cf. 5:13) b u t also have disastrous results both personally and corporately, for “destruction” is their final end. 9 το δε καλόν ποιουντες* μή έγκακώμεν, καιρω γάρ ίδίω θερίσομεν μή εκλυόμενοι, “let us, then, n o t becom e weary in doing good, for, ‘At the p ro p er time we will reap a harvest if we do n o t give u p .’” T he w arning of v 7 and its explication o f v 8 are now b ro u ght to a practical conclusion by the appeal given here: “Let us n o t becom e weary in doing good.” The postpositive δε (“then” ) connects this verse with what has gone before, and with v 9a being an appeal based on what has gone before should probably here be translated “accordingly” or “th e n .” T he expression το καλόν ττοιουντες* (“doing the good”) , as Betz observes, “includes everything the Christian is responsible for doing,” and so “is identical with the concepts of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ (5:22-23) and of ‘following the Spirit’ (5:25; cf. 5:16)” ( Galatians, 309). In particular, it has reference to those m atters com m anded in 6:1-6: restoring someone entrapped by sin (v 1), bearing the oppressive burdens of others (v 2), and sharing materially with those who teach the gospel message (v 6). T he verb έγκακέω (“becom e weary,” “tired ”) does n o t appear in classical Greek writings, in the LXX (though it appears later in T h eo d o tio n ’s translation of Prov 3:11, and in Symmachus’ translation of Gen 27:46, Num 21:5, and Isa 7:16), or in any extant Jewish Greek writing prior to the NT period. It seems, in fact, to have been first coined som etime in the second century b . c . (cf. Polybius 4.19.10; BGU 1043.3). It does appear, however, in the better attested readings o f six NT passages (in addition to here, cf. Luke 18:1; 2 C or 4 :1 , 16; E ph 3:13; 2 T hess 3:13), though the TR has έκκακέω (“lose h e a rt”) at all these places (see Note e )— evidently because έγκακέω was no t that com m on a word for many scribes. W hat Paul fears, it seems, is that his converts of Galatia, having begun well (cf. 3:2-5; 5:7a), were losing their enthusiasm about life lived “in step with the Spirit” (cf. 5:25), and so were n ot only being enticed by a nomistic lifestyle b u t also were allowing libertine attitudes to take control. In particular, they were beginning to revert from an outgoing type o f Christian faith that seeks the welfare of others to a selfish, self-contained religious stance that has little concern for others. So P aul’s appeal: “Let us, then, n o t becom e weary in doing good.” In support of his appeal, Paul now adds what appears to be an o th er traditional maxim, which is introduced (as are those of vv 3, 5, and 7) by an explanatory γάρ:

282

G a la tia n s

6:1-10

“For, ‘At the p ro p er time we shall reap a harvest if we do n o t give up.’” T he maxim here, however, n o t only adds support to P aul’s appeal bu t also prom ises a positive outcom e for those who persevere in doing good to others. T he expression και ρω ίδίω is probably an idiom for “at the appropriate m o m en t,” “in due season,” or “at the p ro p er tim e,” w ithout any specification given as to what m om ent, season, or time is in m ind (cf. G. Delling, “καιρός,” TDNT 3:455-62). While both the adjective ίδιος· and the n o u n καιρός· occur frequently on their own th ro u g h o u t the NT, the only o th er instances of their being bro u g h t together are at 1 Tim 2:6 and 6:15 (both, however, in the plural). O n ίδιος- as m eaning “ap p ro p riate,” “d u e ,” or “p ro p e r” in Paul, see 1 Cor 3:8 and 15:23. T he verb θερι£ω (“reap ,” “harvest”) corresponds to the agricultural imagery of vv 7b-8 (cf. also the image of “fruit,” καρπός·, in the caption “the fruit of the Spirit” at 5:22). Its appearance here in the future tense (θερισομεν) is a prom ise for the future, b u t again w ithout any specification as to w hether that time is to be a thisworldly existential future or an other-worldly eschatological future, or both. Interpreters have easily latched on to one or the o th er of these understandings depending on their own theological proclivities. But Paul (as well as the o th er NT writers) is n o t really interested in questions of timing; rather, his attention focuses on the certainty o f G od’s prom ises and the inevitability of what will occur when certain spiritual processes are in place. T he verb εκλύω (“faint,” “becom e weary,” “give out,” or “give up”) is a com m on word in Greek writings, though it appears only in the passive in the NT (cf. Matt 15:32; Mark 8:3; H eb 12:3,5). C om pared with έγκακεω (“becom e weary”) used in P aul’s appeal, εκλύω (“give u p ”) o f this supporting maxim seems to be the stronger verb, though they are roughly synonymous. As an adverbial participle, εκλυόμενοι has a conditional function, so with the negative μή the maxim closes with the tho u g h t “if we do n o t give u p .” For Paul, the fruit o f a spiritual harvest comes through the concurring actions o f both God and the believer, with the believer’s perseverance being generally in response to the Spirit’s work in his or h er life and specifically an expression of the virtue “patience” (μακροθυμια, cf. 5:22). 10 αρα ουν ώς* καιρόν εχομεν, έργα£ώμεθα τό αγαθόν προς· πάντας·, μάλιστα δε προς· τούς· οικείους· της· πιστέως·, “therefore, whenever we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the household of faith.” T he inferential particle άρα (“th e n ”) strengthened by the transitional particle ουν (“th erefo re”) appears frequently in P aul’s letters to signal the conclusion or m ain p o in t of a discussion (cf. Rom 5:18; 7:3, 25; 8:12; 9:16, 18; 14:12, 19; Eph 2:19; 1 Thess 5:6; 2 Thess 2:15). H ere it sets off the exhortation of this verse as the conclusion and m ain point n o t only of the directives given in 6:1-10 b u t also of all that has been said in 5:13- 6:10. In effect, the exhortations of 5:13, “through love serve one an o th er,” and 6:10, “do good to all peo p le,” function as an inclusio for all that Paul says against libertine tendencies am ong the believers of Galatia in 5:13-6:10. T he exhortation is prefaced by the phrase ώς· καιρόν εχομεν (present indicative) or ώς* καιρόν εχωμεν (present subjunctive), with both readings of the verb being almost equally well supported (see Note f ) and both readings resulting in approximately the same m eaning (i.e., “we have” or “we m ight have”). The adverbial tem poral particle ώς* with an accusative no u n m eans “as long as” or “w henever” and can be u nderstood either eschatologically (“as long as”) or existentially (“w henever”). καιρός·, as in v 9b above, suggests “a propitious situation,” “a decisive

Explanation

283

m o m en t,” or “a divinely given opportunity” (cf. G. Delling, “καιρός·,” TDNT 3:45562). Thus Paul qualifies his exhortation for believers to “do go o d ” in a m anner suggesting that such actions be viewed as availing oneself of God-given opportunities and be undertaken as part of a Christian’s redemptive mandate. Paul is certainly not relegating ethics to some incidental or optional category of Christian living, as some seem to read his words here. Rather, he is highlighting through his use of the noun καιρός* the divinely given and strategic nature of opportunities set before the Christian for doing good. T he exhortation itself is all-embracing: “Let us do good to all p eople.” The b etter textual authorities read the d ep o n en t verb of the exhortation as a present subjunctive, έργα£ώμεθα (“let us d o ”), rather than as a present indicative,^ ργα£όμεθα (“we d o ”) (see Note g ), which is also m ore internally plausible. The expression t o αγαθόν (“the good”) is fairly general. It corresponds to τοΐς· αγαθοί ς* (“good things”) o f v 6 and is roughly synonymous with τό καλόν (“the g o o d ”) . In the singular with an article it signifies “that which is advantageous” (cf. Rom 7:13; 15:2). T he object o f Christian acts of doing good is identified by the prepositional phrase προς· πάντας· (“to all [people]” ). As Betz aptly observes, citing the em phases on “all” in 2:16; 3:8, 22, 26-28 and the new relationships set out in 3:26-28: “T he universal character o f G od’s redem ption corresponds to the universality of C hristian ethical and social responsibility. If G od’s redem ption in Christ is universal, the Christian com m unity is obliged to disregard all ethnic, national, cultural, social, sexual, and even religious distinctions within the hum an com m unity. Since before God th ere is no partiality, there cannot be partiality in the C hristian’s attitude towards his fellow m an ” ( Galatians, 311). Somewhat paradoxically, however, Paul appends to his universalistic exhortation the statem ent: “especially to those who belong to the household of faith .” Is this a lapse from the universalism of concern expressed in 5:13 and im m ediately previous in 6:10? O r is it ra th e r m aking the point th at am idst our concern for all hum anity we as Christians are to have a special concern for the welfare of fellow believers? U ndoubtedly it is the latter, in line with Jesus’ com m and to his disciples to “love one a n o th e r” (Jo h n 13:34-35). For Paul, believers “in C hrist” m ake up τούς· οικείους- τής· πίστεως· (“the household of faith ”), which speaks m etaphorically o f the corporate unity of Christians, and the m em bers of such a household are to be cared for in particular. T he use of the m etaphor οικείος- (“h o u seh o ld ”) for Christians appears elsewhere in P aul’s letters explicitly only at Eph 2:19, b u t the imagery of a building as a com m unal structure for Christians is fairly com m on (cf. 1 Cor 3:9-17; 2 Cor 6:14-16; Eph 2:19-22). T he expression ή πίστις* (“the faith ”) is used here as a locution for the Christian m ovem ent (cf. 1:23; see also 3:23, 25). Explanation In dealing with th e judaizing threat, Paul associated “flesh” with “the works of the law” and circum cision (cf. 3:2-3; see also 6:12-13). Likewise, in dealing with libertine tendencies within the Galatian churches he associates “the flesh” with n o t being guided by the Spirit or controlled by love, b u t autonom ously expressing o n e ’s own sinful nature (cf. 5:13, 1 6 -1 7 , 19-21; 6:8). W hether, therefore, it be “the works o f the law” or “the works of the flesh,” in eith er case the result is destruction.

284

G a l a t ia n s

6:1-10

For legalism and libertinism are alike in that they both fail to appreciate or experience the freedom o f new existence “in C hrist,” and so b oth result in a sorry end. O n the o th er hand, ju st as it is “the Spirit” who counteracts legalism and puts an en d to nom ism (cf. 3 :2 -5 , 14; 4:6-7; 5:5-6), so it is “the S pirit” who counteracts libertinism and enables the believer to do good works that are beneficial to all in n eed (cf. 5:16-18, 22-23, 25; 6:8). P aul’s exhortations really boil down to one p o in t th at is expressed in slightly different ways: “live by the S pirit” (5:16), “be led by the Spirit” (5:18), “keep in step with the S pirit” (5:25), a n d /o r “sow to the Spirit” (6:8). Being thus truly “spiritual p eo p le” (ol πνευματικοί), the result will be th at we will serve one an o th er through love (5:13), restore others en trap p ed by oppressive burd ens (6:1-2), adequately com pensate those who have provided instruction (6:6), and generally do good to all people, particularly fellow believers (6:10). In effect, then, w hether it be a m atter o f access to God, a p ro p e r Christian lifestyle, or an outgoing, loving expression of the C hristian faith, it is the Spirit who b oth brings such things about and enables the believer to work them ou t in practice. T h ere is, o f course, concurring activity on the p art o f the Spirit and the believer in these m atters. But noth in g can be accom plished eith er by “the works o f the law” or “the works o f the flesh,” b u t only by reliance on “the Spirit.”

IV. Subscription (6:11-18) Bibliography Bahr, G. J. “T he Subscriptions in the Pauline L etters.” JBL 87 (1968) 27-41. Clarke, W. K. L. “St. P aul’s ‘Large L etters.’” ExpTim 24 (1913) 285. Clemens, J. S. “St. P aul’s H an d w riting.” ExpTim 24 (1913) 380. Cuming, G . J. “Service-endings in the Epistles.” N TS 22 (1975) 110-13. Dahl, N . A. “D er N am e Israel: Z u r A uslegung v o n G al 6, 16” Judaica 6 (1950) 161-70. Davies, W. D. “Paul and the People of Israel.” N TS 24 (1977) 4-39, esp. 9-10. Deissmann,A. Bible Studies, 3 4 6 -6 0 .————. Lightfrom the Ancient East 1927 rev. ed. Dion, P. E. “T he Aramaic ‘Family L etter’ and Related Epistolary Forms in O th er O riental Languages and in H ellenistic G reek.” Semeia22 (1981) 59-76. Doty, W. G. Letters inPrimitive Christianity. Exler, F. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter, 73-112. Fitzmyer,J. A. “Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography.” JBL 93 (1974) 201-25, esp. 201-5, 217. Gamble, H. Textual History, 57-83. Jewett, R. “T he Form and Function o f the H om iletic B enediction.” A T R 51 (1969) 13-34. ————. “T he Agitators and the Galatian C ongregation,” N TS 17 (1971) 198-212. Koskenniemi, H. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Longenecker, R. N. “A ncient A m anuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N. L ongenecker and M. C. Tenney. G rand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974, 281-97. Meecham, H. G. Lightfrom Ancient Letters. Mullins, T . Y. “G reeting as a New T estam ent F orm .” JBL 87 (1968) 418-26. ————. “B enediction as a New T estam ent Form .” AUSS15 (1977) 59-64. Nijenhuis,J . “T he G reeting in My Own H an d .” BT19 (1981) 225-58. Richardson, P. Israel in the Apostolic Church. SNTSMS 10. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1969,74-102. Robinson, D . W . B. “D istinction between jewish and Gentile Believers in G alatians.” ABR 13 (1965) 29-44. Roller, O. Das Formulae, 69-70, 489-93. Schnider, F., and Stenger, W. Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular, 108-67. Schrenk, G. “Was bedeutet ‘Israel G ottes’?” Judaica 5 (1949) 81-94. ————. “D er Segenwunsch nach der K am pfepistel.” Judaica 6 (1950) 170-90. Stowers, S. K. Letter Writing in GrecoRoman Antiquity. White, J. L. “T he G reek D ocum entary L etter T radition: T h ird Century B.C.E. to T hird Century C.E.” Semeia 22 (1981) 89-106, esp. 92-95. ————. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ————. “A ncient G reek L etters.” In GrecoRoman Literature and the New Testament, ed. D. E. Aune. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. 85-106. Ziemann, F. De Epistularum Graecarum Formulis, 362-65.

Translation 11See what largea letters [I use] as I write to you with my own hand! 12Those who want to make a good showing outwardly are trying to compel you to receive circumcision. [The] only [reason they do this is] to avoid being persecutedbfor the cross of Christ.c 13For those who are circumcisedd do not themselves keep the law, yet they want you to receive circumcision in order that they might boast about your flesh. 14May I, however, never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world. 15For, “Neitherecircumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; all that matters is a new creation.” 16Peace and mercy be on all those who will followf this rule, even on the Israel of God. 17Finally, let no one continue to cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus!g 18The grace of ourh Lord Jesus Christ1be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

286

G a l a t ia n s

6 :1 1 -1 8

Notes a πηλίκοι? (“how large”) is well attested externally, tho u g h ήλίκοι? (the classical form of the word) is supported by p46 B* and ποικίλοι? (“how diversified”) by m inuscule 642. b T he present subjunctive passive verb διώκωνται (“they m ight [not] be p ersec u ted ”) is well attested, though the presen t indicative passive διώκονται (“they are [not] p e rsec u ted ”) appears in p46 B ΚΨ etc. c Χριστοί) (“o f C hrist”) is well attested, though Χριστοί) Ίησου (“o f C hrist Je su s”) is the reading o f p46 B and a few m inuscules—perhaps influenced by v 14. d T he presen t passive substantival participle οι περιτβμνόμβνοι (“those who are circum cised”) is attested b y K A C D K P e t al., though the perfect passive οι π ερ ιτετμ ημ ενοι (“those who have been circum cised”) by p46 B Ψ etc. While the weight o f external evidence is alm ost equally balanced, the p resen t passive substantival participle is m ore internally convincing and so probably original. e T he shorter re a d in g οϋτε γάρ (“for n e ith e r”) is attested by p46B Ψ 33 1175, though έ ν γάρ Χριστώ Ίησου ουτο (“for in Christ Jesus n e ith e r”) is alm ost equally attested by K A C D TR, as well as m ost m inuscules and m any versions. T he longer reading, however, is probably influenced by 5:6. f T he future indicative στοιχήσουσιν (“will follow”) is well attested, though the aorist subjunctive στοιχήσω σιν (“would follow”) appears in p46. S T he simple nam e ’ Ιησου (“o f Jesus”) is attested by p46 A B C* 33 et al. Various o th er readings, however, a p p ea rin the textual tradition: Χρίστου (“ofC hrist”) is supported by ΡΨ 81 copbo; κυρίου Ίησου (“o f the L ord Jesus”) by K L Byzantine vg syrpesh; κυρίου Ί ησου Χρίστου (“o f the L ord Jesus C hrist”) by K it copsa; and κυρίου ημών Ίησου Χρίστου (“o f o u r L ord Jesus C hrist”) by D* G Am bst Pel. h T he p ro n o u n ημών (“o u r”) is om itted by P 69 1739. 1Χρίστου (“o f C hrist”) is om itted by P.

Form/Structure/Setting T he subscriptions of P aul’s letters have generally been treated in a ra th e r cursory m anner, largely because o f (1) the natural tendency of com m entators to focus on the w eightier m atters found in the thanksgivings and bodies of P aul’s letters, an d (2) the supposition that the salutations and subscriptions th at open and close a Pauline letter are prim arily conventional in n atu re and serve only to establish or m aintain contact with the readers. T he subscription o f Galatians, however, has been the object of m ore scholarly attention than the subscriptions of P aul’s o th er letters. This appears to be so prim arily because o f its greater length an d its m ore obvious relevance to the body o f its letter. J. B. Lightfoot, for exam ple, long ago observed that 6:11-18 functions by way o f “sum m ing up the m ain lessons o f the epistle in terse eager disjointed sentences” ( Galatians [1896], 220); and Adolf Deissm ann early insisted regarding P aul’s letters in general and Galatians in particular: “M ore attention o ught to be paid the concluding words of the letters generally; they are of the highest im portance if we are ever to u n d erstan d the Apostle. T he conclusion to the Galatians is certainly a very rem arkable o n e ” (Bible Studies, 347-48; cf. also the com m ents of G. Milligan, Documents, 21-28). Since Lightfoot, Deissm ann, Milligan, and others drew atten tio n to it, scholars have generally viewed P aul’s subscription in Galatians as sum m ing up the contents of the body o f the lette r— though, it n eed be noted, th eir views have usually been based simply on a com parison o f topics and w ithout any analysis o f epistolary or rhetorical forms. O f late, H ans D ieter Betz has highlighted the fact that 6:11-18 is n o t only a sum m ation of P aul’s letter b u t is also “m ost im po rtant for the interpretation of Galatians. It contains the interpretive clues to the understanding o f P aul’s m ajor concerns in the letter as a whole and should be em ployed as the herm eneutical key to the intentions of the Apostle” ( Galatians, 313). Betz, of course, makes this claim

Form/Stru cture/Setting

287

from the perspective of rhetorical criticism rath er than epistolary analysis. But his assertion that these verses function rhetorically as the peroratio of a typical apologetic speech may be doubted. For if Galatians cannot be understood entirely in term s of Greco-Roman forensic rhetoric, bu t also exhibits, as we have proposed, Jewish ways o f arguing (esp. in 3:8—4:7) and Greco-Roman deliberative rhetorical features (esp. in 4:12-6:10), one may legitimately question w hether 6:11-18 is properly to be seen in term s of the forensic rhetorical category peroratio. N onetheless, despite his rigid application of forensic rhetorical categories to alm ost all of Galatians (i.e., apart from the “Epistolary Prescript” of 1:1-5, b u t including everything else in the le tte r), Betz’s insistence on the im portance of 6:11-18 for the interpretation o f Galatians is highly laudatory, even though the rationale for such a claim can be better supported on an epistolary rath er than a rhetorical basis. The subscriptions of P aul’s letters function like the thanksgivings of his letters, though in reverse: they provide im portant clues for u n d erstanding the issues previously discussed in the bodies o f their respective letters. For as the thanksgivings foreshadow and p o in t ahead to the m ajor concerns to be addressed in their respective bodies, the subscriptions serve to highlight and sum m arize the m ain points th at have been dealt with in those bodies. Galatians, of course, is the prim ary exam ple of a Pauline letter w ithout a thanksgiving section (probably also 2 C orinthians, though uncertainties regarding how that letter was com posed tend to confuse any certain epistolary analysis). But the Galatian θαυμάζω (“I am asto n ish ed ”) subsection of 1:6-10 that begins the long rebuke section of 1:6-4:11 takes its place in setting ou t the occasion for writing and the issues at stake. And it is to th at subsection of 1:6-1 0 that the subscription o f 6:11-18 can be com pared when attem pting to identify the m ajor concerns of Paul in writing his Galatian letter, and so to seek interpretive keys for u n d erstanding what is discussed in the m ajor p o rtion of the body of that letter. A nu m b er o f features appear repeatedly in the subscriptions of a Pauline letter. T he m ost freq u en t of these is the “grace b en ed ictio n ” th at occurs in every Pauline letter and usually comes at the close o f the subscription (cf. Rom 16:20b [perhaps also v 24, as p er D TR et al.]; 1 C or 16:23; 2 C or 13:14; Gal 6:18; E p h 6:24; P hil 4:23; Col 4:18b; 1 T hess 5:28; 2 T hess 3:18; 1 T im 6:21b; 2 T im 4:22b; T itu s 3:15b; P h ile m 25). Almost as freq u en t are “greetings” that appear in all of the Pauline letters except Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy. άσπά£ομοα (“g re et”) is the verb always used in the greeting form ula—once in the first person singular (cf. Rom 16:22, though here it is P aul’s am anuensis Tertius who greets the re a d e r); m ost often in the second person plural, w here the addressees becom e the agents th ro u g h whom Paul conveys his greetings (cf. Rom 16:3-16; 1 Cor 16:20b; 2 Cor 13:12a; Phil 4:21a; Col 4:15; 1 Thess 5:26; 2 Tim 4:19; Titus 3:15); often, as well, in the th ird person singular or plural, w here Paul passes on the greetings of others (cf. Rom 16:16b, 2 1 , 23; 1 Cor 16:19-20a; 2 Cor 13:12b; Phil 4:22; Col 4:1014; 2 Tim 4:21b; Titus 3:15a; Philem 23); and three times using the related substantival phrase 6 ασπασμός· Παύλου, “the greeting of P aul” (cf. 1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17). A third feature often found in the Pauline subscriptions is what may be called a “peace ben ed iction” or “peace wish” that appears in many of the letters, except 1 Corinthians, Colossians, the Pastorals, and Philem on (cf. Rom 15:33; 16:20a; 2 Cor 13:11b; Gal 6:16; Eph 6:23; Phil 4:9b; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Thess 3:16). A fourth is

288

G a l a t ia n s

6:11-18

a reference to Paul’s own handw riting, or the “autograph,” that appears in five letters, always using the phrase τη έμη χβιρι, “in my own h a n d ” (cf. 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18a; 2 Thess 3:17; Philem 19). A fifth is a section of concluding exhortations that either summarizes briefly the central m atters discussed within the body o f the letter (cf. 1 Cor 16:13-18, 22; 2 Cor 13:11a; Gal 6:12-17) or has to do with fu rth er relations within the com m unity addressed (cf. Rom 16:17-19; Phil 4:8-19; Col 4:16-17; 1 Thess 5:27; 1 Tim 6:l7-21a; 2 Tim 4:21a; Titus 3:12-14). W ithin three of these concluding exhortations appears an em phasis on rejoicing, with the verb χαίρω (“rejoice”) being used (cf. Rom 16:19a; 1 Cor 16:17-18; Phil 4:10-19). At times, as well, there is a request for prayer (cf. Rom 15:30-32; Eph 6:18-20; Col 4:3-4; 1 Thess 5:25; 2 Thess 3:1-2) a n d a doxology (cf. Rom 16:25-27; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 6:16; 2 Tim 4:18), but w hether these requests for prayer and doxologies are fixed epistolary form ulae in the Pauline subscriptions can be debated. And since such requests for prayer and doxologies do n o t appear in Galatians, except as p art o f a confessional portion at 1:5 (see Comment th e re ), the issues involved are n o t of concern to a discussion of the Galatian subscription. The subscription of Galatians contains no greetings, w hether directly from Paul himself, indirectly using the readers as his agents, or simply passing on the greetings o f others (the reference to “all the brothers with m e ” at 1:2 of the salutation is no exception, for there endorsem ent rath er than greeting is to the fo re)—probably reflecting som ething of the strained relations between Paul and his converts that is evident th ro u g h o u t the body of the letter. Likewise, the subscription has no expression of joy, no request for prayer, and no doxology. Each of these items would have assum ed a relationship of fellowship and thankfulness between Paul and his readers such as cannot be found elsewhere in the letter. O th er features of a typical Pauline subscription, however, appear in 6:11-18, with each having a nuance appropriate to what Paul has argued and exhorted earlier in the letter. Thus in v 11 there is an “au to g rap h ” unit of m aterial such as appears elsewhere in P aul’s letters (cf. 1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18a; 2 Thess 3:17; Philem 19), though here with a particular nuance having to do with “large letters.” In vv 1215 there appears a disproportionately large section of concluding statements that focus on the major issues addressed in the body of the letter and that carry7the note not of rejoicing or thanksgiving but of warning. These statements function as implied exhortations. T he climax of these statem ents is the conditional “peace benedictio n ” o f v 16, which is followed by the explicit warning and exhortation found in v 17. All of this, then, is concluded by P aul’s usual “grace b en ed ictio n ” of v 18. M ore directly than in any of his o ther letters, P aul’s subscription in Galatians brings to a head and highlights the central m atters discussed within the body of his letter. All of its four features— its autograph (v 11), its im plied exhortations (vv 12-15,17), its peace benediction (v 16), and its grace benediction (v 18)— make clear P aul’s concerns and message as set out earlier in the body o f his letter, particularly those having to do with the judaizing threat dealt with in 1:6-5:12. The subscription of 6:11-18, therefore, is n o t ju st a conventional portion tacked on to the weightier m aterial of 1:6-6:10. While it incorporates many of the standard epistolary conventions of a Hellenistic postscript or letter closing, it uses these conventional forms in a m anner that reflects the letter’s essential concerns and teachings. So 6:11-18 m ust be seen as som ething of a prism that reflects the m ajor thrusts of what has been said earlier in the letter, or a paradigm set at the end of

Comment

289

the letter that gives guidance in understanding what has been said before. As Betz rightly points out, “It contains the interpretive clues to the understanding of P aul’s major concerns in the letter as a whole and should be employed as the herm eneutical key to the intentions of the A postle” ( Galatians, 313). Comment 11 ϊδετε πηλίκοι? ύμΐν γράμμασιν έγραψα τη έμη χειρι, “see what large letters [I use] as I write to you with my own h a n d .” Hellenistic letters in P aul’s day usually exhibited two styles of handwriting: a m ore practiced, carefully constructed script of an am anuensis or secretary in m ost o f the letter and the cruder or m ore casual style o f the sender in the subscription (see Introduction, pp. lviii-lx). Paul, in fact, seems to have followed the practice of using an am anuensis for the writing o f all his letters, though his am anuenses were personal com panions or able fellow believers o f the various churches rather than professional scribes (see Introduction, pp. lx-lxi). And here by the phrase τη έμη χειρι, “in my own h a n d ,” P aul’s recipients are alerted to the fact that they are no t now reading a n d /o r hearing what an am anuensis has written down on his behalf b u t P aul’s own statem ents that he has inscribed himself. The second person plural aorist imperative ιδετε (“notice,” “see”) , like its derived cognate, the dem onstrative particle ιδού (“notice,” “see”), serves to arouse attention and to highlight the im portance of what follows. T he verb έγραψα (“I w rite”) is an epistolary aorist, as used elsewhere in P aul’s letters (cf. Rom 15:15 [probably]; 1 Cor 5:11; 9:15; Philem 19,21; note alsoεπεμψα at Phil 2:28; Col 4:8, a n d d v ^ e p ^ a a t P h ile m l2 ). T he phrase τη έμη χειρι (“in my own h a n d ”) n o t only alerts P aul’s converts to a change of handw riting bu t also signals for them where the body of the Galatian letter ends and its subscription begins. Such a phrase rarely appears in the extant Hellenistic letters of Paul’s day, for any difference of script would have been immediately obvious to the recipients of those letters as they read them . P aul’s letters, however, were to be read aloud in the churches to which he sent them (so, e.g., 1 Thess 5:27)—even at times to be read aloud to o th er churches (cf. Col 4:16)— so there was need for him to make such an explicit reference as to where the body o f the letter ended and the subscription began, for n o t everyone would have been in a position to observe the change of script itself. The correlative p ro n o u n πηλικοις* in the dative (“with what large”) and the dative plural n o u n γράμμασιν (“letters”) have in the past been in terp reted in a variety of ways. It is true that γράμμα, both in the singular and the plural, was used in early and later Greek for a letter (e.g., H erodotus 5.14; PG renf 1.30.5; 1 Macc 5:10; Ep. Arist. 43; Acts 28:21), a docum ent (e.g., Esth 8:5, 10, passim; Josephus, Ant. 7.137; 8.50; passim), the OT generally (e.g., Philo, Mos. 2.290, 292; Praem. 79; Leg. Alleg. 195; Josephus, Ant. 1.13; 10.210; Ag. Ap. 1.54), and, in fact, for a writing or book o f any kind. In P aul’s letters, however, επιστολή (w hether singular or plural) is the word regularly used for a com position called a “letter” (cf. Rom 16:22; 1 Cor 5:9; 16:3; 2 Cor 3:1; 7:8; 10:9-11; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27; 2 Thess 2 :2 , 15; 3:14, 17), with γράμμα signaling a letter of the alphabet (cf. 2 Cor 3:7). Accepting, then, that “large letters” has reference to the style of handw riting that Paul used in writing the subscription of 6:11-18, the question naturally arises as to why Paul wrote with such large letters, and m ore im portantly, what purpose he had

290

G a l a t ia n s

6:11-18

in m ind in drawing his converts’ attention to them . It has been popularly posited that these “large letters” were due to P aul’s poor eyesight, appealing to 4:15 in support. But if “you would have torn out your eyes and given them to m e ” is to be u n derstood m ore as a popular idiom than as an allusion to a specific physical disability (see Comment at 4:15), then such a proposal m ust be ju d g ed as merely a conjecture w ithout foundation. Likewise, D eissm ann’s view th at “writing was not an easy thing to his w orkm an’s h a n d ,” and so in rath er em barrassed, self-conscious fashion, Paul pokes fun at his own clumsy, awkward style of writing as com pared with that o f his am anuensis (Light from the Ancient East [1927], 166), m ust be declared an o th er conjecture w ithout foundation. Even m ore unlikely is Nigel T u rn e r’s view that Paul “had actually been crucified at Perga in Pam phylia” and so sustained perm am ent dam age to his h an d (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T. Sc T. Clark, 1965] 94, appealing to 2:19; 6:14, 17 in support). M uch m ore plausible is the thesis that the “large letters” were in ten d ed to emphasize, underscore, or highlight what Paul w anted to say in what follows in his subscription. To quote J. B. Lightfoot: “T he boldness of the handw riting answers to the force of the Apostle’s convictions. The size of the characters will arrest the attention of his readers in spite of themselves” (Galatians [1890], 221). O r as B urton puts it: “T he size o f the letters would have somewhat the effect of bold-face type in a m odern book, or double underlining in a m anuscript, and since the apostle him self called attention to it, it would im press n o t only the one person who m ight be reading the letter to a congregation, b u t the listening congregation also” ( Galatians, 348). And it is with this understanding of P aul’s purpose in both closing off his Galatian letter with “large letters” and drawing his au d ien ce’s attention to them th at m ost m odern com m entators are conten t (so, e.g., Schlier, Galater, 280; Mussner, Galaterbrief 410; Betz, Galatians, 314; Bruce, Galatians, 268), thereby calling on us today to read what follows in vv 12-18 with a particular focus of concern and with a realization that here Paul sees him self as com ing to the h eart of m atters, as his original readers and hearers were expected to und erstan d from these final statem ents of his letter. 12 δσοι θέλουσιν εύπροσωπήσαι εν σαρκι, ουτοι άναγκάξουσιν υμάς· περιτεμνεσθαι, μόνον ΐνα τω σταυρω του Χρίστου μή διώκωνται, “those who want to make a good showing outwardly are trying to com pel you to receive circum cision. [The] only [reason they do this is] to avoid being persecuted for the cross o f Christ.” Vv 12-17 pick up on P aul’s argum ents and exhortations of 1:6-5:12 against the judaizing threat, w ithout specifically carrying on his argum ents and exhortations o f 5:13-6:10 against the libertine tendencies. O ne obvious indicator of this shift back to the m ajor discussion o f the letter is his use o f σαρξ (“flesh”) in vv 1213, where the term appears in the purely physical sense used earlier in 2:20; 4:13, 14, 23, 29 (probably also 3:3) but n o t in the ethical sense o f 5:16, 17, 19, 24; 6:8. O th er rath er obvious indicators are his references to the judaizing opponents in vv 12-13, his focus on the centrality of the cross in v 14 (cf. 3:1, 13), his specific repudiation o f the relevance of circum cision for the Christian life in v 15, his reference to Gentile belivers as “the Israel of G od” in v 16, his w arning that others n o t “tro u b le” him in v 17a (cf. 1:7; 5:12), and his reference to “the marks of Jesus” in v 17b— each o f which, of course, requires com m ent in what follows. In v v 12-13 Paul states what he believes motivates his judaizing opponents. While they undoubtedly claim ed to be interested only in Gentile believers being

Comment

291

fully accepted by God into the chosen people o f Israel, and so full recipients of the blessings o f the Abraham ic covenant, Paul accuses them of being prim arily motivated by a desire to avoid persecution by being able to boast about Gentile Christians being circum cised and so related to the Jewish nation. It is a ju d g m en t call on Paul’s p art that depends on a certain reading of events unfolding within the Jewish world and that is highly subjective in nature. Nonetheless, it is how Paul reads and understands what is really m otivating his judaizing opponents within the Galatian churches, and here, after all of his argum ents and exhortations against that judaizing activity am ong Gentile believers of those churches, he highlights his perception of what really lies b ehind the Judaizers’ activities. As elsewhere in the Galatian letter (cf. 1:7; 5 :1 0 , 12), P aul’s o pponents are not h ere nam ed; they are identified only by their in ten t and actions as όσοι θελουσιν εύπροσωπήσαι εν σαρκι (“those who want to m ake a good im pression in the fle sh / outwardly”) . Paul, in fact, may n o t even have known their nam es, b u t he certainly knows of their activities. T he verb εύπροσωττέω (“m ake a good showing”) is a rare word in Greek. O utside o f its occurrence here, it appears only in PTebt 19:12 dated about 114 b .c . T he expression ev σαρκι h ere is used in the physical sense found earlier in 2:20; 3:3 (probably); 4 :1 3 , 14, 23, 29, b u t n o t in the ethical sense o f 5:16-24; 6:8. Literally, it has reference to circum cision “in the flesh,” though m ore generally it signifies whatever is external as opposed to th at which is spiritual a n d /o r internal (cf. Phil 3 :3 -4 ). T he present tense of the verb άναγκά£ουσιν (“they are trying to com pel”) is conative in force (i.e., having to do with m ental processes o r behavior directed toward action or change, with atten d a n t ideas of im pulse, desire, volition, and striving), as also in 2:14 (cf. Acts 26:11). T he present infinitive περιτεμνεσθαι (“to be circum cised”) is used by Paul elsewhere in Galatians when speaking about the circum cision of adult m ales (cf. 5:2-3). If he h ad used an aorist infinitive, Paul would have been speaking about circum cision as a simple fact. In the p resen t tense, however, the infinitive suggests the idea of voluntary action, and so connotes “to let yourselves be circum cised” or “to receive circum cision.” T he n eu ter μόνον (“only,” “alone”) is used as an adverb (cf. 1:23; 2:10; 3:2; 4:18; 5:13) to qualify the m ain verb o f the sentence, άναγκά£ουσιν: “they are trying to com pel . . . only in order to avoid being persecuted.” W hat the Judaizers wanted, as Paul reads their motives, was to lay the religious com pulsion of circum cision on Gentile believers in Galatia—thereby bringing Gentile Christians within the orbit o f the Jewish nation on a proselyte basis—and so to relieve themselves and Jewish C hristendom generally from persecution at the hands of fellow nonbelieving Jews (cf. 1 Thess 2:14b-16). For, as R obert Jew ett observes, in the rising tide of Jewish nationalism in Palestine, with the antagonism of the Zealots being directed against all who had Gentile sympathies and all who associated with Gentiles on a nonproselyte basis, “If they could succeed in circumcising the Gentile Christians, this m ight effectively thwart any Zealot purification cam paign against the Ju d ea n church!” (NTS 17 [1971] 206). T he separation of the negative μή (“n o t”) from ! να (“in o rd er th a t”) is somewhat unusual, for the norm al practice in Greek is to place μή in a negative ! να purpose clause immediately after ϊνα. But when Paul wants to highlight som ething of im portance, he at times inserts that item between the conjunction ΐνα and the negative μή in a ! να purpose clause (cf. 1 Cor 2:5; 2 Cor 13:10). H ere the em phasis

292

G a l a t ia n s

6:11-18

i s o n Too σταυρώ του Χριστοί) (“for the cross of C hrist”), which he will elaborate on in v 14 as the central focus of the gospel proclam ation (cf. 3:1,13). 13 ύδέ γάρ οί ττεριτβμνόμονοι αυτοί νόμον φυλάσσουσιν, αλλά θέλουσιν υμάς* πβριτέμνεσθαι ΐνα έν τη ύμβτέρα σαρκί καυχήσωνται, “for those who are circum cised do n o t themselves keep the law, yet they want you to receive circumcision in o rd er that they m ight boast about your flesh.” C ontinuing his em phasis on the motivation of the judaizers, Paul in this verse adds one fu rth er p oint about his opponents and then reiterates what he sees to be the real reason for their activities. T he postpositive connective γάρ (“fo r”) serves to confirm w hat has ju st been expressed by the purpose clause headed by the adverb μόνον: that the only reason for the judaizers’ activities was a desire to avoid persecution. A nd as in the previous verse, so here Paul does n o t nam e his opponents b u t simply refers to them by the substantival participle οί πβριτεμνόμβνοι, that is, “those who belong to the circum cision” or “those who are circum cised.” Jo h an n es M unck, as n o ted earlier (see Introduction, pp. xc-xci), has claim ed th at the p resen t substantival participle οι πβριτβμνόμενοι should n o t be u n d e rstood as a passive, referring to “those who belong to the circum cision” and so Jewish Christians from Jerusalem , b u t as a permissive m iddle, referring to “those who receive circum cision” (i.e., “those who let themselves be circum cised”; cf. 5:3) and so Gentile Christians of Galatia who had becom e en am o red with Jewish practices an d taken on the rite of circum cision w ithout any outside pressure (cf. his Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 87-90; idem , N TS 6 [1960] 103-16). M unck’s view reflects and crystallizes several earlier attem pts along these lines to sort ou t the exact situation at Galatia (e.g., Lietzm ann, Galater, ad loc.; E. Hirsch, ZN W 29 [1930] 192-97; W. Michaelis, ZNW 30 [1931] 83-89; H . J. Schoeps, Paul, 65, 77). But to have said what M unck and others want him to say, Paul w ould b etter have used oi έν ύμΐν πβριτμηθέντε^ (the aorist passive substantival participle with the preposition έν and the dative ύμΐν, m eaning “those who were circum cised am ong you”) o r οί πβριτετμημένοι (the perfect passive substantival participle, m eaning “those who have been circum cised”) ; this latter reading is found in some MSS, b u t evidently is n o t original (see Noted). Taken on th eir own, the subjects o f both v 12 an d v 13 could be u n d erstood as G entile ‘Judaizers” who had no connections with Jewish Christians at Jerusalem . In the overall context o f the G alatian letter, however, it is very difficult to believe th at this is so, particularly in light o f the polem ic against Jerusalem influence th at perm eates the narratio from 1:17-2:10 and the parallel A ntioch episode reco u n ted in 2:11-14. F urtherm ore, on such an u n d erstan d in g no explanation seems possible for why G entile “Ju daizers” feared persecution (evidently from Jews) w hen they themselves had no connection with Jerusalem , despite A. E. Harvey’s attem pt to save M unck’s thesis by postulating th at the pressure on these G entile “Judaizers” cam e from local Jews in their endeavors to recover form er proselytes who h ad becom e Christians (see his “T he O pposition to P aul,” in Studia Euangelica IV, ed. F. L. Cross, TU 102 [Berlin: Akadem ie, 1968] 319-32). Exactly what Paul h ad in m ind when he said th at the judaizers ουδέ . . . αυτοί νόμον φυλάσσουσιν (“do n o t themselves keep the law”) is very difficult to say. As n o ted earlier (see Introduction, p. c), this sentence has been used to assert that “these false teachers can hardly have been Judaizers” (so W. Schm ithals, Paul and the Gnostics, 33-34; F. C. Crownfield,JBL 63 [1945] 491-500), or th at P aul’s Galatian

Comment

293

o p p o nents were from non-Pharisaic Jewish backgrounds and so did n o t hold to a rigid u n d erstan d ing of the law (so j . G. Hawkins, “T he O p ponents o f Paul in G alatia,” 344-46). M ore plausibly, it has been read to m ean th at Paul th o u g h t his o p p o nents were insincere in their own practice of the law (so Lightfoot, Galatians [1890], 222), or th at he looked on them as n o t being as scrupulous in their observance as their own teaching dem anded (so G. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia, 15). Elsewhere in Galatians Paul deals with his opponents in term s o f the errors o f th eir teaching and principles, n o t the shortcom ings of th eir practice. N o n eth eless, the fact th at in 5:3 he points out to his converts th at “every m an who lets him self be circum cised . . . is obligated to obey the whole law” suggests that Paul would n o t have been averse to citing shortcom ings o f practice as a supplem entary argum ent against any message that advocated “keeping the law” as a m eans of attainm ent for the Christian. Probably, therefore, what Paul m eans h ere in 6:13 is th at despite the loftiness of their assertions and th eir rigid theology, the Judaizers, at least in P aul’s eyes, fell short of keeping all the law scrupulously themselves. For as Paul hints in the propositio o f Gal 2:15-21 and develops extensively in his letter to the Rom an Christians, no one has ever been able to keep the law fully (cf. Rom 1:8-3:20; 3:23; 7:7-25; 8:3; passim). But while com m entators may have difficulty in determ ining exactly what Paul had in m ind in saying that the Judaizers “do no t themselves keep the law,” there is no difficulty in understanding his m eaning in the second p art of v 13. For here he repeats his accusation as to the Judaizers’ real motives, recasting that accusation to express n o t ju st the persecution they w anted to avoid b u t the boasting they wanted to engage in. T he verb καυχάομαι (intransitive: “boast,” “glory,” “pride o n ese lf”; transitive: “boast ab o u t”) appears in P aul’s letters about thirty-five times to connote both a rightful, healthy exultation and a wrongful, m isguided claim, with the context alone determ ining how it is to be understood. H ere, of course, the Judaizers’ boast is wrongful and misguided, for they w anted P aul’s converts to accede to their call for circum cision only so that they m ight then use such an act to protect themselves (and probably also Jewish Christians in Judea) from persecution arising from their nonbelieving fellow Jews. 14 έμο'ι δε μή γένοιτο καυχάσθαι εί μή εν τω σταυρω του κυρίου ημών Ίησου Χρίστου δ ι’ ου έμοί κόσμος* έσταύρωται κάγώ κοσμώ, “may I, however, never boast except in the cross of our L ord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me and I to the w orld.” W hat Paul depreciates as wrongful, misguided boasting in v 13 he now dramatically contrasts in v 14 with what he views as rightful, healthy exultation. The contrast is signaled by (1) the adversative use of the postpositive particle δε (“b u t,” “however”) and (2) the optative expression μή γ έ volto (“may it never b e ”) , which in all of its fourteen occurrences in P aul’s letters expresses an abhorrence to a statem ent ju st m ade or to an inference that could be falsely drawn from the apostle’s teaching (cf. 2:17; 3:21; see also Rom 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2,15; 7 :7 , 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11; 1 Cor 6:15; apart from Paul, the expression is used in the NT only at Luke 20:16). Two m atters are highlighted in the protasis of v 14. The first has to do with P aul’s perspective now as a Christian, which is signaled by the em phatic position of the p ro n o u n έμοι (“to m e ”) . In two autobiographical passages elsewhere in his letters, Paul enum erates a num ber of things in his life that could be the cause for boasting if viewed from a merely hum an perspective: in 2 Cor ll:2 1 b -2 9 he attem pts to

294

G a l a t ia n s

6:11-18

dem onstrate the futility of his converts’ boasting about their spiritual attainm ents by setting out a list o f his own attainm ents, evidently to outclass and sham e them , b u t then he concludes with the statem ent, “If I m ust boast, I will boast of the things th at show my weakness” (11:30); in Phil 3:4-6 he attem pts to counter any ju d a iz e r’s claim ed pedigree by citing his own Jewish pedigree, b u t concludes with statem ents regarding his far greater desire to “know C hrist” and to experience in his own life all that is his because he is associated with Christ (3:7-14). Becom ing one of C hrist’s people, w hether that is expressed as being “of C hrist” (Χρίστου, cf. Comment at 3:29) or “in C hrist” (ev Χριστώ Ίησοϋ, cf. Comment at 3:26-28), effects a radical change in o n e ’s perspective. As Paul says in 2 Cor 5:16, “So from now on we regard no one from a merely hum an perspective (κατά σάρκα, “according to the flesh”); even if we once regarded Christ from a m erely hum an perspective (κατά σάρκα, “according to the flesh”), we regard him now in this m an n er no lon g er.” Thus with regard to boasting, Paul expresses the fervent wish th at he may never exult in m atters having to do with “the flesh”—that is, merely hum an attainm ents, with particular application here to counting converts and success in ministry—b ut only in that which has to do with the cross o f Christ. The second m atter highlighted in the protasis of v 14 is the cross of Christ. Today, after alm ost two m illennia of the cross as a sacred symbol, it is difficult for Christians to appreciate the repugnance and h o rro r with which the cross was viewed am ong b o th jews and Gentiles in the first century (cf. M. H engel, Crucifixion, passim ). The only things com parable in our day would be venerating an electric chair or wearing a h an g m an ’s noose around our necks as a symbol of our religious devotion. Indeed, as Paul says in 1 Cor 1:23, the proclam ation o f “Christ crucified” was “a stum bling block [σκανδάλου, “scandal”] to jews and foolishness [μωρία, “senseless”] to Gentiles.” Yet for Paul the central feature of the Christian gospel and the focus o f the gospel’s proclam ation is “Christ crucified.” By metonymy, such associated term s as “cross” and “d e a th ” were used by him to represent the basic Christian κήρυγμα (cf. 1 Cor 1:17-18; 15:3; Phil 2:8; 3:18; Col 1:20; 2:14-15). Thus, as noted at 3:1, the gospel o f Christ crucified so com pletely rules out any o th er supposed m eans of being righteous before God that Paul found it utterly incom prehensible for anyone who has once em braced such a gospel to ever think of supplem enting it in any way. For to hold before o n e ’s eyes ‘Jesus Christ having been crucified” is to p u t an end to all forms o f legalism. W hen, in fact, Paul speaks of the work of Christ in Galatians, his focus is entirely on “the cross” and “Christ crucified” (see 1:4; 2:20; 3:1, 13, as well as h ere at 6:12 and 14; cf. also 1 Cor 1:17-18, 23; 2:2; 5:7b; 8:11; 11:24-26). T he expansive nature of the phrase ό σταυρός- του κυρίου ημών Ίησοϋ Χρίστου (“the cross o f o u r L ord Jesus C hrist”) adds weight and poignancy to the expression, reflecting the em otion with which Paul m ade the statem ent. W hat Paul m eans by boasting “in the cross of ou r L ord Jesus C hrist” is spelled o u t in Rom 5:3 b -5 , 11 (where the d ep o n e n t verb καυχάομαι appears th ree times) and 1 Cor 1:18-31 (where καυχάομαι appears twice). T he preposition διά (“th ro u g h ”) with the genitive signifies instrum entality, m eans, or agency. T he genitive relative p ro n o u n ου (“w hich”) may be either masculine or n eu ter in gender, and so may refer to either “our L ord Jesus C hrist” (masculine) or “the cross” (neuter). Probably Paul m eans here that it was by m eans of the cross th at his life was radically altered, for it is the cross that receives prim ary attention in the im m ediate context (cf. vv 12b, 14a). Yet ultimately, as Betz points

Comment

295

out, “W hether δ ι’ ου refers to the cross of Christ, or to the person of Christ, is of no consequence, since for Paul ‘C hrist’ is always the crucified redeem er C hrist” ( Galatians, 318). T he result of being identified with “the cross of Christ,” and so experiencing the work o f Christ in o n e ’s life, is depicted by Paul as έμοί κόσμος* έσταύρωται κάγώ κόσμω (“the world has been crucified to me and I to the w orld”). The perfect indicative passive form of the verb σταυρόω (“crucify”) lays stress on a past action with present results, κόσμος* (“w orld”) here connotes n o t the physical world, the world of hum anity, or even the world of sinful hum anity alienated from God, bu t rather, as B urton aptly puts it, “the m ode of life which is characterised by earthly advantages, viewed as obstacles to righteousness” ( Galatians, 354, 514; cf. M att 16:26; Jas 1:27; 4:4; 1 Jo h n 2:15). Certainly Paul is n o t saying that identification with the cross o f Christ puts an end to a p erso n ’s relations with the physical world or hum anity generally. The Christian faith, contrary to m any Eastern religions that extol disengagem ent from the physical world and a nonpersonal Nirvana, does no t make one less interested in the physical world or less concerned for life as created by God; on the contrary, the gospel proclam ation calls on believers to be m ore related to all th at God has created, and so m ore interested in this physical world, all its created life, and the welfare of people in particular. W hat identification with the crucified Christ does entail, however, is no longer having “worldly” or “fleshly” advantages dom inate o n e ’s thinking or living. This m ight seem, at first glance, somewhat theoretical, bu t Paul explains what he has in m ind in particular in the following verse. 15 ούτε γάρ περιτομή τί έστιν ούτε άκροβυστία, άλλα καινή κτ'ισις*, “for, ‘N either circumcision n o r uncircum cision m eans anything; all that m atters is a new creation.’” T he nub of P aul’s purpose in writing Galatians and the focal point of his subscription is to be found here in v 15. He has spoken of the Judaizers’ m otivation in vv 12-13 and the cross of Christ as bringing an end to any “m ode of life which is characterised by earthly advantages” in v 14. Now he applies all this to the Galatian situation, stating the essence of his position in a maxim. Following the statem ent of this maxim, Paul pronounces a “peace b enediction” on “all those who follow this ru le” in v 16. Verse 15 has every appearance o f being a traditional maxim th at Paul here uses for his own purposes, m uch as he used early Christian confessional m aterial (either directly or by way o f sum m ation) at 1:4; 3 :1 , 13, 2 6 , 27-28; 4:4-5; 5:5-6, and as he used the m oral maxims of his day at 6:3, 5, 7,9 (cf. Comment on those verses). T he reference to ακροβυστία (“uncircum cision”) takes one beyond the requirem ents of P aul’s im m ediate argum ent against the necessity for circum cision, m uch as also the confessional portion incorporated at 3:28 (“n eith er Jew n o r Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”) and the summation of Christian doctrine at 5:5-6 (“in Christ Jesus neither circum cision n o r uncircum cision has any value”) state m atters m ore inclusively than P aul’s im m ediate argum ent requires (see Comment on those verses). Likewise, as Betz observes regarding καινή κτ'ισις* (“a new creatio n ”) : “T he brevity of the expression makes it alm ost a certainty that it was known to the Galatians” ( Galatians, 319 n. 79). F urtherm ore, there is some evidence that this statem ent of v 15 was considered proverbial in circles o th er than P aul’s. For Georgius Syncellus, the Byzantine h isto rian who ab o u t a . d . 806-808 w rote an encyclopedic ch ro n icle (the

296

G a l a t ia n s

6:11-18

Chronographia) th at covered events from the creation of the w orld to the reign of the Rom an em p ero r Diocletian, notes that these same words appear in a writing he calls the Apocalypse of Moses (now lost, though perhaps com posed of m aterial from the lost ending of the extant Assumption/ Testament of Moses), which words, he believes, Paul quotes here in v 15. T he date and provenance of this so-called Apocalypse of Moses may be questioned (Syncellus seems to have derived his inform ation from Euthalius o f the fifth century a . d .) , b u t at least Syncellus’ noting o f the same w ording there as here suggests the possibility th at “n eith er circum cision n o r uncircum cision m eans anything; all th at m atters is a new creatio n ” was som ething o f a proverbial m axim in certain circles of thought, perhaps even stem m ing from Jewish Christian elaborations o f early rabbinic speculations on loving or honoring “m ankind” as found in m .' Abot 1.12; 4.1, and 6.1 (cf. B. D. Chilton, ExpTim 89 [1977-78] 311-13). Taking, therefore, the statem ent o f this verse to be a maxim that circulated in certain Christian circles before Paul wrote Galatians, and which Paul believed was also known to his Galatian converts, we may assume that Paul uses it to climax all o f his argum ents and exhortations in 1:6-5:12 with respect to th e judaizing threat. His use of the explanatory γάρ (“fo r”) , which has often been seen to be am biguous here, would then serve to introduce the statem ent (cf. the same p h en o m en o n at 3:26, 27-28; 6:3, 5, 7, 9). And the statem ent itself would reinforce P aul’s precis of doctrine given at the conclusion of his exhortations against the Judaizers’ message in 5:5-6, especially his sum m ation of early Christian teaching at 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus, n eith er circum cision n o r uncircum cision has any value—only faith expressing itself through love.” W hat, then, is the epitom e of P aul’s teaching vis-a-vis the Ju daizers’ claim that all Christians, w hether jew s or Gentiles, m ust live a nom istic lifestyle in conform ity to the Mosaic com m andm ents? It is simply this: that all external expressions o f the Christian faith are to be und ersto o d as culturally relevant b u t n o t spiritually necessitated, for all that really m atters is th at the C hristian be “a new creatio n ” and th at he o r she express that new work o f God in ways reflective of being “in C hrist” and directed by “the Spirit.” Paul is n o t against external expressions of o n e ’s faith p er se, n o r against all cultic rituals. O n e ’s spiritual life cannot be simply internal; it m ust also be expressed externally in acts of worship to God and service on behalf o f God to people. But Paul is against the Judaizers’ attem pt to m ake Gentile believers conform to Jewish laws. For while m aintaining continuity with his redem ptive activity for his people Israel, God has done a new thing through the work of Christ. For life now “in C hrist” is to be lived n o t in the context o f laws bu t in the context o f “the Spirit.” It is n o t ju st “re-creation” that God effects “in C hrist” and by “the Spirit,” thereby taking believers back to some prim ordial state. R ather, what God has done “in C hrist” and by “the Spirit” is to effect a “new creation.” T herefore, “all that m atters” (αλλά) for the Christian is the fact of being “a new creation,” with that newness of creation reflected externally in culturally relevant lives o f worship and service. 16 καί δσοι τω κανόνι τούτω στοιχήσουσιν, ειρήνη ε π ’ αυτούς· καί ελεος\ καί επί τον Ισραήλ τού θεού, “peace and mercy be on all those who will follow this rule, even on the Israel of G od.” T hat the statem ent o f v 15 was som ething of a traditional maxim within certain sectors of early Christianity seems confirm ed by P aul’s reference to it here in v 16 as a κανών (“ru le,” “stan d ard ”). T he article o

Comment

297

coupled with the adjectival use of the dem onstrative p ro n o u n ουτος* (“this”) make it clear th at the rule or standard Paul has in m ind is the statem ent ju st cited: “N either circum cision n o r uncircum cision m eans anything; all that m atters is a new creation.” T he verb στοιχέω (“be in line w ith,” “agree w ith”) undoubtedly is used in the same m anner as at 5:25 to connote “live in accordance w ith” or “keep in step with” (see Comment on 5:25). T he absolute use o f the m asculine plural δσοι (“all those w ho”) is com m on in Greek to designate a body of people, with the context or some fu rth er descriptive phrase identifying exactly who is in m ind (cf. v 12 above; see also M att 14:36; Mark 3:10; Acts 4:6, 34; 13:48; Rom 2:12 [twice]; 6:3, etc.). H ere, o f course, it is clear that those on whom Paul pronounces his peace benediction are those who “live in accordance w ith” or “follow” the Christian teaching that (1) negatively, all external expressions of the Christian faith are to be understood as culturally relevant bu t n o t spiritually necessitated, and (2) positively, what m atters spiritually is that a person be a “new creation” as he or she is “in Christ” and directed by “the Spirit.” T he “ru le” is expressed in term s of the issues o f the day, and so speaks of “neither circum cision n o r uncircum cision.” Its application, however, has relevance wherever and whenever Christians are confronted with issues having to do with how o n e ’s inward spirituality is to be expressed in the contem porary circum stances of the day. But while the first p art o f v 16 may seem rath er straightforward, n o t at all clear are (1) the form and extent o f the peace benediction that appears in the m idst of the verse (assuming the usual punctuation) and (2) how the last clause of the verse relates to what precedes it (assuming that this last clause is som ething of an ap p en d ag e). T he issues here boil down to two: Does Paul have in m ind one group o f people on whom he pronounces an expanded peace benediction (“peace and m ercy”) or is he visualizing two groups of people, the first being the objects of his peace benediction and the second the objects of his mercy benediction? And what does Paul m ean by the expression “the Israel of G od,” for the term “Israel” is never applied elsewhere in the NT to Gentile Christians bu t always to Jews? T he o rd er ειρήνη καί ’έ λεος (“peace and m ercy”) seems somewhat strange, perhaps even illogical. Elsewhere in NT benedictions when έλεος is jo in ed with ειρήνη it is always “m ercy” as the cause that precedes “peace” as the result, n o t vice versa (cf. 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; 2 Jo h n 3; Ju d e 2)— so also the oft-repeated benediction χάρις* καί ειρήνη, where “grace” as the cause precedes “peace” as the result (cf. Burton, Galatians, 357-58; P. Richardson, Israelin the Apostolic Church, 7680). Even m ore difficult is the interpretation of κα! επί τον Ισραήλ του θεού, “even on the Israel of G od”) . So it may legitimately be asked: Why does Paul use the double attributes “peace and m ercy,” and in what appears to be a wrong order? Why two uses o f the preposition επί (“o n ”)? Why two uses of the conjunction καί (“a n d ”), if, in fact, he is speaking regarding one group o f people? A nd why, if he is speaking regarding Gentile Christians, does he call them τον Ί σραήλ του θεού (“the Israel o f G od”), when “there is, in fact, no instance o f his using Ισραήλ except o f the Jewish nation or a p art th e re o f’ (B urton, Galatians, 358; also Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, 80-81). Some, therefore, have rep u n ctu ated v 16 to read: “Peace on all those who follow this rule, and mercy on the Israel o f G od,” thereby reading the peace benediction as p ro n o u n c ed on Gentile converts of Galatia who follow the rule of v 15, with an additional mercy benediction being p ro n o u n ced on pious Jews who would yet com e to accept the

298

G a l a t ia n s

6:11-18

Christian gospel (cf. Richardson, ibid., 74-84, for a full elaboration o f this position, d epending heavily on B urton’s exegetical insights). T he appearance and o rd er of the double attributes “peace and m ercy” is, indeed, highly unusual for a Pauline benediction (contrast Rom 15:33; 16:20; 1 Cor 16:23-24; 2 Cor 13:11,13; Eph 6:23-24; Phil 4:7, 9, 23; Col 4:18; 1 Thess 5:23, 28; 2 Thess 3:16, 18; 1 Tim 6:13; 2 Tim 4:22; Titus 3:15; Philem 25). It should not, however, be thought of as impossible (cf. the order “peace” and then “mercy” in the added N ineteenth B enediction of the Šĕm ôriēh Ē srēh [Eighteen B enedictions]; also note that in Rom 5 Paul treats first “peace” and its synonym “reconciliation” as results o f justification [vv 1-11] and then “grace” and “the gift of grace” as causes for m an k in d ’s new spiritual condition [vv 12-21]). N or is it impossible that Paul had one group of people in m ind th ro u g h o u t this verse, viz., his G entile converts o f Galatia. In fact, in the context of the total argum ent of Galatians, w here the issues focus on the question “Who really are the children of A braham ?” (cf. esp. 3 :6 -9 , 1 4 , 16, 2 6 -2 9 ; 4:21-31), to conclude with a declaration that Gentile converts are rightfully “the Israel of G od”would be highly significant and telling. In this case the second καί should be seen as being explicative, epexegetically clarifying in a fu rth er clause the expression έττ’ αυτούς* (“on those”) : “even on the Israel of G od.” Traditionally it has been assum ed that P aul’s calling Gentile Christians “the Israel o f G od” m eans that the Christian church has taken the place of the Jewish nation as “the true, spiritual Israel” (cf. Justin, D ial 11.5; see also, e.g., Jo h n Chrysostom, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ad loc.; N. A. Oah\, Judaica 6 [1950] 161-70). B u t a s W. D. Davies aptly notes: “If this proposal were correct one would have expected to find support for it in Rom. ix-xi where Paul extensively deals with ‘Israel’” ( N T S 24 [1977] 10-11 n. 2). It is som etimes argued that the phrase “the Israel of G od” is P aul’s way of referring to nonjudaizing jew ish Christians of Galatia (cf., e.g., G. S chrenk,Judaica 5 [1949] 81-94; idem JudaicaS [1950] 170-90; D. W. B. Robinson, A B R 13 [1965] 29 - 44). O thers see here an eschatological reference com parable to πας* Ί σραήλ (“all Israel”) o f Rom 11:26-27, with that expression understood as the totality of Jews who will be saved when “the deliverer will com e from Zion” (cf., e.g., Mussner, Galaterbrief, 417; Bruce, Galatians, 275). Yet all o f the views that take “the Israel of G od” to refer to Jews and n o t Gentiles, while supportable by reference to P aul’s wider usage (or nonusage) o f term s and expressions, fail to take seriously enough the context of the Galatian letter itself. For in a letter where Paul is concerned to treat as indifferent the distinctions that separate Jewish and Gentile Christians and to argue for the equality o f Gentile believers with Jewish believers, it is difficult to see him at the very en d of that letter pronouncing a benediction (or benedictions) th at would serve to separate groups within his churches—w hether he m eans by “the Israel of G od” a believing Jewish rem n an t within the b roader C hurch of both Jews an d Gentiles, a nonjudaizing group of Jewish Christians in Galatia, or an eschatological Israel that is to be saved at the time o f C hrist’s return. C ertain elem ents within P aul’s o th er letters may be used to support one or the o th er of these views, b u t Galatians itself cannot easily be used in such a m anner. Rather, it seems b etter to argue th at here Paul is using a self-designation of his Jewish-Christian opponents in Galatia—one th at they used to identify their type of fulfilled Judaism vis-a-vis the official Judaism of their national com patriots (so, tentatively, Betz, Galatians, 323). F urtherm ore, this was a self-designation that they

Comment

299

m ust have included in their message to Paul’s Gentile converts, assuring them that by observing the God-given Jewish laws they would becom e fully “the Israel of God.” T he phrase itself is n o t found in the extant writings of Second Tem ple Judaism or later rabbinic Judaism , and does no t appear elsewhere in P aul’s letters. So it may be postulated that it arose am ongst the Judaizers and becam e part of their message to P aul’s Galatian converts. If that be the case, then Paul here climaxes his whole response to the judaizing threat in som ething of an ad hom inem m anner, implying in quite telling fashion that what the Judaizers were claiming to offer his converts they already have “in C hrist” by faith: that they are truly children of A braham together with alljews who believe, and so properly can be called “the Israel of G od” together with all jews who believe. 17 του λοιπού κόπους μοι μηδε'ις* παρεχετω, εγώ γάρ τά στίγμ ατα του Ίησου εν τω σώματί μου βα σ τά ζω , “finally, let no one continue to cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus!” Having given concluding statem ents against the judaizing threat and then a peace benediction on those who would follow what he said as epitom ized in the “ru le” o f v l5, Paul now adds another rem ark that seems somewhat strange and cryptic. To some extent, what he does here by way of an additional, personal rem ark can be paralleled in his exhortations of 5:1-12, where he builds to a theological sum m ation in vv 5 -6 and a personal conclusion in v 11 (cf. Comment on the use of the inferential particle dpa in v 11), and then adds an additional, personal com m ent at v 12. T here his rem ark was caustic and sarcastic. H ere, however, he concludes his treatm ent of the judaizing threat m uch as he began it, by highlighting his apostolic authority and warning regarding continued agitation within the Galatian churches. T he adverbial, genitival expression του λοιποί) may carry either a tem poral nuance (i.e., “from now o n ,” “in the future,” “h en cefo rth ”; cf. 1 Cor 7:29; 2 Tim 4:8; see also Josephus, Ant. 18.272; M att 26:45; Mark 14:41; H eb 10:13) or a logical nuance (i.e., “beyond th at,” “in addition,” “finally”; cf. 1 Cor 1:16; 4:2; 2 Cor 13:11; Eph 6:10; Phil 3:1; 4:8; 1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:1; see also Josephus, Ant. 6.46; Acts 27:20). It is difficult to decide between the options, and com m entators are divided on the question. Probably a logical “in addition” or “finally” is to be preferred simply because a futuristic tem poral reading sets up some dissonance when coupled with the hortatory verb παρεχετω (“let [no one] continue to cause”) in the present tense. T he noun κόπος* is a frequent word for “work,” “labor,” or “toil” in Greek, even com bined by Paul with τής* αγάπης* to m ean “labor based in love” or “loving service” (cf. 1 Thess 1:3). It was also used, however, to signify “tro u b le” or “difficulty” (cf. Ps 106 [107] :12; Sir 22:13; 29:4; 1 Macc 10:15;Josephus, Ant. 2.257; M att 26:10; Mark 14:6; Luke 11:7; 18:5, etc.), which is what it undoubtedly m eans here. T he use of the present imperative παρεχετω suggests an action already in progress; with μηδείς* (“no o n e ”) the verbal phrase m eans “let no one continue to cause tro uble.” T he use of the dative of reference μοί (“m e”) indicates that Paul took the affronts to the gospel caused by the Judaizers quite personally, for he had been com m issioned the apostle to the Gentiles (cf. 1:1) and was the one who had evangelized the Galatian churches (cf. 1:8-9; 4:13-15). P aul’s rationale for the w arning of the first part of v 17 is to be found in the explanatory clause of the last part of the verse: “For I bear on my body the marks of Jesus!” T he term τά στίγμ ατα was com m on in the ancient world for the marks o f religious tattooing or slave branding (cf. O. Betz, “σ τίγμ α ,” TDNT 7.657-64),

300

G a l a t ia n s

6:11-18

and some have taken from this that early Christians generally and Paul in particular bore tattoo marks o r religious brands to signify that they were Christians—perhaps the Greek letter X for “Χρίστος.” More likely, however, what Paul had in m ind by his use o f τά στίγμ ατα here were the scars and disfigurem ents left on his body as the effects o f his sufferings as an apostle (cf. 2 Cor 6 :4-6; 11:23-30; perhaps also Gal 4:13-14). T hat these were physical scars and disfigurem ents is m ade clear by the phrase έv τω σώματί μου (“on my body”). And that Paul took them to be identifying marks o f his Christian apostleship is suggested by the possessive genitive του Ίησοϋ (“of Jesus”). T here is no self-indulgent pity here in Paul’s statem ent. Rather, it is a statem ent th at highlights P aul’s relationship to Jesus and his apostleship established by jesus. Furtherm ore, the statem ent gives a warning regarding any continuing judaizing th reat within his Galatian churches. For what takes place in those churches affects him personally as the Galatian Christians’ apostle and evangelist. So he warns that he should n o t be troubled fu rth er since he is C hrist’s “m arked m an ,” with those markings suggesting, positively, that he is u n d e r C hrist’s ownership and protection, as well as, negatively, that those who try to harass him will com e u n d e r C hrist’s ju d g m en t and retribution. 18 ή χάρις* του κυρίου ημών Ίησου Χριστοί) μετά του πνεύματος* υμών, αδελφοί * αμήν, “T he grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. A m en.” At the close of every Pauline letter is a grace benediction (cf. also Rom 16:20b [perhaps also v 24 a la D TR e tc.]; 1 Cor 16:23; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 6:24; Phil 4:23; Col 4:18b; 1 Thess 5:28; 2 Thess 3:18; 1 Tim 6:21b; 2 Tim 4:22b; Titus 3:15b; Philem 25). T he grace benediction of Gal 6:18 parallels the wording o f m any o f the o th er Pauline grace benedictions: “the grace o f o u r/th e Lord Jesus [Christ]” appearing in all the others except Colossians and the Pastorals; “with your spirit” appearing also in Philippians and Philem on; the sim pler forms “with you” or “with all o f you” appearing elsewhere (the grace benedictions o f 2 C orinthians and Ephesians being slightly ex p a n d ed ). T he only difference in the grace benediction of Galatians is the addition o f the vocative άδελφοί (“b ro th ers”) , which highlights P aul’s continued affection for his converts even am idst his tones o f sternness and severity (on άδελφοί in Galatians, see Comment on 1:11 and 3:15), and the addition o f the final άμήν (“A m en”), n eith er of which appears in the o th er Pauline grace benedictions. It seems, therefore, that P aul’s grace benedictions were ra th e r fixed in their wording, though with some variations in certain cases that serve to highlight the distinctive features of their respective letters. While the word χάρις* (“grace”) appears regularly in the Pauline opening salutations and closing benedictions, its appearance in Galatians is particularly m eaningful. T hus set between the theological salutation of 1:3 that speaks of grace “from God o ur Father and the Lord Jesus C hrist” and the benediction here at 6:18 that speaks of “the grace of o u r/th e Lord Jesus C hrist,” Paul refers explicitly to the Galatians being called “by the grace of C hrist” (1:6), to his being called “by his [G od’s] grace” (1:15), to the Jerusalem apostles’ recognition that “the grace” had been given him by God (2:9), and, using the verbal form of the word, to the fact that God “graciously gave” the inheritance to A braham through a prom ise and not on the basis o f the law (3:18). In fact, th roughout Galatians grace and law are set out as opposite poles, certainly with regard to being accounted righteous before God (2:15-16, 21; 3:1-18), bu t also with regard to living a p ro p e r C hristian lifestyle

Explanation

301

(2:17-21; 3:19-4:11). So in closing his Galatian letter, Paul concludes on that note of grace. It may even have been, particularly if Galatians is P aul’s earliest extant pastoral letter, th at it was this note of grace in Galatians th at gave the distinctive character to all of P aul’s concluding benedictions. Explanation T he subscription o f Galatians (6:11-18) highlights three m atters that are to the fore in all th at Paul has written regarding the judaizing th reat previously in the letter: (1) the motivation of the judaizers as Paul saw it (vv 12-13); (2) the centrality o f the cross in the Christian gospel (v 14); and (3) the n ature of a p ro p er Christian lifestyle as believers attem pt to express their faith in the circum stances o f their day (v 15). T hen there is an expanded peace benediction pron o u n ced on all those who view the Christian life in such a way as set out in v 15 (v 16), which is followed by a fu rth er com m ent of warning and authority (v 17) and a grace benediction (v 18). Thus the subscription provides im portant clues for understanding the issues discussed th ro u g h out Galatians, particularly those having to do with the judaizing th reat b ro u g h t into the churches by certain legalistically oriented Jewish Christians, for it n o t only summarizes the m ain points dealt with earlier in the letter bu t also allows us to cut through all of the verbage and see m atters in their essence as Paul saw them . Historically, Paul’s letter to the Galatians has been foundational for many forms of Christian thought, proclam ation, and practice. Likewise, today, how one understands the issues and teaching of Galatians determ ines in large m easure what kind of theology one espouses, what kind of message one proclaims, and what kind o f lifestyle one lives. May it be, by G od’s Spirit, that what Paul has written so long ago in this letter finds a new hom e in our lives, thereby establishing, encouraging, challenging, and transform ing us for G od’s glory.

Index o f Ancient Sources Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha A

p o c r y p h a

1 E sdras

11:26

58

4 4 :9

12:11

58

4 4 :1 9 - 2 1

13:2

164

1:49

280

13:22

58

4 :1 6

171

13:25 14:2

164

A ddition s to E sther 3 :1 3

262

94

5 :2 0

233

5 :23

152

7 :2 7

152 60

2 :2 6 3 :1 6 6:7

110 1 1 4 ,1 3 1

4 5 :4

262

5 1 :2 6

225

P salm s o f Sol.

27

4:8

3 M accabees

Judith

13:1

14:38

4 4 :2 1

171

5 :2 , 13 254

5 : 1 5 - 1 7 ,2 1

33 257

4 M accabees

280 59 261

7:2

134

8 :3 4

261

9:2

13 4 2 61

1 3 :12

60

1:17

148

9 :1 5

13:15

257

1 :1 8 - 2 8

2 51

14:3

1:32a

251

17 :2 6

134

256

2 :1 5

251

17:33

214

27

4 :2 2

156

18:2

261

263

4 :2 6

27

Tobit 2:1 1 4 :1 4 6:3 8 :6

171

5 :2 0 - 2 1

13

214

5 :3 4

1 3 :1 6 - 1 8

215

6:3 18 :1 2

1 M accabees 1:28

154

134

227 146, 263 36 29

P

s e u d e p ig r a p h a

2 A p o ca lyp se o f Baruch 2 .2 8

140

4 .2 -6

214

257

3 2 .2

214 214

(Vis. o f Sol.

2 :2 3 -2 8

28

2 :2 4

2 :2 4 -2 6

256

6 :23

257

5 9 .4

2 :2 6 -2 7

29

7:3

171

7 8 .2

28

7 :1 6 -1 7

15 4

8 :2 0

180

4 .1 7

251

263 168

8 .4 - 5 1 3 .4

251 251

2 :4 2 —4 8 2 :4 4

83

2 :5 0 2 :5 2

29 1 1 0 , 112

8:21 9 :1 0 -1 7

2 :5 8

256

3 :3 2 -3 3

164

9 :1 3 -1 5 12:4

158 255

3 :2 9

257

1 4 :2 2 - 2 7

251

33

14:23

257

5:4

233

14:2 6

254

5 :1 0

289

1 4 :2 7 - 2 9

158

4 :3 6 -3 7

1 7 :1 1 , 17

272

6 :5 8

58

18:4

138

7 :3 4 8:4

280

Sirach

261

1:27

262

8 :1 6

257

3 :1 7

262

6 :1 7

1 64

1 0 :15

299

1 1 :1 0

152

1 1 :3 6

95

A p o ca lyp se o f M oses A risteas, E pistle o f 43 267 278

Assum p. M oses

296 289 76 263 296

1:14

141

3 :1 2

141

1 Enoch 5 3 .6

214

9 0 .2 8 - 2 9

214

2 Enoch

4:8

262

5:11

261

5 5 .2

14

4 E zra

6 :9

6

3 A pocalypse o f Baruch

4 :2 8 -3 0

214 280

6 :2 7

263

1 1 :6 2

58

7:3

280

5 :5 5

1 1 :6 6

58

7:6

233

7 :1 2 -1 3

1 3 :5 0

58

7:8

227

7 :2 6

214

7 :2 8 - 2 9 8 :5 2

31 214

10

214 214

1 1 :5 0

58

2 M accabees

14:18

33 263

1 :1 -2 2

27

15:1

2 :21

27

17:31

3 :9

48

1 8 : 1 5 ,29

263

1 0 :2 5 - 2 8

3 :2 3 -2 7

27

2 2 :1 3

299

1 3 :3 2 , 3 7 , 52

4 :2

29

2 6 :1 5

263

4 :4 5

18

2 7 :2 3

233

257

2 7 :3 0 28 :1 1

255

6 :4

33

263

14:9

Joseph an d A seneth Jubilees

8 8

31 31 192

1:27

139

6:2 3

1 80

2 9 :4

299

1 :2 7 -2 9

140

7 :1 8

279

3 6 :1 3

214

3:31

139

7 :2 4

14

3 6 :2 8

262

6 :1 7

139

8:1

27

3 7:2

156

2 0 :1 3

205 110

6 :1 3

28

3 7 :1 3 -1 4

154

2 3 :1 0

10:11

164

3 8 :1 -2

154

2 3 :2 3 -2 4

84

11:1

16 4

4 0 : 5 ,9

255

2 4 :1 0 - 1 1

131

9 : 5 - 1 2 ,28

41

Index of Ancient Sources Testam ents o f the 12 P atriarchs T. Ash.

303

T. G ad

16.3

5.1

2 51

251

T. L evi

2 51

T. Iss.

2 .5 - 8

2 51

7 .2 - 5

2 . 58

251

T. Jos. 2.3

280

8 .8

251

2 .7

261

T. Reub.

1 7.2

2 61

3 .3 - 8

251

2 61

T. Jud.

171

1 2 :3 - 4

206

1 .3 - 9

T. Benj. 7 .2

T. D an 2 .1

2 51

1 3.6

280

17.11

2 51

T. Naph. 263

Dead Sea Scrolls IQ S

1 3 :1 4

1:1 4

227

2 :2 3 -2 5

2 51

3 :2 5 - 4 : 1 1

2 51

5 :3 -7

251

2 :13

8 :2 -4

2 51

7:5

9 :3 —4, 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 2 11:21

28 171

1Q H 5:1 5:21 6 :1 3 -1 4

1 4 :1 3 - 1 5

29

1 8 :1 4

59

1Q M 205 28

1 0 :2 -5

28

1 2 :1 -2

214

59 141

59

lQ p H a b 5 :7 -8

8

7 :1 4 - 8 :3

59

IQ pM ic 8 -1 0

14:7 59

1 2 : 3 , 6 , 10

Gen. A pocryphon CD

206 113

6 :3 - 1 1

206

7 :9 -2 0

206

4Q F lor 4QShirShab Tem ple Scroll

31 214 122

119

Philo Abr. 2 6 -3 2

2 0 9 -1 3 162

204

Jos.

46

162

60

29, 250

Leg. All.

113

3 .2 4 4

204

8 6 -8 7

250

2 6 2 -7 4

A gric. 51

167

Cher. 3 -1 0 9

70

2 51

195

289

M utat. 204 204

Sacrif. 1 5 -3 3

250

4 3 -4 4

204

Sobr. 9 Somn. 1 .1 4 0 - 4 4

162 140

1 .1 4 2 -4 3

141

197

2 51

1 .2 4 0

204

261 2 6 8 -6 9

204 280

2 .7 6

280

Spec. Leg.

25 71

2 0 8 ,210 250

Opif.

92

250

73

Confus. 21 47

2 .3 2

162

280

52

250

2 .6 2

251

250

1 3 0 -3 1

204

2 .2 5 3 4 .8 4

251

4 .8 7 - 9 0

251

11 7 1 4 5 -1 8

250

Post. Caini

250 167

Congr.

Praem . 27

114

79

289

9 -1 0 9 -1 1

204 162

1.55

11

203

3 .1 9 - 3 5

12

204

14

204

23

204

Fug. 209

1 .3 0

Quaest. Gen.

29

Virt. 29

143

182

250

204

Vit. M os.

250

Q u od O m nis P rob. L iber 160

29 2 51

175

Q u od D eus Immut. 164

1.281

2 .1 4

139

2 .1 6 6

1 40

2 .2 9 0

289

162

2 .2 9 2

289

128

204

Josephus J. W. (Jewish Wars)

1 .4 3 9

254

1 .5 7 3

1 .4 9

162

1.451

128

1 .5 8 8

128

1 .1 9 5

255

1 .4 5 2

255

1 .6 0 0

128

1 .2 0 6

255

1 .493

77

1 .635

73

1 .2 2 7

255

1 .5 6 9

76

1 .6 3 8

255

1 .3 7 7

165

1 .5 7 0

257

1 .6 4 6

95

Index

2.29 2.120 2.121 2.138 2.454 2.463 2.561 3.518 4.109 4.131 4.373 4.562 5.21,23 5.71 5.309 5.321 5.382 5.396 5.502 6.37 6.47 6.81 6.318-20 6.345 6.356 6.378 7.43-45 7.154 7.327 7.368 569-70

257 263 255 263 79 79 34 255 255 255 263 254 257 255 255 76 133 255 255 261 165 37 58 58 58 58 68-69 73 73 34 59

Ant. (Antiquities)

1.13 1.56 1.146 1.177 1.183-93 1.213-19 1.215 1.221 1.236 1.301 2.204 2.216 2.257 2.318 3.24,77 3.89 3.91 3.96

289 147 2 257 213 213 217 205 131 257 133 171 299 133 131 143 181 255

of

A n c ie n t S o u r c e s

3.183 3.312 3.318 3.320-21 4.106 4.151 4.302 4.307 5.79 5.112 6.46 6.63 6.205 6.262 6.301 6.305 7.17 7.21 7.134 7.137 7.175 7.237 8.50 8.111 8.129 8.164 8.235 8.252 8.308 8.318 8.387 9.47 9.125 9.240 10.168-69 10.186 10.210 11.42 11.66 11.138 11.238 11.272 11.294 12.30 12.33 12.92 12.188 12.199-200 12.205 12.271

165 104 91 71 255 255 117 117 271 91 299 263 118 162 257 272 255 171 257 289 257 255 289 87 91 163 263 255 162 255 58 163 147 255 257 147 289 257 257 163 100 163 181 100 100 36 257 163 163 29

13.349 13.398 14.19-21 14.264 14.377 14.470 15.6 15.47 15.82 15.98 15.136 15.237 16.185 16.194 16.218 16.239 16.246 16.382 17.53 17.63 17.65 17.78 17.110 17.146 17.269 17.300 18.6.9 18.272 18.328-29 18.344 19.110 20.8.10 20.38 20.51 20.62 20.112 20.200

128 257 205 182 275 255 257 255 256 255 140 263 255 255 263 255 263 171 128 255 257 128 255 128 255 2 147 299 58 77 255 147 14 53 58 255 39

Ag. Ap.

1.54 1.307 2.195 2.204 2.210 2.277 2.282

289 254 257 257 116 139 182

Life

8 145-50 195

29 255 14

Rabbinic Literature m. Sank.

M is h n a h

4.5 10.1

m. Ber.

2.2 5.5

225 3 3

m. §abb.

9.2

131

m. Meg.

6.1-2

3

m. Git.

3.6 4.1

3 3

m. Qidd.

2.1

3

m. B. Bat.

8.5-7

3.4

129

1:10-12 1.12 2.1 3.5 3.11 4.1 4.2 4.21 6.1

179

t. Ber.

110 296 227 224 251 296 227 251 296 116 227

157

t. S ota

6.6

m. Mak.

3.10-14 3.14

T o seph tah 7.18

m. A bod. Zar. m.’Aboth

m. Ter.

4.4

131 130

217

t. B. Bat.

8.9-11

130

t. Sebu.

3.6

227

J e r u sa lem G em ara j . Ber.

13b

157

B a b y l o n ia n G em ara b. Ber.

28b

57

Index of Ancient Sources b. Sabb.

b. M enah.

31a

243

70b

227

146a

1 3 1 ,202

b. ‘Erub. 19 a

305 1.5

43b M

157

id r a s h im

R

a b b a h

b. P e s a h .

1 10 214

4 .4

2 1 4 ,215

4 .8

Gen. Rab. 131

215

1.13 3 .1 0

4 .5

131

2 4 .7

243

113

Eccl. Rab. 9 .7

203

56a

1 3 1 ,202

2 9 .6

147

1 0.7

11 9 b

1 3 1 ,202

3 1 .7

147

Lam. Rab.

b. Yoma 86b

4 4 .1 8 28

b. T a ‘an. 5a

214

b. Hag. 12b

131

b. Ketub. 98b 31a

1 3 1 ,205

72b

3

b. N azir 3

b. Sota 42a

251

6. Git. 2 la - 2 3 f b

3

6. Qidd. 43a

3

6. 5 . (?a/n. 38a

201

4 5 .8

205 205

5 3 .4

202

5 5 .7

2 0 5 ,214

6 2 .5

202

6 9 .7 3

b. Ned.

12b

2 01

4 5 .4 4 5 .9 214

b. Yebam. 42a

1 3 2 , 133

4 5 .1

3 O

1 3 2 , 133

t h e r

R

a b b in ic

W

r it in g s

A b o t R. Nat. 1 .1 0 - 1 2

110

1 6 .4

243 243

214

25a

2 01

B2

3 .2

202

3 .1 2

113

2 5 .1

57 142

P irq e R. El. 26

2 01

15.7

57

30

18.11

133

31

203

1 9 .1 4

131

32

205

41

205

2 1 .8

147

2 3 .5

1 1 3 , 118

2 7 .1

205

4 2 .9

147

4 4 .4

1 10

Lev. Rab. 12 0

205

S. O l a m R ab.

1.1

Exod. Rab.

200

3.1

2 .1 0

111

2 0 0 - 2 0 2 ,2 0 5 ,2 1 7

D. Ketub. 10 4 a

E ighteen Bens. H ille l

M arqah Mek. M id. Ps.

57 298 1 3 3 ,215 141 133

102a, b

3

9.1

113b

131

3

2 0 .2

203

2 6 .7

203

17a .2 5

118

3 6 .5

202

30.1

214

1 2 2 .4

214

6. 5 . M e s. 96a

3

6. B. B at 10a

Num. Rab. 28

1.2

148

1 .18

120

P esiq. R.

13 5 b

129

2 .1 3

1 3 6 a -b

202

2 1 .2 - 3

1 29

205

4 .1 3

214

3 2 .2

215

9 .1 2

227

4 0 .6

214

b. Sanh. 59a

120

1 1.2

74a

20 1

4 2 .3

251

132

1 2 .4

81a

13 0

4 8 .2

227

202, 205

1 3 .1 5 - 1 6

120

89b 9 7 b -9 8 a

2 0 2 ,217 28

Deut. Rab.

118

Cant. Rab.

b. Mak. 24a

4 8 .2 2

217

Sipra QedoSim

2 .1 1

14 6

4 .5

202, 205

4 .1 2

243

S ipre D eut. 42

142

325

142

T g.Is.

215

Targums Tg. Onq. 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 , 2 1 4 , 2 1 7 ————Tg. Neof. Tg. P s.-J . 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 , 1 3 3 , 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 , 2 1 7 , 2 4 3 ————Frg. Tg.

1 1 3 ,2 0 1 -2 0 2

201-202

Greek and Roman Writers A e s c h y lu s

Agamem non 898

57

3 .1 2 .8

147

1 .6 .1 3 6 2 b

3 .5 .2 3 - 5 .1 1 .1 0

250

1 .9 .1 3 6 6 b

249

7 .4 .1 1 4 5 b

263

1 .1 5 .1 5

c x ii

3 .3 -4

280

Pol. A r is to tle

81, 2 52, 2 56

Nic. Ethics

3 .1 3 .1 2 8 4 a

264

5 .2 .9

256

2 .6 .1 5

250

2 .6 .1 8

250

2 .7 .2 - 1 5

250

1.2

2 .1 1 0 8 a

262

1 .3 .5

R hetoric 1 .1 - 2

c ix

249

C aesar

D e B ello G allico

c ix

2.1

lx iv

c ix -c x ix

4 .5

lx iv

6 .1 6

lx iv

184

Index

306

2 .3 6 - 3 7

D e Inventione 1 .1 7 .2 5 1 .2 2 . 3 1 - 3 2 1 .5 5 .1 0 6

D e Opt. Gen. Orat. D e Orat. 1 .3 1 .1 4 2

lx iv e x ii 81 e x ii c ix , c x v

280

94

208

192

H o m er Iso cra tes

A ntidosis

c iii, c x

448E

194

163

1 .2 2 -2 3

3 2 .3

26 1

3 3 .1

26 1

M arius 76

17.3

76

4 6 .1

157

413A 415B

76 76

P a ra llel Lives

D ivin e Institutes

250

37

2

1 4.8

Inst.

L actan tiu s 250

250

Lucullus

Ju stinian e x iv

468B

D e Virtute M orali 100, 256

H e sy c h iu s

c ix , c x v

2 .6 5

1 1 -2 0

14

lx iv

Tusculan Disput. 4 .7 .1 6 - 8 .2 2

A n c ie n t S o u r c e s

7 .1 8 .3

D e D ivin ation e 1.5

of

155

3 .1 9 .1 7

23

lix

P om pev Corpus H erm eticum 6 .1 1 - 1 2

100

L ib a n iu s 3

O ratio I

c iii, c x

40 1 0 9 [2 .2 8 9 F ]

D e m o s th e n e s 1 8 .2 8 9

100

1 2 .9 8 8 .2 159 D io C a s s iu s

164

71

2 .7 5 3 .3 9 - 4 1

250

8 .8

250

4 9 .9

250

6 6 .1

250

6 9 .6 , 9

250

33

26 1

O ro siu s

71

14

7 .1 .3 7

14

A pology

1 0 0 , 157, 2 5 6 , 2 6 2 cii

2 1 B -E

48

2 2 A -B

48

36D

48

41E

48

E pistle 7 Law s V I I .8 0 8 D - E 1 2 .9 6 3 C

c iii, c x 147 249 225

Lysis 4 .2 0 8 C

146

Phaedr.

Vitae Philosophorum 157

260C

146 14

4 .4 2 7 E

249

7 .5 3 6 A

249

390B

263

430E

263

250

E p ic te tu s

D issertation s 2 .8 .2 3

250

2 .1 4 .8

250 37

P lautus

2 .1 6 .1 4 ,4 1 , 45

250

Mer.

2 .1 8 .2 8

250

2 .1 9 .1 9 , 2 6

250

2 .2 2 .2 0

250

2 .2 2 .2 6

147

3 .2 .3

250

3 .7 .1

37

3 .1 9 .5

147

3 .2 1 .9

250

3 .2 2 .1 3

250

3 . 2 4 .8 9 - 9 0

250

4 .3 .7 4 .6 .1 6

250 250

E u r ip id e s

280

1 .3 4 5 B

R epublic

Zeno

71

57

280

1.21

3

5 .1 4

289

4 .1 9 .1 0

lx iii 208

27

7 .1 7 .1

75

2 4 .9 .6

14

Phil. 2:2

2 51

4 .3

251

9 :2 Q u in tilia n

Institutio O ratoria

49 8 1 , 1 8 5 , lix c ix

4 . 1 .7 6 - 7 9 4 .2 .1 - 1 1

e x ii e x ii

4 .2 .4 7 - 5 1

e x ii

4 .2 .5 2

e x ii

4 .4 .1

e x ii

4 . 5 .2 6 - 2 8

81 e x ii

5 .1 1 .6 , 3 2 - 3 5 5 .1 4 .3 2

e x ii 97

6 . 1 .1 - 2

e x ii

5 .1 4 .3

1 2 .1 .3

R hetorica a d Her. \A .l

c ix , c x , e x ii e x ii 81

Sen eca

1 0 .2 —4; 2 2 .1 1

lix 250

S eu to n iu s

Vita Claudius

A d prin cipem ineruditum 782F

76

4 .8 2

9 0 .2 5

5 .1 4 7

76 2 81

D e brevitate Vitae

H istoria N aturalis

Plutarch

75

A d Luc. E pist. M orales

P lin y

251

1 8.2

71

A ratus 4 8 .3

148

Sibylline O racles 1.171

280

7 .5

79

2 .2 5 4 -6 3 [3 1 0 -1 5 ]

864C

79

3 .3 6 - 4 1 [4 3 —4 9 ]

2 51 251

3 . 3 7 7 - 8 0 [ 4 4 2 —46]

2 51

37

4 .3 1 -3 4 [3 5 -3 9 ]

251

C icero

2 D e liberis educandis 12B

H er o d o tu s

3 .9 2 .5

1 .1 0 .1 7

D e C uriositate

Iphigeneia In Taurica 57

100

P h ilostratu s

6 .7 7 0 E

4 .1 6 6

1 .1 6 .1 0 3 .5 2 .6

Leg.

D io g e n e s L a ertiu s

2 .1 4 .2 8

30

P o ly b iu s

19

P la to 250

7 .1 1 0 - 1 6

FGM.

cx

O rations

1 .33

Theseus 30

280

D io C h r y s o s to m

D io d o r u s S ic u lu s 1 7 .1 1 6

231

M en a n d er

Ag. Nausim achus D e Corona

1 00

L u cia n

225

37

Quaest. Rom.

250

556B

S o cra tes

157

Xen. M en.

D e sera numinis vindicta 250

1 .5 .4

263

Index of Ancient Sources S o p h o c le s

T a citu s

71

T h a les

157

307 X enophon

Laced.

Ajax 944

225

3.1

E klogai Apoph. Hyp.

147 250

Z en o

T h u cy d id e s

S to b a e u s

Hist, o f Pel. War

2 . 5 9 .1 8 - 6 2 .6

250

102

1 .20.1

Non-Literary Greek Papyri P .G r e n f

BGU 816

cv

4 4 9 :4

cv

8 4 6 :1 0

cv

1 0 4 3 .3

281

PAmh

10 5 :1 3 289

1 .3 0 .5

P L on d 1164

193

PM ich

1 4 3 :2

cvi

PEnteux 8 2 :6

cv

P F ay 1 2 2 :1 4

cvi

193 cv

601

128

724

lix

9 3 2 :3

cvi

9 3 0 :4

cvi

1 2 19:11

cv

2 8 :1 6 36:1

cv

1 2 2 0 :2 3

cv i

cvi

1 2 5 9 :1 0

3

2 0 2 :3

cv

16 6 6 :1 1

cv i

2 0 6 :4 -5

cvi

2 0 6 :1 1

cvi

2 0 9 :3 -6

cv

2 0 9 :9 -1 0

cv

P Oxy

P G eiss

1 1 3 :2 0

3 0 6 3 :1 1 -1 6

14

P T ebt 7 6 0 :2 0

cvi

SbG U

11 :4

cv

6 .9 3 0

146

2 1 :3

cv

1 0 6 -1 0 7

128

7 2 4 1 .4 8

3

Early Christian Authors and Writings A m b r o se

198

40

li

v ii.3 9 - 4 1

lix

x lix

E p ip h an iu s

248

Horn, de Mut. Nom. A m b r o sia ste r

Hi, 13, 15, 4 4 - 4 5 , 6 3 ,

1 0 7 - 1 0 8 , 1 1 2 , 1 2 5 , 1 3 6 - 3 7 , 1 6 4 , 1 78,

3

A dv. Haer.

Horn, in Rom.

1 8 8 ,1 9 8 , 2 2 0 , 2 3 7 , 2 4 8 , 2 8 6

Comm, in Epist. B eati P au li a d Gal.

12.6

In Illud, in faciem P etro restiti

1 64

3 0 .1 6 3 0 .2 1 .2

58

4 2 .9 78

x lii, li—lii

3 0 .2 5 1 C lem en t

The A scension o f Jam es

26

5 5 .6

2 31

Panarion

26 231 26 x liii 39 2 6 , 39

A ste r iu s

H om ilia viii in SS. Petrum et Paulum P G 4 0 :2 9 3 d

C lem en t o f A lex a n d ria lx iii

F estal L etter 39

x li x x ix , lii, 1, 1 0 3, 1 2 5 , 160, 174, 188, 248

Epist. a d Gal. Epp.

6 4 , x lii, li

2 8 .3

64

4 0 .3 f

64

8 2 .4 f f

64

E ph raem

5

Quis D ives S alvetur 9.2 Strom ata

x lv i

E pistle o f P ete r 2 .3

193

E u se b iu s

198

64 x lv i i, v i, x lii

Chronicorum Canonum Eccl. Hist.

1 8 -2 0

72

4 .1 3 0 .3

x lv i

1 .12

7

x lv i

2 .2 3 .4 - 7

39

2 .2 3 .1 0 - 1 8

39

C yp rian

1 3 ,248

3 .2 2 , 3 6 4 .2 2

B arnabas, E pistle o f

13, 1 9 8 , 2 2 0 , 2 3 7

2 2 1 ,248

Excerp. et Theod. H ypotyposes

A th a n a siu s A u g u s tin e

x l v - x l v i i, 1 0 8 , 188,

C yril

1 8 8 , 198

251

8 .1 6 .3 - 5 2 3 .1 2

64

72 3 41 3

D e m etriu s B a s il

188, 224

C atena (A n o n y m o u s ) C h r y so sto m , Joh n

lii

x x ix , 1, 17, 6 3 - 6 4 , 103,

On Style

ci

D idach e 1.5

251

7.1

258

E u th aliu s

188

E leg esip p u s

39

H e lv id iu s o f R o m e

39

1 2 5 , 1 4 0 , 1 6 4 , 1 88, 1 9 1 , 1 98, 2 0 9 , 2 2 4

Comm, on Ep. to Gal.

x lii, x l i x - l ii , 6 4 ,

E c u m en iu s

1.2

231

H erm as

M andates

234, 298

H om ily

lii

E dictum D iocletian i de p r e tiis rerum venalium

5 .2 .4

251

6 .2

251

308

I ndex

of

A n c ie n t S o u r c e s

6 .2 .1 - 7

2 51

M arius V icto rin u s

li, 4 4 , 6 3 , 8 2 , 1 3 7 , 2 2 0

1 1 .3 5

3

8 .3 - 5

2 51

M arii Victorini

x x x , x lii

1 7 .1 9

6 4 , 73

14 H ila r y

39

198

P seu do-C lem . R ecogs. M art. P olycarp

H ip p o ly tu s

Ref. Omnium Haer.

R u fin u s O rig en

95

C hronographia

2 .8

Comm, in Epist. S. P au li a d Rom.

x lii

1 0 .2

23 1

P G 1 4 :9 5 8

x lv iii

79

P G 1 4 :9 5 9

x lv iii

P G 1 4 :1 0 3 5 x lv , x lv iii, 4 4 - 4 5 , 1 25, 1 3 5 - 3 7 , 1 7 8 , 1 98, 2 4 8

Adv. H aer. 3 .1 2 .1 5

2 9 5 -9 6

3

1 0.3 Ire n a e u s

S y n c e llu s , G eo r g iu s

Comm, on John

10.3

82

x l v - x l v i , 1, lii, liv , 6 3 , 1 07, 140, 188, 198, 2 0 9 , 2 2 0 , 248

Eph.

193

52

x lii, lx v i

Ig n a tiu s

Magn.

26

1 .7 0

11:2

T ertius T ertu llian

151 x liv , 13, 15, 4 5 , 8 0 , 8 2 , 1 25,

x lix

C ontra Celsum 2.1

160, 198, 279

x lii

A dv. M arc.

64

1 .1 .4

x x x , x lii x liv

x lii, x lv i

4 .4 4

x l v i i- x lv i i i

1 .2 0

64

4 .5 2

x lv ii

4 .1 9

39

64

3 .1 3 .3

x lv i, 52

5 .6 4

64

5.2 .1

x liv

4 .1 6 .4

x lix

7 .2 1

x lv iii

5 .2 .1 - 4

x liv

8 .2 3

x lv ii

5 .2 - 2 1

A postolic Consts. 6 .2 0

x lix

Ex L ibris O rigen is im E pistulam G alatas x x x , x lii

J er o m e

lii, 4 4 , 1 4 0 , 1 8 8 , 198

A dversu s H elvidium Adv. P elagium 1 .2 2

39

1 .3 .4

64

x lv ii

3 .4 .1 - 5

x lv ii

A pology 1.61

10

298

1 4 .2 .3

2 31 lii

x lv

7

64

39 x liv , x lix

1.1

x liv , x lix

D e P u dicitia

A pology

x lv i

x liv , x lv iii

6 .3 - 5

D e P raes. H aer. P e la g iu s

J oh n o f D a m a sc u s

x liv

D e M onogam ia 1A D e O ratione

P a m p h ilu s

1 1.5

5 .4 .2

D e Car.

258

D ial.

268

4

x lv ii

3 .2 .3

52

5 .4

Adv. Valentinianos x lii, x lv i

x lii x lii

Strom ateis

Ju stin

x liv , 4 4 , 6 1 , 6 4 , 107

5 .3 .3

72

Le comm. d ’Orig. Sur Rom. ii1 5 - V 7 On F irst P rinciples

x l i ii - x l i v

5.3

x lii, x lv iii

V I.c 64

D e viribus illustribus 71 Epist. a d Gal. x x ix , x lii, x lv i, li, 6 4 , 72 1 1 2 .4 f f

"Frags, on Roms. ” H om ily on Luke

x liii

5 .2 - 4

l i - l ii , 4 4 , 8 2 , 1 2 5 , 2 8 6

23 30

Expos, o f the Thirteen eps. o f St. P au l

64 3

x x x , x lii, lii

K erygm ata Petrou

26

Preachin gs o f P ete r (s e e K erygm ata P etrou )

41

Protevangeliu m o f Jam es

T h e o d o r e o f M o p su e stia

209, 224

Comms. on Min. Eps. o f St. P au l x x x , x lii

L a cta n tiu s

D e M ortibus Pers.

x lix , lii, 1 25,

9 .2 x li, xliv-- χ ΐ ν , ΐ , ΐ ν ϋ , 1, 13, 15, 4 4 —4 5 , 5 2 , 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 4 , 8 2 , 1 0 7 - 8 , 1 6 0, 1 74,

39

T h e o d o r et

188, 198, 2 2 0 , 2 24, 2 3 7 , 2 48, 2 68, 279 x liii

A postolikon

x lix , 1 2 5 , 1 8 8 , 2 0 9 , 2 2 4

Comm, in om nes P au li E pistu las x x x , x lii

M a r cio n

P seu do-C lem en tin e Horn. 8 .1 7 1 1 .2 7

26 23 1 2 51

T h e o p h y la ctu s V a le n tin u s

lii, 188 x lv

Early Critics of Christianity C e ls u s

64

P o rp h y ry 6 4

Nag Hammadi Texts Auth. Teach. [C G VI.3] 2 3 .2 9 - 3 4 3 0 .2 6 - 3 1 .2 4

251 25

G ospel o f Truth G ospel o f Thomas 96

x lii, x lv x lii

G reat Pow . [C G VI. 4] 3 9 .1 6 - 3 3

251

T h e o d o tio n

2 3 3 ,2 8 1

231

Later Greek Versions A q u ila

140

Sym m achus

1 3 9 ,2 3 3 ,281

Index of Modern Authors A lla n , J. A . x x ix

B ro w n , R . E . x x x i, 3 5 , 6 2 , 71

D e la c e y , D . R . x x x ii

A m io t , F.

B ru ce, F. F. x , x x ix , x x x i, lx i, lx iii,

D e llin g , G . x x x i i , 1 5 9 , 1 6 5 , 1 7 0 , 2 1 2 - 1 3 ,

x x ix , lx x iii

2 8 2 -8 3

A s k w ith , E. H . x x x , lx x ii

lx v ii, lx x iii, lx x iv , lx x x iv , lx x x v iii, x c v , 4,

A u n e , D . E.

1 7 - 1 8 ,2 3 ,2 5 ,3 2 ,3 5 ,4 0 ,4 8 - 5 0 ,5 6 ,6 1 ,7 3 -

D errett, J. D . M . x x x ii

7 4 ,8 1 ,8 6 ,9 5 ,1 0 1 ,1 0 3 ,1 0 7 ,1 2 2 ,1 4 3 ,1 7 2 ,

D e V r ie s, C . E. x x x ii, 2 2 0 , 2 3 0

1 7 5 ,1 7 8 ,1 8 2 ,1 9 3 ,1 9 9 ,2 1 7 ,2 2 3 ,2 2 6 ,2 3 2 ,

D e W o lf, L. H . x x ix , 13 4

23 4 , 2 4 4 , 2 6 1 ,2 7 0 , 2 9 0 , 29 8

D ib e liu s , M .

x c v ii, c x i, c

A u rray, P. x x x , 6 2 A u s, R. D .

x x x , 4 3 , 57

B acon, B . W .

x xx, 62, 80

x x x ii, 2 2 0 - 2 2 , 2 3 6 - 3 7 , 2 6 7 ,

2 6 9 -7 0

B u c e r lv

B a h r, G . J. x x x , lv ii, 2 8 3

B ü c h s e l, F. x x x i, 1 9 7 , 2 0 8

D in k ier , E . x x x ii, 55

B a m m e l, E. x x x , 3 5 , 4 1 , 4 3 , 6 0 , 1 2 4 , 1 27,

B u c k , C. H . x x x i, lx x iii, l x x iv - lx x v , lx x x iii,

D io n , P. E . x x x iii, 2 8 5

129, 2 67, 275

D ix , G . x x x iii, 6 3 , 7 4 - 7 5

40

B an d stra, A . J. x x x , 1 5 9 , 1 6 5 , 178

B u g e n h a g e n lv

D ix o n , P. x x x ii, c, c x i, c x v i

B a r c la y , J. M . G . x x x , l x x x v iii, 2 3 7 , 2 4 8 ,

B u llin g e r lv

D o d d , C . H . x x x iii, 2 8 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 6 7 , 2 7 5

B u ltm a n n , R . x x x i, 9 1 , 2 7 5

D o e v e , J. W . 2 11

2 6 7 ,2 6 9 -7 1 B a r c la y , W .

x x ix , x x x , 2 4 0 , 2 4 8 , 2 5 4

B arrett, C . K . x x x - x x x i , 1, 4 3 , 4 6 , 4 8 , 5 3 5 4 , 101, 107, 109, 197, 2 0 7 , 2 1 0 , 2 2 0 , 224, 237, 248, 259

B u ri, F. x x x i, x liii B urkitt, F. C . x x x ii, lx x iv , lx x x v ii, 5 0 B u rton , E . d eW . x , x x ix , x x x ii, lv i- l v ii i , lx i, lx v ii- lx ix , lx x ii, lx x x v ii, 1 , 4 , 1 2 , 1 4 - 1 5 ,

D o n a ld so n , T. L .

x i, x x x i i i, 2 5 , 1 0 7 , 1 2 3 ,

1 3 5 , 1 6 4 ,2 1 4 D o n fr ie d , K . P . 35 D o ty , W . G . x x x iii, lv ii, c, c v , 1, 2 8 5

B arron , M . x i

1 8 ,2 1 - 2 3 ,2 8 ,3 4 - 3 5 ,3 9 ,4 8 ,5 0 ,5 3 - 5 4 ,5 8 -

D o w n e y , G . x x x iii, 6 2

B arth , M . x x x i, 8 2 , 8 7 - 8 8

6 0 ,7 3 - 7 4 ,7 8 ,8 1 ,8 4 ,8 7 ,9 4 ,1 0 0 - 1 0 1 ,1 0 4 —

D ra n e, J. W .

B a u c k h a m , R . J. x x x i, 1, 6 , 4 3 , 6 2 , 7 7

5, 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 1 2 6 , 1 6 3 - 6 5 , 1 7 8 , 1 9 3 - 9 5 , 1 9 9 ,

B a u e r, A rn d t, an d G in g r ic h (B AG ) 4 8 , 9 4 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 , 104, 1 1 5 , 1 2 7 ,1 5 2 , 1 5 6 , 1 7 2

2 1 1 -1 2 , 217, 220, 223, 226, 2 2 9 -3 0 , 234, 237, 239, 244, 2 4 6 -7 , 253, 256, 259, 263, 265, 270, 2 7 4 -7 5 , 277, 290, 295, 297

B a u e r, W . x x x i, lv iii, 6 2 , 7 1 - 7 2

B u ry , R . G . cii

B a u r, F. C. x x x i, lv , lv ii, lv iii,

B y rn e, B . x x x ii, 148

D u n c a n , G . S. x x ix , lx x iv , lx x x v , lx x x v iii, 18, 2 3 , 4 7 , 5 0 , 1 0 3 , 122, 1 4 3 , 1 99, 223, 259, 265, 270 D u n n , J. D . G . x x x iii, 4 8 , 6 3 - 6 4 , 8 0 , 8 2 , 8 4 -8 6 , 103, 107, 155, 159, 1 6 8 -6 9 D u P o n t, J. x x x iii, lx x ix , 2 0 , 2 5 , 6 3 - 6 4

l x x x i ii , l x x x v i ii - l x x x i x B a u e m fe in d , O . x x x i, 3 5 , 2 3 0

x x x iii, lx x iii, lx x iv , lx x x iii,

lx x x iv , 101

C aird, G . B . x x x ii, lx iii, c C ald er, W . M . x x x ii, 1 5 9 , 163

E a d ie, J. x x ix

B e h m , J. x x x i, 12, 17, 17 4

C a lla n , T. x x x ii, 1 3 5 , 1 3 9 , 1 4 0 -4 2

E a sto n , B . S. x x x iii, 2 4 8

B e k e r , J. C. x x x i, 2 1 , 8 6

C a lv in , J. x x i x , x l i i, l i i i - l v , l x i ii , l x x i ii , 1 5 ,

E ck ert, J. x x x iii, 182

B e a r e , F. W .

x x x i, lx x ii, lx x v

B e lle v ille , L. L. x x x i, 135 B e n g e l, J.

15

139

E ger, O . x x x iii, 163

C a m p b ell, T. H . x x x ii, lx x iii, lx x v i

E ld erk in , G . W . 62

B erg e r, K . x x x i, 1, 6 , 4 3 , 1 2 0

C arrington, P. x x x ii, lx x x v ii, 6 2

E llic o tt, C . J. x x ix

B ertram , G . x x x i, 15 9

C a se , S . J. 1 0 5 ,2 2 7

E llio tt, J. K . x x x iii, 12, 15, 155

B e s t, E.

C h a rles, R . H . 1 10

E llis , E . E . x x x iii, lx x x v iii, x c ii, 1 9 7 , 2 0 7 ,

x x x i, 1 4 8 , 1 5 6

B e tz , H . D . x , x x ix , x x x i, lv i, lx i, lx v ii, lx x ii,

C h a se, F. H . x x x ii, x liii

210

C h ilto n , B . D . x x x ii, 2 9 6 C h urch , F. F. c ix

E m m e t, C . W . x x ix , x x x iv , lx x iv , 4 7

50, 5 3 -5 6 , 5 9 -6 0 , 76, 8 1 -8 4 , 87, 94, 9 6 -

C lark, K . W . x x x ii, 9 8 , 2 8 5

E x le r, F. x x x iii, c, 2 8 5

101, 1 0 4 -5 , 109, 1 1 2 -1 3 , 117, 119, 121,

C la rk e, W . K . L . x x x ii

1 2 9 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 0 - 11, 1 4 3 , 1 4 6, 1 53, 163, 1 6 4 , 1 7 2 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 9 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 , 1 8 8 , 1 91,

C le m e n s, J. S. x x x ii, 2 8 5 C o le , R . A . x x ix , 1 4 3 , 2 2 3 , 2 5 9

F a w , C . E. x x x iii, lx x x iii

1 9 3 ,1 9 9 ,2 1 1 ,2 1 7 ,2 2 2 - 2 3 ,2 2 5 ,2 2 9 ,2 3 3 34, 238, 242, 244, 2 5 3 -5 4 , 260, 265, 269,

C o n e , J. H . lv i

F ils o n , F. V . x x x iii, 4 3

C orbett, E. P. J. x x x ii, x c v i i i - x c i x C o m e ly , R . lx iii

F in d la y , G . G . x x ix , 1 9 9 , 2 2 3

C o s g r o v e , C . H . x x x ii, 124

F itz m y er , J. A . x x i x , x x x i i i, lx i, 3 5 , 1 1 3 ,

B e y e r , W . x x ix

C ou sar, C . B . x x ix C ram er, J. lii, lv iii

F oerster, W . x x x iii, 4 3 , 4 8 , 1 0 7 , 1 1 4 , 159

B je r k e lu n d , C . x x x i, c, 1 8 4 , 18 7

C ra n field , C. E. B . x x x ii, 8 6 - 8 7

F rid rich sen , A . x x x iii, 1

B la c k m a n , E. C . x x x i, x liii

C rem er, H . 87

F ried rich , G . x x x iv , 1

B la c k w e ld e r , O . F. x x x

C r o w n fie ld , F. C . x x x ii, lx x x v iii, x c , x c v iii,

F u ch s, E . 87

l x x x i ii - l x x x i v , lx x x v i i- lx x x v i i i, c, c i i i - c v , c ix -c x iv , 6, 1 7 -1 8 , 2 2 -2 3 , 3 0 -3 2 , 3 5, 4 8 ,

2 7 0 - 7 1 ,2 7 3 ,2 7 5 ,2 7 7 ,2 7 8 ,2 8 1 ,2 8 3 ,2 8 6 87, 2 90, 2 9 4 -9 5 , 2 9 8 -3 0 0 B e tz , O . x x x i

B lä s e r , P. P. x x x i B lig h , J. x x ix , c, c x i, 5 , 8 8 , 1 0 4 , 2 0 8 ,2 1 7

292

B o e r s , H . 112

F eret, Η . M . x x x iii, 6 3 - 6 4

F in k elste in , L . 139 121, 285

F u ller, D . P. x x x iv , 86

C u llm a n n , O . x x x ii, 5 5 , 6 3 , 17 4

F u ller, R . H . x x x iv , lx v iii

C u m in g , G . J. x x x ii, 2 8 5

F u n g , R . Y . K . x x ix

B lu n t, A . W . F. x x ix , lx x iv B o ic e , J. M . x x ix

E rasm u s, D . x x ix , x lii, lii, lv

F u nk , R . W . x x x i v , lv i i, lx x i ii , lx x v , c, D a h l, N . A . x x x ii, x e ix , 12, 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 2 1 , 1 59, 2 8 5 ,2 9 8

c v ii, 13, 1 8 7 ,222 F u rn ish , V . P. x x x iv , 2 3 7 , 2 6 7 , 2 7 5

B o n n a rd , P. x x ix , 115

D a lm a n , G . H . 3 0

B o n s ir v e n , J. x x x i, 1 9 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0

D anby, H.

B o m k a m m , G . x x x i, 2 0

D a n ié lo u , J. x x x ii, x liii

G a m b le , H . x x x iv , 2 8 5

B o u s s e t, W . x x ix , 3 0 , 2 1 8

D a u b e , D . x x x ii, c, x e ix , c x i, 1 1 0 , 1 2 4 , 1 31,

G ardiner, E. N . x x x iv , 2 3 0

B o x , G . H . 1 10

x x x ii, 1 80

197, 2 07, 2 09, 2 27, 243

G a ech ter, P. x x x iv , 63

G a sto n , L . x x x iv , 1 2 1 , 1 6 4

B r a d le y , D . G . x x x i, 2 2 0 , 2 3 6 - 3 7 B rau n , H . 2 7 9

D a v ie s , W . D . x x x ii, lv i, 1 0 7 , 1 3 9 , 2 2 7 , 2 3 7 , 239^40, 245, 267, 275, 285, 298

G ey ser , A . S. x x x iv , 4 3 , 5 9 G in z b e rg , L. 2 01

B r in g , R . x x ix , x x x i, 2 4 , 8 6

D e id u n , T . J. x x x ii, 2 3 7 , 2 4 8 , 2 5 9 , 2 6 7

G o ld in , J. x x x iv , 1 3 5 , 142

B r in sm e a d , B . H . x x x i, lx x x v i i- lx x x v iii, c,

D e issm a n n , A . x x x ii, lv ii, c, 1, 9 3 , 1 5 1 - 5 2 ,

G o p p elt, L. x x x iv , 197

c i- c iii, c x iv -c x v , 26 9

2 2 0 ,224, 2 8 5 -8 6 , 290

G o rd o n , T . D . x x x iv , 135

310

I ndex

of

M odern A uthors

G ra fe , E. x x x iv

L a gran ge, M . J. x x ix , 2 1 8 , 2 7 0

M o lla n d , E. x x x v ii, x liii

G rant, R . M . x x x iv , x liii, c , c x i, 6 2 , 71

L a k e, K . x x x v i, lx i, l x x iii- lx x iv , lx x x v iii,

M o m ig lia n o , A . x x x v ii, cii

G un th er, J. J. x x x iv , lx x x v iii

227

M o o r e, G . F. 2 2 7

G utbrod, W . x x x iv , 1 0 7 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 0

L am b rech t, J. x x x v i, 82

M o rea u , J. x x x v ii, lx i

G u th rie, D . x x ix , lx x iv , 2 5 9

L a m p e, G . W . H . x x x v i, 197

M o u le , C . F. D . x x x v ii, 8 6 , 1 2 2 , 1 3 9 , 155,

G u tie rr ez, G . lv i

L auterb ach , J. Z . x x x v i, 1 97, 2 0 9

224

L a w so n , J. x x x v i, x liii

M o u lto n , J. H . 2 7

H a e n c h e n , E. lx x iv

L ieb erm a n , S. x x x v i, 140

M u lk a , A . L. x x x v ii, 2 2 0 , 2 3 0

H a ll, D . R . x x x iv , 4 3 , 61

L ie b e sc h u e tz , J. H . W . G . x x x v i, 62

M u llin s, T. Y . x x x v ii, ci, c iv , c v i, 1 84, 187,

H a n se n , G . W . x i, x x x iv , c, 1 0 7 , 197

L ie tz m a n n , H . x x ix , x x x v i, 4 8 , 5 9 , 104,

H a n so n , A . T. 9 8 , 1 9 7 , 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 H a n so n , R . P. C. x x x iv , x liii, 1 9 7 , 2 0 8 - 1 0

1 17, 1 4 0 , 1 9 3 , 2 7 3 , 2 8 0 , 2 9 2 L ig h tfo o t, J. B . x , x x ix , x liii, x lix , l i - l ii , lv ,

1 8 9 ,285 M u n ck , J. x x x v ii, lx x x v iii, c - x c i , x c iii, 4 3 , 64, 74, 292

H a rriso n , E. F. x x x iv , lx v iii

lx i, lx iv , Ixv, lx v iii, lx x iii, l x x x ii- lx x x iii,

M u ssn e r, F. x , x x x , x x x v i i , l x x x v i ii , 14,

H a r v e y , A . E. x x x iv , lx x x v iii, x c ii, 2 9 2

lx x x v iii, lx x x ix , x c v iii, c x i, 1 , 18, 2 9 , 3 2 ,

2 1 , 3 2 , 3 5 , 4 8 , 5 6 , 5 9 , 1 0 4 - 5 , 1 08, 117,

H a tch , W . Η . P. 2 2 7

3 5 , 3 8 , 4 8 , 5 0 , 5 3 - 5 4 , 5 8 , 7 3 - 7 4 , 7 8 , 81,

1 3 1 , 1 6 4 , 1 7 2 - 7 3 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 1 , 1 93,

H a u ssle ite r , J. x x x iv , 8 7

8 4 , 9 4 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 - 5 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 3 , 1 6 4 , 166,

195, 197, 199, 2 0 6 , 2 18, 2 20, 2 2 3 , 230,

H a w k in s, J. G . x x x iv , lx x x v iii, x c ii, x c v iii,

171, 173, 1 9 3 -9 5 , 199, 2 1 8 , 2 2 3 -2 4 , 226,

2 3 3 -3 4 , 237, 244, 254, 259, 265, 270,

293

234, 253, 260, 270, 2 8 5 -6 , 290, 293

H a y , D . M . x x x iv , c, 4 3

L ip siu s, R . A . x x ix

H a y s. R . B . x x x iv , l x x x v , 8 , 2 4 , 8 2 , 9 8 , 1 00,

L ju n gm an n , H . x x x v i, 88

1 5 9 , 1 6 9 - 7 0 , 183

L o h m ey er , E . x x x v i, 1

2 8 1 ,290, 298 M y n ste r, J. P. lx iii, Ixv N a b er , S. A . lv iii

H ea rd , R . lx x iv

L o h se , E. x x x v i, 1

H eb er t, A . G . x x x iv , 8 7

L o is y , A . x x ix

N e il, W . x x x

H em e r, C . J. x x x iv , lx i

L o m a n , A . D . lv iii

N e ill, S. x x x

H e n d r ik sen , W . x x ix

L ongenecker, B . W . xi

N ije n h u is, J. x x x v ii, 2 8 5

H e n g e l, M . x x x iv , c x , 1 6 0 , 2 9 4

L o n g e n e ck er, F. x i

H este r, J. D . x x x iv , 1 4 8 , 163

L o n g e n e ck er, R. N . x x x v i , li, lv i i, l v iv ,

H ilg e n f e ld , A . x x ix , lx x x ix

lx x i ii , lx x v i - l x x ix , lx x x v iii, x c v i - x c v i i, c,

N a u c k , W . x x x v ii, 2 2 0 , 2 2 2

N ock, A. D.

227

O ’B rien , P. T. x x x v ii, 12

H ill, D . x x x iv , 107

c i, 2 5 , 3 1 , 3 5 , 3 9 - 4 1 , 4 3 , 6 2 , 7 1 , 8 2 , 8 7 -

H irsch , E. x x x v , 2 9 2

88, 107, 109, 117, 135, 148, 152, 1 5 5 -5 6 ,

H itc h c o c k , F. R . M . lx

160, 197, 2 0 9 - 1 0 , 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 , 2 2 6 , 2 2 8 ,

O e ste r le y , W . Ο . E. 1 10

H o f fm a n n -A le it h , E. x x x v , x liii

2 3 2 ,237, 2 6 7 ,2 7 5 ,285

O ’N e ill, J. C. x x x v i i , l v i i —lv i ii , lx x x i ii ,

O ep k e , A . x x x , x x x v i i , 3 1 , 5 3 , 1 1 7 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 8 , 1 5 2 , 1 93, 1 9 9 , 2 4 4 , 2 5 9 , 2 7 0

H o lm b e r g , B . x x x v , 2 5 , 35

L u ed e m a n n , G . x x x v i, lx x iii, lx x v

H ooker, M . D . x x x v , 8 2 , 8 8 , 94

L uhrm ann, D . x x x v i, 4 3 , 88

O rchard, B . x x x v ii, 4 3 , 4 9 - 5 0

H ort, F. J. A . x x x v , lx x x v iii, lx x x ix , 3 7 , 2 2 3

L u ll, D . J. x x x v i, lx x x v iii, 9 8 , 135

O s ie k , C . x x x

H o w a rd , G . E. x x x v , l x x x v i i i , x c i i , x c v i i i ,

L iitgert, W . x x x v i , lv , lv i ii , l x x x v i ii ,

3 5 ,3 8 , 82, 88, 1 1 8 -1 9 , 160, 293

l x x x i x - x c i , x c iii, 9 8 , 1 0 3 , 2 0 6 , 2 7 3

2 6 9 -7 0

P ack , R . A . x x x v ii, lv ii

H u b n er, H . x x x v , 8 2 , 1 0 7 , 1 2 4 , 135

L uther, M . x x ix , x x x v i, x lii, lii—lv , 15, 3 2 ,

P a g e ls, E . H . x x x v ii, x liii, x lv i

H un ter, A . M . x x x v , 2 4 , 2 2 2 H urd, J. C . x x x v , lx x iii, lx x iv , lx x v i

4 7, 103, 120, 139, 181, 199, 237, 254 L u z , U . 199

Parker, T. H . L. x x x v ii, x liii, lv , lx x iv P a y n e, J. B . lii

H u rtad o, L. W . x x x v ,

L y a ll, F. x x x v i, 1 6 0 , 163

P ea k e, A . S. x x x v ii, 3 7

L y o n n et, S. x x ix

P errot, G . Ixv P fitzn er, V . C . x x x v ii, 4 3 , 4 9 , 2 2 2 , 2 3 0

Ja cq u ier, E. lx iii J er em ia s, J. x x x v , c, 2 0 - 2 1 , 8 7 , 1 74

M a c g re g o r, W . M . x x x v i, 2 2 0 , 2 3 7

J e w e tt, R . x x x v , lv i, lx x iii, lx x v , lx x v i,

P h illip s 2 2 3 , 2 3 4

M a c h e n , J. G . x x ix , lx v iii, lx x iii, lx x v iii

P iep er, K . x x x v ii, 6 2 , 71

lx x x v iii, x c i - x c i i , x c iv , x c v iii, 7 5 , 186,

M a g ie , D . x x x v i, lx i

P ier so n , A . lv iii

2 8 5 ,2 9 1

M a lh erb e, A . J. x x x v i , c i, 1 8 5 - 8 6 , 1 8 7 ,

J o h n so n , S. E. x x x v , 6 2 , 71

220, 237, 248, 267

R a b il, A . Jr. lii

J o n e s, A . Η . M . x x x v , lx i

M a n en , W . C . v an lv iii M a n so o r, M . 141

R ä isä n e n , H . x x x v ii, 8 2 , 8 4 , 8 6 , 1 0 7 , 1 24,

K a m la h , E. x x x v , 2 4 8

M arten s, A . x i

R a m sa y , W . M . x x x , x x x v ii, lv , lx i, lx iii,

1 3 5 ,2 3 7 , 2 4 2 lx v i - l x ix , lx x iii, lx x iv , 12, 4 0 , 4 6 - 17, 5 0 ,

K ä se m a n n , E. x x x v , l x x x v i, 9 8

M artyn , J. L. x x x v ii, 25

K e c k , L. x x x v , 4 3 , 5 9

M a so n , S. xi

K e n n e d y , G . A . x x x v , c, c i x - c x i , 1 8 5 , 187

M aurer, C . x x x v ii, 12

R e e d , W . L. x l, 3 4

127, 1 6 3 , 1 9 1 , 2 2 3 , 2 3 4

K en nedy, H. A . A . x x x v , 9 3 , 152, 2 0 9

M a y o r, J. B . 2 2 7

R e ic k e , B . x x x v iii, 6 3 , 1 6 0 , 1 6 6 , 178

K e n s in g e r , K . x l, x c ix , c i, 1 8 4 , 18 7

M c C u llo u g h , W . S . x x x v ii, 6 2 , 71

R en a n , E. Ixv

K e p p le , R. J. x x x v , 197

M c D o n a ld , H . D . x x x

R e n g sto r f, K . H . x x x v iii, 1 , 3, 171, 2 2 5

K e r te lg e , K . 8 8

M cG u ire , F. R . lv iii

R eu m a n n , J. x x x v iii, 3 5 , 1 60

K e s s le r , M . x x x v , c , c v ii

M cN a m a ra , M . x x x v ii, 1 9 7 , 2 1 1 - 1 2

R ich a rd so n , P. x x x v iii, 6 3 , 2 8 5 , 2 9 7 - 9 8

K ilp a tr ic k , G . D . x x x v , 3 5 , 6 3 , 7 8 , 38

M e e c h a m , H . G . x x x v ii, c i, 2 8 5

R id d e rb o s, Η . N . x x x , lx v iii

K im , C . H . x x x v , c, c i, 1 6 7 - 6 8

M e e k s, W . A . x x x v i i , c i, c i i - c i i i , c v iii,

R o b er ts, C. H . x x x v iii, lv ii, 6 3 , 78

K im , S. x x x v , 1 6 0 , 16 7 K itte l, G . x x x v , 8 7 , 1 7 4 , 2 0 7

6 2 , 71 M eier, J. P. x x x i, 6 2 , 7 1 , 8 0

R o b er tso n , A . T. 196 R o b in so n , D . W . B . x x x v i i i, 4 3 , 8 8 , 2 8 5 , 298

K la u sn er, J. x x x v , 4 8 , 1 9 1 , 21 1

M e la n c h th o n , P. lv

K le in , G . 81 K n o x , J. x x ix , x x x v , lv i, lx x iii, l x x i v - lx x v i

M e n o u d , P . H . x x x v ii, 2 0

R o b in so n , J. A . T. x x x v iii, lx i, lx x iii

M erceru s lv

R o ller , O . x x x v iii, lv ii, l i x - l x , c i, 2 8 5 R o p e s, J. H . x x x v iii, lv i, lv iii, lx x x v iii,

K n o x , W .L . x x x v , lx x iv , lx x v , lx x x v iii, 179

M erk , O . x x x v ii, 1 86, 2 2 0

K o e ste r , H . x x x v , 8 0

M e tzg e r, B . M . x x x v ii, 6 2

K o s k e n n ie m i, H . x x x v i, lv ii, c, 2 8 5

M ic h a e lis, W . x x x v ii, 1 0 3 - 4 , 2 9 2

R o s s e ll, W . H . x x x v iii, 163

K ra e lin g , C . H . x x x v i, 6 2 , 72

M ic h e l, O . x x x v i i , 9 1 , 1 6 0 , 1 6 3 , 1 9 7 ,

R o u n d , D . x x x v iii, lx x iii

K ram er, W . x x x v i, 3 0 , 1 6 0 , 183

2 0 9 -1 0

K reller, H . x x x v i, 1 2 4 , 128

M illig a n , G . x x x v ii, lv ii, lx , c i, 2 7 , 2 8 6

K ü m m e l, W . G . x x x v i, lv iii, Ixv

M iln e , H . J. M . x x x v ii, lv ii M o ffa tt, J. x x x v i i , lx i, I x v , lx v i , 3 2 , 2 2 3 ,

L add , G . E. x x x v i

234

l x x x ix - x c i, x c iii

R y la n d s, L. G . lv iii S a m p le y , J. P. x x x v iii, c ix , 3 5 , 3 9 - 10 S a n d a y , W . x x x v iii, lx x iii, lx x x S an d ers, E. P. x x x v iii, lx x x v i, 8 2 , 8 5 - 8 7 ,

Index of Modern Authors

311

S tec k , R . lv iii

W a lto n , F. R . x x x ix ,

S a n d ers, J. T . x x x v iii, c i

S tein , R . H . x x x ix , lx i, lx v iii, lx x iii, lx x x

W a rfie ld , B . B . 143

S a p p in g to n , T. x i

S ten d a h l, K . x x x ix

W a tk in s, C . H . x x x

S c h e lk le , K . H . x x x v iii, x liii

S ten g er , W . x x x v iii, 1, 2 8 5

W a tso n , P. S . x liii

S c h lie r , H . x x x , l x x x i x , x c i i , 1 7 , 3 2 , 3 9 ,

102, 107, 124, 1 3 5 ,2 37, 242

139

S tillw e ll, R . 6 2

W ed er , H . x x x ix , 9 8

4 9 , 5 6 , 5 9 , 7 3 , 8 1 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 3 - 5 , 1 0 8 , 1 12,

Stott, J. R . W . x x x

W e is s , J. lx x v , lx x x v i, c i, 4 0 , 1 79

143, 153, 173, 188, 193, 195, 2 06, 211,

S to w e rs, S. K . x x x ix , c i, 2 8 5

218, 244, 259, 270, 2 7 3 ,290

S track, H . L ., and B ille r b e c k , P. (S tr - B )

S c h m id t, J. J. lx iii, lx v S c h m ith a ls, W . x x x v i i i , l v i , l v i i i , lx x x i x ,

114, 120, 131, 132, 161, 1 7 0 ,213 S trelan , J. G . 2 7 5

x c i , x c iii, x c v iii, 1, 3 , 17, 4 3 , 5 9 , 7 4 , 2 7 3 ,

S tu h lm a ch er, P. x x x ix , 160

292

S u g g s , M . J. x x x ix , 2 4 8 , 2 51

S c h n id er, F. x x x v iii, 1, 2 8 5

S yk u tris, J. x x x ix , ci

124, 139, 2 09, 292 S c h r a g e , W . x x x v iii, 2 6 7 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 5 S ch ren k , G . x x x v iii, 2 8 5 , 2 9 8

W en d la n d , P. x x x ix , lv ii, ci W erner, J. x x x ix , x liii W e s terh o lm , S. x x x i x , 8 2 , 8 6 , 1 3 5 , 2 3 7 , 2 4 2 -4 3 W h ite, J. L. x x x i x - x l , lv ii, c i, c iii, c v , 12, 184, 187, 285 W ib b in g , S . x l, 2 4 8

S c h o e n b e r g , M . W . x x x v iii, 163 S c h o e p s , H . J. x x x v i i i , l x x x i x , 1 0 7 , 1 1 7 ,

W e is s e , C. H . lv iii 6,

T alb ert, C. H . x x x ix , lx x iii T a u b en sch la g , R . x x x ix , 2 4 , 1 2 8 - 2 9

W ick ert, U . x l, x liii W ik e n h a u ser, A . x l, 31

T a y lo r, G . M ., x x x i x , x x x i , l x x i i, l x x i v -

W ilc k e n s, U . x l, 4 3 , 5 7 , 73

lx x v , lx x x iii, 4 0 , 8 8 , 1 2 4 , 127

W ilc o x , M . x l, 1 0 7 , 1 2 1 - 2 2 , 1 24, 130

S ch u b ert, P. x x x v iii, lv ii, x c ix , 1 2 -1 3

T h a ck era y , H . St. J. 7 9

W ile s , M . F. x l, x liii, x lv iii, 63

S ch ü r m a n n , H . x x x v iii, 2 6 7

T h o m a s, J. x x x ix , 2 4 8 , 2 5 4

W ilk e n , R . L. x x x v ii, 6 2 , 71

S c h iitz , J. H . lx x x ix , x x x v iii

T orran ce, T. F. x x x ix , 87

W illia m s , A . L. x x x

S c h w e g le r , F. K . A . lx x x ix

T ru din ger, L. P. x x x ix , 3 5 , 38

W illia m s , S. K . x l, 9 8

S c h w e itz e r , A . 2 7 5

T urner, C . H . x x x ix , x liii

W ilso n , R . M cL . x l, lx x iv , lx x x ix , x c iii

S c h w e iz e r , E. x x x v iii, 1 6 0 , 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 1 70,

T urner, E. G . x x x ix , lv ii

W in n ett, F. V . x l, 3 4

T urner, N . 2 9 0

W in ter, J. G . x l, 6 3 , 78

T y so n , J. B . x x x ix , lx x x ix , 8 2 , 1 0 7 , 116

W o o llc o m b e , K . J. x l, 1 9 7 , 2 0 9

1 7 3 ,1 7 8 S co tt, C . A . A . x x x ix , 8 6 S c r o g g s , R . lv i

W re d e , W . 191

S e e s e m a n , H . x x x ix , x liii

V a llo tto n , P. 87

S e lb y , D . J. x x x ix , c

V a n c e , C . A . c ii

S h erk , R . K . x x x ix , lv ii

V a n h o y e , A . 1 39

Y o u n g , E. M . 2 7 5

S ie ffe r t, F. x x x , 3 9 , 193

V e r m e s, G . 141

Y o u n g , N . H . x l, 135

S m ith , W . S. Jr. lii

V ielh a u e r, P. x x x ix , 1 6 0 , 178

S n o d g r a ss, K . x x x ix

V o g tle , A . 2 4 8

S o u ter, A . x x x ix , x liii

V o lte r, D . lv iii

S park s, H . F. D . lx x iv

Y a ro n , R . x l, 1 2 4 , 1 2 8 - 2 9

Z ahn , T . x x x , lx i ii , l x x x i x , 3 2 , 5 3 , 6 4 , 1 0 3 , 1 6 4 ,1 9 3 ,2 1 8 Z elle r , E . x c

S ta h elin , F. x x x ix , lx i

W a a g e, F. O . 62

Z ie m a n n , F. x l, 2 8 5

S ta h lin , G . x x x ix , 2 9

W a lla c e -H a d r ill, D . S. x x x ix , 6 2 , 71

Z ie sle r , J. A . x l, 8 2 , 85

S ta m m , R . T. x x x

Z w in g li, U . lv

Index o f Principal Subjects

A b ra h a m 1 0 8 - 1 4 , 1 2 2 - 2 6 , 1 3 0 - 3 4 , 1 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 7 3 -7 4 , 1 9 7 -2 0 5 , 2 10, 2 13, 2 1 5 -1 6 , 2 1 8 -1 9 A lle g o r ic a l in terp reta tio n x l v i i- x lv i i i , 2 0 6 - 9 A m a n u e n s e s (se cre ta ry ) l i x - l x i, 5 - 6 , 2 3 4 , 2 8 7 ,289 A n a th e m a 1 7 - 1 9 A n g e l fr o m h e a v e n 1 6 - 1 7

E th ica l w a m in g s/p r o v e r b s 2 7 1 , 2 7 4 , 2 7 9

J er u sa lem v is its o f P au l lx x iii - l x x x i i i

E x h o r ta tio /E x h o rta tio n /P a r a en esis in

J esu s C h rist

G a la tia n s 1 8 5 - 9 0 , 1 9 6 , 2 1 7 - 1 8 , 2 2 1 —

a p o stle sh ip , d iv in e a g en t o f P a u l’s 4

22, 2 3 5 -3 7 , 238, 265, 2 6 8 -7 4 , 282

G o d th e F ather, a s s o c ia tio n w ith 4 - 5 , 7,

Exemplum (e x a m p le s o f co n d u c t) in G a la tia n s 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 185

E xordium (in tro d u ctio n ) o f G a la tia n s c v iii, 12, 18, 2 0 , 9 7 , 2 2 1 - 2 2 , 2 2 5

10, 3 0 la w o f 2 7 5 la w -f r e e g o s p e l, so u r c e o f 2 3 - 2 4 r e d e m p tiv e w o rk 15, 2 2 , 9 1 , 9 4 , 9 5 - 9 6 ,

A n tio c h o f S y ria 4 0 , 4 6 , 6 3 - 7 1 , 7 2 - 7 3 , 7 5 , 78, 84 A p o lo g e tic letter c i i i - c v , 2 8 4 A p o s ta s y o f th e G a la tia n s 14, 2 2 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 7 , 2 2 8 ,231 A p o s to lic a u th o rity o f P a u l 2 - 5 , 10, 1 8 - 1 9 , 23, 30, 3 3 -3 4 , 37, 2 9 9 -3 0 0 A r a b ia 3 4 , 3 7 , 2 1 1 - 1 2

1 0 0 -1 , 1 2 0 -2 2 , 124, 172, 2 2 3 -2 4 , 2 64, 1 1 2 -1 5 , 1 1 8 -1 9 , 1 2 2 -2 4 , 134, 144, 1 5 4 ,229

B a rn a b a s l x x - l x x i , 5 - 6 , 4 5 - 4 6 , 6 0 - 6 1 , 7 0 , 77 B a s ic (e le m e n ta r y ) p r in c ip le s 5 2 , 1 6 5 , 1 8 0 —

S on o f G od 3 0 -3 1 , 35, 9 4 , 1 6 6 -7 4 J e w ish C h ristia n s, J e w ish C h ristia n ity 2 6 , 3 0 -3 1 , 58, 60, 7 3 -7 9 , 84, 87, 88, 174,

F a ith fu ln ess 2 6 1 - 6 2

2 2 8 ,232, 2 9 1 -9 2

F a ith fu ln ess o f C h rist 8 7 - 8 8 , 9 4 , 9 5 - 9 6 F a m in e v is it o f P au l to J er u sa lem lx x iv , lx x v iii, 6 4 , 7 2 F re ed o m in C h rist 5 1 - 5 2 , 9 1 - 9 3 , 1 7 5 , 2 0 0 ,

B a p tis m 1 5 2 - 5 6 , 2 5 8

294

F aith 4 1 —4 2 , 8 7 - 8 8 , 9 4 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 - 6 , 1 0 8 - 9 ,

John 5 6 - 5 7 Ju daizers a c tiv ity 6, 1 5 - 1 6 , 4 7 , 4 9 - 5 0 , 7 3 - 7 5 , 8 7, 1 8 6 -8 7 , 189, 1 9 3 -9 4 , 2 3 0 -3 1 , 2 9 0 -9 3 ,

2 1 4 ,2 1 7 -1 9 , 2 2 3 - 2 5 ,238, 246 Fruit o f th e S pirit 2 5 8 - 6 6 , 2 8 0

2 9 9 -3 0 1

F u n c tio n a l th e o lo g y 5, 7 - 8 , 10

id e n tity lx x x i x - x c v i

F u n c tio n a l c h r is to lo g y 7 , 8 , 10, 1 70

m e s s a g e x c v i - x c v i ii , 1 6 - 1 8 , 3 5 , 4 2 , 4 4 , 4 8, 5 3 -5 4 , 56, 58, 61, 79, 1 0 5 -6 , 109,

8 1 ,225 B o a s tin g 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 B ro th er s at A n tio c h 5 - 6 in G a la tia 2 2 , 1 2 6 , 1 8 9 , 2 1 5 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 5 -3 6 , 2 3 9 , 2 6 5 , 271 fa ls e , in J er u sa lem 4 9 , 5 0 - 5 1 , 5 4 , 6 1 , 7 3 , 75 o f J esu s 3 9 C a te c h e tic a l in stru ctio n 2 5 8 C h ia stic stru ctu res in G a la tia n s 2 , 4 - 5 , 2 0 21, 1 6 6 ,2 1 3 -1 4 , 265 C h u rch lo c a l 6 , 41 u n iv e r sa l 6 , 2 7 - 2 8 C ir c u m c is io n /U n c ir c u m c is io n 5 5 - 5 6 , 5 8 -

112, 114, 1 1 5 -2 0 , 1 2 2 -2 3 , 131, 1 3 4 -

G alatia

36, 1 3 8 -3 9 , 148, 153, 157, 1 7 5 -7 7 ,

eth n ic p o p u la tio n and p o litic a l b ou n d a r ies

199, 2 03, 2 0 6 -7 , 2 10, 2 1 2 -1 9 , 2 2 1 -2 2 ,

l x i - l x ii i

2 2 5 -2 7 , 232, 2 3 3 -3 4 , 241, 2 4 6 -4 7 ,

G alatian m is s io n o f P au l 5 0 , 9 9 - 1 0 6 , 1 9 0 — 97 G alatian s

269, 275, 295 Ju dea 4 0 - 42

a u th orship o f l v i i- li x d ate lx x ii- lx x x v ii

J u stifica tio n 3 1 , 8 5 , 8 9 - 9 1 , 1 1 1 , 147

d estin a tio n (N o rth or S outh G a la tia ) l x i i i lx x

K in g d o m o f G o d 2 5 8

h isto ry o f in terp retation o f x l i ii - l v i i

L aw

G en tile m is s io n o f P au l 2 2 - 2 5 , 2 6 - 2 7 , 3 1 32, 44, 5 5 -5 6 , 5 8 -5 9 , 61, 7 5 -8 0 G n o stic s, G n o s tic ism x l v - x l v i , 3 - 4, 7 2 , 2 7 3

B a s ic p r in c ip le o f th is a g e 9 G o d ’s r ig h teo u s stan dard 8 6 , 1 76 J e w ish or C h ristian life s ty le (n o m is m )

G o d 4 - 5 , 9 - 1 0 , 15, 3 0 , 1 7 4 - 7 5 , 2 7 9 - 8 0

2 8 -3 0 , 7 5 -7 6 , 78, 8 6 -8 7 , 9 1 -9 2 , 106,

G o sp e l ( o f g ra ce, o f C h rist, o f P au l, l a w -

1 1 5 - 2 0 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 , 1 3 4 - 18, 1 7 1 , 1 7 2 ,

59, 7 4 -7 5 , 110, 132, 2 2 5 -2 6 , 2 28, 232,

fr e e ) 7, 10, 13, 1 5 - 1 7 , 19, 2 1 , 2 2 - 2 5 ,

1 7 6 -7 7 , 2 0 6 -7 , 2 1 8 -1 9 , 2 2 5 -2 7 , 235,

2 3 3 -3 4 , 283, 293, 2 9 5 -9 6

26, 32, 35, 5 2 -5 3 , 55, 6 0 -6 1 , 7 7 -7 8 ,

2 4 6 - 47 M e a n s o f g a in in g a c c e p ta n c e b e fo r e G o d

C o lle c tio n fo r J er u sa lem 4 6 , 4 9 C o n fe s s io n s , e a r ly C h ristia n 7, 9 , 10, 1 21— 22, 1 5 0 -5 1 , 1 5 2 -5 5 , 1 6 7 -7 2

8 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 0 - 2 , 1 06, 1 1 4 - 1 7 , 122, 124, 134, 189, 1 9 0 ,294 G race 6 - 7 , 5 6 , 9 5 , 1 3 3 , 2 9 7 H agar 1 9 7 - 2 0 6 , 2 0 7 - 8 , 2 1 1 - 1 9

C u ltu ral r e le v a n c e o f r e lig io u s ritu al 2 9 6 - 9 7

In C h rist, in th e L ord, o f C h rist 15, 4 1 , 5 2 , 83, 85, 86, 89, 9 2 -9 3 , 1 4 8 -5 8 , 157, 176, 2 29, 2 31, 2 4 6 , 2 7 3 , 2 7 5 -7 6 , 2 94,

D a m a sc u s 3 4 , 3 7 D a m a sc u s ro a d e n c o u n te r o f P a u l 5 , 2 4 , 3 1 32, 3 4 -3 7 D e p e n d e n c e /I n d e p e n d e n c e o f P a u l 12, 2 4 , 35, 37, 39, 4 2 , 72 D ie ta r y la w s (ta b le f e llo w s h ip ) 7 5 - 7 6 , 7 8, 87, 189

295 In m e , in y o u 3 1 , 9 3 , 1 7 4 , 195 236, 276, 282

Interrogatio (in ter ro g a tio n s) in G ala tia n s 9 9 - 1 0 5 , 1 7 8 , 1 8 3 , 185 Isa a c 1 9 9 - 2 0 6 , 2 0 7 - 8 , 2 1 1 - 1 9 J am es 3 8 - 3 9 , 5 4 , 5 6 - 5 7 , 7 3 - 7 5

E p isto la r y a n a ly s is , c o n v e n tio n s /fo r m u la s

J eru sa lem 3 3 , 3 7 , 4 1 , 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 7 - 4 8 , 5 1 , 6 0 ,

2 6 , 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 8 , 1 2 5 , 1 2 6 , 1 8 4 , 1 89, 196, 199, 2 0 6 , 2 36, 2 41, 2 44, 2 8 6 -8 7 E th ic a l d u a lis m 2 3 9 - 4 0 , 2 4 5 E th ic a l m a x im s , tr a d itio n a l 2 7 5 - 7 6 , 2 7 8 , 2 7 9 -8 0 , 295

207 L ib er tin ism x c v iii, 2 3 5 - 3 8 , 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 , 2 5 2 57, 264, 2 6 6 -6 7 , 2 7 2 -7 3 , 2 8 1 -8 2 , 2 8 3 84 L o v e 9 4 - 9 5 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 6 - 3 7 , 2 4 1 - 13, 2 6 0 , 2 8 2

Inclusio (b ra c k e tin g term s) in G a la tia n s 2 2 1 ,

E b io n ite c r itic is m s o f P a u l 2 6 , 5 9 , 6 4 , 73 c v - c ix , 1 -2 , 6 - 7 , 10, 11, 1 2 -1 4 , 2 0 -2 1 ,

P e d a g o g u e (tem p o ra ry su p e rv iso ry g u ard ian ) 9 2 - 9 3 , 1 4 5 - 4 7 , 1 6 1 - 6 5 , 177,

C o v e n a n t/T e s ta m e n t 1 2 6 - 3 0 , 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 137 C r u c ifix io n 1 2 1 , 2 6 4 , 2 9 4

1 7 6 ,2 1 9 ,2 8 3 -8 4 o f C h rist 2 7 5

C o n v e r s io n o f P a u l 3 0 - 3 5 C o rp o ra te so lid a r ity 1 3 0 - 3 1 , 1 5 6

(le g a lis m ) 9, 18, 9 1 - 9 2 , 9 7 - 1 3 4 , 158,

61, 7 5 -7 6 , 80, 84, 2 0 5 -6 , 2 1 2 -1 5 , 292 Jeru sa lem a p o stle s x l i ii - x l v , x lv iii, 3 9 , 4 1 , 42, 4 4 -4 5 , 4 8 - 49, 51, 5 4 -5 5 , 5 6 -5 8 , 60 J eru sa lem co u n c il 1, lx x iv - l x x x ii i , 4 5 - 4 6 , 55, 60, 61, 64

M atters o f in d iffe r e n c e (a d iaphora) 5 4 , 6 2 , 80 M irror rea d in g o f P a u l’s a rg u m en ta tio n lx x x v ii- lx x x v iii, 4 , 2 6 8

N arratio (narration o f e v e n ts ) o f G a la tia n s c v i i - c v ix , 12, 18, 2 0 - 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 7 , 3 3 , 4 5 , 63, 74, 83, 9 6 , 9 7, 187, 197, 199, 223, 292 N e w cr ea tio n 2 9 5 - 9 7 N o m is m , n o m istic life s ty le 8 3 , 8 4 , 8 6 - 8 7 , 8 9 , 9 1 - 9 2 , 9 6 , 9 7 , 1 0 6 , 1 3 4 - 18, 1 7 6 77, 2 0 6 -7 , 2 1 8 -1 9 , 226, 235, 2 3 6 -3 7 , 246, 2 8 1 ,284

Index of Pnncipal Subjects P s y c h o lo g ic a l interp retation o f P au l 2 8 , 152

O ath s 3 9 - 4 0

2 4 4 -4 8 , 2 5 2 -5 3 , 2 5 8 -6 0 , 2 6 4 -6 6 , 268, 2 7 1 ,2 7 9 - 8 1 ,284

O p p o n e n ts o f P a u l in G a la tia l x x x v iii- x c v i, 4 , 10, 13, 2 6 , 3 1 , 3 3 , 4 0 , 4 2 , 5 0 , 9 0 , 9 5 ,

313

R e v e la tio n o f/b y J esu s C hrist

109, 114, 125, 133, 2 1 0 -1 1 , 2 3 2 -3 3 ,

o b je c tiv e g e n itiv e 31

269, 2 8 9 -9 3

s u b je c tiv e g e n itiv e 2 3 - 2 5 , 31

S p iritu al o n e s in G a la tia (pneum atikoi ) 2 7 3 74, 284 S y ria 4 0 , 4 2 , 4 5 , 6 5 - 7 0

R h etoric P a st w a y o f life in J u d a ism , P a u l’s 2 7 - 3 0 , 35 Pastoral c o n c e r n o f P a u l fo r th e G alatian s 1 9 3 -9 6

d elib e ra tiv e 1 8 4 , 1 9 7 , 2 8 7

T arsu s o f C ilic ia 4 0 , 4 2 , 4 6

fo r e n sic c i x - c x , 1 1 - 1 2 , 1 8 4 , 1 9 7 , 2 8 7

T h a n k sg iv in g s e c tio n , la ck o f in G a la tia n s 6 ,

R h eto rica l a n a ly sis and g en re, rh etorical q u e stio n s c i x - c x i x , 1 1 - 1 2 , 2 0 - 2 1 , 4 8 , 9 7 ,

Peace 6 -7

99, 106, 136, 180, 1 8 3 -8 5 , 192, 197,

P eroratio ( c o n c lu s io n ) o f G a la tia n s c x , 2 8 7 P e ter /C ep h a s lx x i, 3 7 - 3 8 , 5 3 - 5 5 , 5 6 - 5 7 , 6 3 -6 5 , 7 1 -8 0

1 9 9 ,2 6 3 , 2 8 6 - 8 7 R ig h te o u sn e ss 8 5 , 95 R o m a n la w 3 9 - 4 0

P o o r, th e 5 9 - 6 0

T itu s lx x i - l x x ii , 4 6 - 4 7 , 4 9 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 75

Topoi (sta n d a rd ized m oral a p h o r ism s) 2 2 1 — 22, 2 6 9 -7 0 U n ity 3 8 , 4 9

P re sen t a g e , tw o a g e s 7 - 9

Šālîa h (m e sse n g e r ) 3 - 4, 3 0

P robatio (c o n fir m a tio n o f th e p ro p o sitio n )

Sarah 1 9 9 - 2 0 6 , 2 0 7 - 8 , 2 0 9 - 1 9

o f G a la tia n s

1 3 -1 4 T im o th y lx x - l x x i

c v iii, 12, 2 1 ,

V ic e /v ir tu e lists 2 4 8 - 5 7 , 2 5 8 - 6 3 , 2 6 6 , 271

Sententiae 2 7 0

81, 83, 85, 96, 99, 102, 108, 117, 1 2 3 -

S in 2 7 2 - 7 3

W ork s o f th e fle s h 2 5 2 - 5 7 , 2 6 4 - 6 6 , 2 8 3 - 8 4

2 5 , 1 3 3 -3 5 , 147, 173, 1 7 5 -7 6 , 178,

S in a i 1 9 9 , 2 0 6 , 2 0 9 - 1 9

W o rk s o f th e la w 8 4 , 8 6 - 8 9 , 9 6 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 ,

183, 187, 1 9 9 -2 0 0 , 2 23, 2 2 8 -2 9 , 239

S la v e r y 2 1 3

1 0 8 -9 , 1 1 5 -2 0 , 2 8 3 -8 4

P ropositio (p r o p o sitio n ) o f G a la tia n s c x , 12,

S o n o f G o d , H is S o n 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 5 , 9 4 , 1 6 6 - 7 4

8 1 - 8 3 , 8 5 , 9 5 , 9 6 , 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 2 , 1 09,

S o n sh ip o f b e lie v e r s (a d o p tio n ) 1 7 2 - 7 5 , 1 77

Z e a lo t (J e w ish n a tio n a listic ) p ressu res on

1 1 7 , 1 3 4 - 3 5 , 1 4 7 , 1 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 7 8 , 1 87,

S pirit o f G o d (H o ly S pirit) 1 0 1 - 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 2 2 -

th e G e f t ile m is s io n

2 19, 2 2 8 - 2 9 ,2 39, 293 P r o m ise 1 2 3 - 2 5 , 1 3 0 - 3 3 , 1 4 2 - 14, 1 5 7 - 5 8

24, 1 7 3 -7 5 , 177, 2 16, 2 29, 2 3 6 -3 8 ,

7 5 -7 9 Z io n 2 1 4 - 1 5

Index o f Biblical Texts

A. The Old Testament G enesis

3 2 :1 3

110

2 2 :9

140

3 4 :6 L X X

262

2 4 :2 -3

c x ii

1:27

156

1 1 :3 0 L X X

215

12:2

202

12 :2 -3

130

1:12

111

12:3 L X X

115

18:5

1 1 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 3 , 124

3 :4

1 40

12:7

130

19:15 L X X

54

8 :3 5 L X X

262

1 2 :1 0 -2 0

9 :1 6 L X X

262

Leviticus

Judges

20 1

19:17

22

13:2

202

2 6 :2 0 L X X

49

1 3 :1 4 -1 7

133

2 6 :4 6

1 3 :1 5 -1 6

130

2 7 :2 8 - 2 9

15:1

113

1 5 :4 -6 15:6

130, 208

140

1 5:7 15 :1 3 1 5 :1 8

2 Sam uel 7 :1 4

Num bers 4 :3 7

14

17 8:7

x c v ii, 11, 1 08, 110, 111, 112, 113, 1 1 8 , 1 24

2 :1 7 L X X

31 33

13:15

260

140

2 1 :6 -9

121

2 2 :5 0

115

133

4:41

140

1 3 1 , 132

4 :4 5

140

1 K in gs

1 30

4 :4 9

1 40

1 5 :1 8 -2 1

133

9 :23

1 40

16:1 L X X

208

1 0 :1 0

182

14:6 L X X

1 6 :1 -1 6

200

10:13

1 40

1 9 :1 0 L X X

256

1 9 :1 4 L X X

256

1 6 :1 2

2 0 2 ,205

15:23

1 40

17

113

17:5

1 40

1 7 :3 -8

133

2 1 :5 L X X

281

130

2 1 :8

203

1 7:4 1 7 :4 -1 4

x c v ii, 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 , 113

1 7 :7 -8 1 7 :9 -1 4

130 1 0 9 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 , 112

2 5 :1 -5

28

2 5 :4 2 5 :6 -1 5

121 28

2 K in gs 10:3

58 153 280

x c v ii, 132 208

2 5 :1 1 L X X 2 5 :1 1 -1 3

256 28

19:21 L X X

1 7 :1 5 -2 1 1 8 :1 8 L X X

115

2 8 :1 1

182

1 C hronicles

200

33:1

14 0

3 6 :1 3

14 0

2 1 :9 2 1 :1 0 2 1 :1 0 L X X 2 1 :1 1 2 1 :1 2

2 0 1 ,2 0 5 ,217 186, 199, 2 0 2 ,2 1 7 ,21 8 217 202

c x ii, 16

1 6 :4 0

140

19:3 2 3 :3 1

51 182

2 9 :2 4

58

202

2 2 :2

205

6 :4

2 2 :3

20 1

7 :2 6

2 2 :1 7 - 1 9

13 0

11:1 4

141

6 :2 7

133

2 2 :1 8 L X X

115

12:3

1 80

6:4 1 L X X

156

2 4 :7

13 0

13:17

17

1 9:7 L X X

2 5 :1 7

205

1 6 :1 9 L X X

54

3 0 :8

58

2 6 :4 L X X

115

2 1 :2 2 -2 3

121

3 3 :8

140

2 6 :6

111

2 1 :2 3

3 6 :1 6 L X X

280

2 7 :4 0 L X X

225

2 5 :4

2 7 :4 6 L X X

279

2 7 :2 6

2 8 :1 4 L X X

1 14

3 7 :2 7

200

E xodus 2 :4

51

3 -6

c x ii

1 1 6 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 , 124

54

209 115, 116, 119, 120, 121,

Ezra 33

1 16

1:3

3 2 :1 0

193

7:7

33

3 2 :3 5

141

10:1 9

58

3 2 :4 3 3 3 :2

115 1 3 9 , 1 40

Nehem iah

9 :2 5 L X X

262

17

9 :3 5 L X X

262

Joshua

1 2 :4 0

1 3 1 , 1 32 138 176

6 :1 7 -1 8

2 4 :3

1 16

7 :1 1 -1 3

2 4 :7

1 1 6 , 1 17 1 10

2 C hronicles

17

2 8 :5 8 - 5 9

1 9 :1 8

3 2 :8 L X X 3 2 :1 0

205

123, 1 24, 143

2 0 :2

14

22 54

2 :7

1:16 1:17 L X X

22 :1

42

D euteron om y

51

10:15 1 8 :5 -6

1 7 :1 0 -1 4

2 1 :1 -2 1

3

7 :15

9 :7 -8

cx

17 17

1 0 :2 6 -2 7

121

2 1 :2

1 40

E sther 8:5

289

Index of Biblical Texts— 8 :1 0 8 :1 7 L X X

315

215

1 3 1 :1 6 L X X

156

5 4 :1 3

1 3 1 :1 8 L X X

156

56:1

118

132:1

262

5 7 :1 5 L X X

261

255

6 1 :1 0 L X X

1 3 9 :2 0 L X X 95

4 :8 L X X

280

8 :2 2 L X X

156

9 :2

118

14:1

—

79

142 :2 L X X

1 3 :1 0 L X X

—

289

Job 1:9

—

143:2

89 8 9 , 143

156

6 3 :9

141

6 6 :7 -1 1

214

6 6 :2 3

182

P roverbs Jerem iah

54

1:30 L X X

280

171

3:11 L X X

28 1

1

c x ii

1 5 :1 4

171

11:1 2 L X X

280

1:5

2 2 :1 9 L X X

280

12:8 L X X

280

6 :13

2 5 :4

171

15:5 L X X

280

1 7 :5 -7

153

2 9 :1 4 L X X

156

1 5 :2 0 L X X

280

2 0 :7 L X X

280

3 9 :1 6 L X X

49

Psalm s

3 0 , 171 c x ii

18:5 L X X

54

2 6 :7 -1 6

c x ii

2 2 :8 L X X

280

2 7 :9

c x ii

2 3 :9 L X X

280

28:1

c x ii

2 5 :1 5 L X X

261

29:1

c x ii

2 9 :8

c x ii

3 :4

17 4

2 6 :1 8 - 1 9

205

13:1 L X X

262

2 8 :2 5 -2 6

153

13:3 L X X

262

3 1 :2 5 L X X

156

Lam entations

14:1

262

E zekiel

E cclesiastes

14:3

262

17:8

193

1 8 :4 9

115

4 :4 L X X

256

5:6

58

2 0 :4 L X X

262

5 :1 0 L X X

262

2 1 :3

262

5 :1 7 L X X

262

2 9 :2

9

9 :6 L X X

256

17:1 8

10:7

198

2 3 :2 5 L X X

256

4 0 -4 8

2 11

3 4 :1 9 L X X 4 1 :1 3

95 9

4 3 :1 3 L X X

280

4 4 :5 L X X

262

4 4 :1 3

280

4 5 :4

262

8 :6 L X X

256

Isaiah

262 262

6 7 :1 8 L X X

138

1:10

207

6 8 :1 0

262

5:2

c x ii

6 8 :1 8

138

6

c x ii

6 9 :1 0 L X X

256

6 :9 -1 0

207

7 1 :1 7 L X X

1 14

7 :1 6 L X X

2 81

7 2 :1 9

9

1 1 :1 0

115

7 6 :2 1

140

18:2

7 8 :2 1 - 2 2 7 9 :7 9 L X X

153 280

2 4 :2 3 2 9 :8 L X X

3 202 49

280

8:7 L X X

280

1 0 :1 2 -1 3 L X X

280

A m os 5:4

1:7

3 3 :1 4 -1 6

118

54

3 7 :2 2 L X X

280

2 :4

256

2 :1 7

8 7 :3

213

3 8 :1 2 L X X 49:1

1 0 2 :8 L X X

9

4 9 :1 -6

9

4 9 :3 L X X

30

1 0 3 :8 1 0 5:5 L X X

262

5 0 :1 0

153

1 0 5 :3 1 L X X

113

5 1 :9 L X X

156

10 6 :5

262

52:1 L X X

156

1 0 6 :1 2

299

5 3 :5 -6

1 0 6 :1 3

174

5 3 :1 2

1 0 6 :4 8

9

171 214

115

54:1

206

Zephaniah

42

4 9 :5 50:1

117:1

1 16, 1 1 8 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 3 , 1 24

171

262 262

54

153

H abakkuk

214

8 9 :5 2

118

Nahum

87

9 6 :8

58

H osea

5 1 :5 L X X

8 1 :2 L X X

280

C anticles

6 7 :1 1 L X X

8 0 :6

8 :1 7 L X X

3:2

153

3 :1 2

153

Zechariah

7

2:8

193

7

3 :3 -5 L X X

156

213 186, 1 9 9 ,215

12 6 :5 L X X

280

54:1 L X X

215

131:1 L X X

262

5 4 :5 -8

215

1 3 1 :9 L X X

156

5 4 :1 1 -1 2

215

M alachi 2 :9 L X X

54

B. The New Testament M atthew 4:2 1 5 :9

5 :1 7

1 7 0 ,2 2 0

9:1 5

5 :1 7 -1 8

171

9 :2 7

174

5 6 ,273

7:21

258

10:2

2, 56

261

8 :1 7

170

10:1 9

162

52

3 16

Index of B iblical T exts 151

1 0 :1 9 - 2 0

1 54

10:35

56

4 :8

1 1 :1 0

192

1 0 :3 5 -4 5

56

4 :9

151

11:11

171

10:39

56

4 :3 5 - 3 6

280

162

11:25

224

5:1

1 1 :2 8 - 3 0

171

1 2 :1 -1 2

168

5 :2 1 -2 2

1 1 :2 9 -3 0

225

12:6

168

5 :35

52

1 1 :3 0

278

14:6

299

6 :6 3

142

38, 84

1 1 :2 5

33 154

14:8

272

7 :3 -5

38

1 2 :1 7

170

8 :4 2

152

23

14:21 14:2 4

111

1 2 :2 8

210

8:53

51

1 2 :4 0

151

14:33

56

8 :5 8

17 0

12:4

1 0 :3 7 -3 8

16

1 3 :3 5

1 70

14:3 7

52

1 3 :3 8

210

14:41

5 2 ,299

10:38

153

1 3 :55

38

1 5 :1 0

257

12:15

170

1 4 :3 6

297

1 5 :4 0

39

12 :3 8

17 0

1 5 :2 4

168

1 6 :1 4

9

1 2 :4 0

17 0

1 5 :2 8

1 00

1 5 :3 2

282

1 6 :1 7

33

13 :1 7

Luke

13:23 1 3 :3 4 -3 5

16 56 283

1:16

180

1 4 :1 0

153

1 6 :2 5 -2 7

156

1:21

1 70

14:11

153

1 6 :2 6

295

2 :2 3

111

1 4 :2 0

153 24

1 6 :18

57

56

2 :4 2

33

15:27

258

2 :5 2

29

17:15

1 8 :1 5

80

4 :1 8

168

17:21

153

1 9 :1 7

258

4 :21

115

1 9 :2 4

170

2 0 :8

162

4 :2 6 - 2 7

2 0 :1 2

272

4 :2 8

17:11 1 8 :8 -9

5 :1 0

3 8 , 84

19:25

39

256

1 9 :3 6

1 70

56

2 1 :4

170

2 1 :1 6

162

6 :13

2 1 :4 0

162

6 :3 2 -3 3

2 3 :3

151

7 :2 4

192

2 3 :4

277

2 84

1 9 :3 6 -3 7

115

19:3 7

170

2 1 :2

192

7 :2 8

17 0

168

8 :2 9

154

1-7

2 4 :3 8

151

8 :4 9

23

1:2 1:3

2 6 :1 0

299

8:51

56

2 6 :2 4

111

9 :1 0

2

2 6 :4 0 2 6 :4 5

52 52, 84, 299

2 6 :5 5

52

9 :1 4 9 :2 4 -2 6 9 :2 8

2 7 :9

170

10 :1 6

2 7 :1 8

257

10:21

151 156

56

A cts

7 :2 7

22

2 3 :3 4

2 3 :8

9

1:13 1:14 1 :2 1 -2 2

33 2 103 3 8 ,5 6 38 24

56

1:22

2

168

1:23

46 56 154

162

2 -1 2

2 8 :1 4

18

11:7

299

2 :1 5

2 8 :1 9

154

11 :1 6 11 :4 6

23 278

2 :1 6 2 :2 0

11 :4 9

2 , 168

2 :2 2

170 16 257

12:12

52

2 :3 2

133

1 1 1 , 192 132

1 2 :4 7 14 :2 7

78

3 :1 -1 1

26 1

1 5 :9 -1 0

26 1

15:11

261

M ark 1:2 1:4 1:15

170

1:1 9

273

1 :1 9 -2 0

56

17:5

2

2:1

45

18:1

28 1

3 :1 8

56 1 0 3 , 1 70

3 :1 9

180

4 :6

297

4 :1 3 - 2 0

56

4 :2 3

56 297

2 :1 9

162

18:5

299

4 :3 4

3 :1 0

297

1 9 :2 1 -2 2

280

4 :3 6 - 3 7 5 :1 7

46 2 5 6 ,2 5 7

3 :1 4

2

2 0 :1 6

9 1 ,293

3 :1 7

56

2 0 :3 8

92

3 :1 7 - 1 8

38

2 1 :5

17

6 :9

73

279

7:2

22

3:21 3 :2 6 3:31 3 :3 1 - 3 5 5 :3 5 6:3

38 73

2 2 :1 4

2

7 :2 -3 6

211

222

2 2 :1 5

103

7 :1 0

7, 8

2 2 , 38

2 3 :1 2

255

7 :1 9

29

23

2 4 :2 5

99

7 :3 4

8

3 7 , 38

2 4 :4 6

103

7 :3 8

140

7 :53

5 1 , 14 0

151

8:3

282

8 :3 5 - 3 8 9 :2 9 :1 9

16

2 1 :8

7:3 8:31

5 :3 8 -3 9

John

37 156 56 100

8

33

8:3

27 56

1:6

132

8 :1 4 -2 5

1:17

1 32

8 :1 6

15 4

8:35

114

1:26

224

9 :3 7

168

1:42

37

9 :1 -1 9

31

10 :1 5

258

2 :1 3

33

9 :1 -2 2

34

1 0 :3 2 -3 3

33

3 :1 6

1 0 :3 4

37

3 :1 6 -1 7

151 1 6 6 , 167

9 :2 9 :1 0 -1 9

1 4 ,5 9 4

Index of Biblical Texts 9 :1 5 - 1 6

5

9 :2 0 - 2 2

34

317

15:8

193

2 2 :2 1

5

1 5 :1 0

225

2 2 :2 6

34

9 :2 6 - 2 8

77

15:1 2

lx x v iii, 4 5

9 :2 6 - 3 0

lx x iii, lx x iv , lx x v

15:13

5 6 , 38

2 3 :1 4

17

4, 4 5 ,46

15:15

111

2 3 :2 7

7 ,8

15:1 9

1 80

257

9 :31

40 41

9 :3 5

180

9 :2 7 9 :3 0

74

1 0 :9 -2 3 1 0 :2 4 - 1 1 :1 8 11

1 5 :1 9 -2 9 15 :2 0 1 5 :2 0 -2 1

2 3 :1 1

47

lx x ii

2 4 :5 2 4 :1 1

lx x ix

2 4 :1 4

1 4 ,59, 257

75

2 4 :1 7

lx x v ii, 4 5 , 4 6

33

74

15:21

207

2 4 :2 2

14, 5 9

lx x iv

15 :2 2

4 5 , 72

2 4 :2 5

260

1 1:2

33

15:23

lx x x

25:1

33

1 1 :1 9 -2 1

59

1 5 :2 4

16, x c

2 5 :9

33

1 1 :1 9 -2 6

72

15:2 8

274

1 1 :2 0 -2 6

72

1 5 :2 8 -2 9

11:21

180

15 :2 9

1 1 :2 2 -2 6

46

15 :3 0

1 1 :2 2 -3 0

45

1 5 :3 0 -3 5

1 1 :2 5 -2 6

4, 40, 46

75 lx x ix 72 lx x x i

2 5 :1 0 -1 2 2 5 :1 4 2 5 :1 6 2 6 :5 2 6 :1 1

2 48 73 3 5 ,257 2 91

1 5 :3 6 -3 9

77

2 6 :1 2 -1 8

31

1 1 :2 5 -3 0

77

1 5 :3 6 -4 1

lx x i, 4 5 , 4 6

2 6 :1 2 - 2 0

34

1 1 :2 7 -3 0

liv , lx x iv , lx x v iii, lx x ix ,

1 5 :3 9 -4 1

77

2 6 :1 6 -1 8

5

x c v iii

2 6 :1 6 -2 3

32

lx x x , lx x x ii, 4 6 1 1 :2 8

47

1 1 :3 0

lx iv , lx v ii, lx x ii, lx x iii, 4 6 , 6 1 ,

1 6 :1-3 1 6 :1-5

lx x i

2 6 :1 7

7 ,8

16:3 16:4

x liv , lx v

2 6 :1 8

1 80

1 40

lx x x

2 6 :2 0

3 2 , 180

12:1

7

16:6

lx iii, lx iv , lx v , lx v i, lx v ii, lx x , lx x ii,

2 7 :1 0

277

12:2

38, 56

299

4 7 , 190

2 7 :2 0

12:11

8

16:7

4 7 , 173

2 7 :2 3 - 2 4

1 2 :1 7

38, 72

16:9

47

28

1 2 :2 0

18

16:13

59

28:2 1

12 :2 5 1 2 :2 5 -1 3 :3 1 3 -1 4 13:1

lx x iv

16 :1 6

59

lx x x i

16 :1 7

1 90

lx v , lx v i, lx x i

16 :3 7

18

4, 59

1 6 :3 7 -3 8

1 3 :1 -1 4

45

1 3 :1 -1 4 :2 8

46

13:2

47

17:1 0

1 3 :2 -1 4 :2 6

77

18:2

1 3 :4 -1 4 :2 5

72

17:1 17:3

18:4

13:5

59

1 8 :9 -1 0

1 3 :1 0

99

18:12

1 3 :1 4

47 47 289

Romans

2

1:1

4 , 30

59

1:3

3 0 , 170

103

1:4

30

59

1:5

lx x x ii

1:7

31 lx x x v ii, 4

59 47 lx x x ii

1:8 1 :8 -3 :2 0 1:9

13 293 30

59

18:1 9

59

1:13

1 90

18:2 2

lx x iv , lx x v , lx x x iii, 3 3 , 7 2

1:14

100

1 3 :1 4 -1 4 :2 1

lx x ii

18:23

lx iii, lx iv , lx v , lx v i, lx v ii, lx x , lx x ii,

1 :1 6 -1 8

156

1 3 :1 4 -1 4 :2 3 1 3 :1 4 -1 4 :2 5

lx iii, lx x , lx x ii 6

1 3 :1 4 - 1 4 :2 0

1 3 :2 1 -2 3

1 8 :2 3 -5 2

1 90 lx v

lx x ii

19:5

154

1:24

1:17 1:21

259

1 1 1 , 118 173 4 2 ,1 7 3

1 3 :2 6

29

19:8

59

1:28

178

1 3 :2 7 1 3 :45

170 256

19:9

1 4 ,59 14

1:29 2:1

2 5 6 ,257

1 3 :4 8 14:4

297

19:23

59

2:3

2

19:2 8

256

2 :4

262

14:6 14:11

lx v

2 0 :4

lx x

2:8

2 5 6 ,257

lx v

2 0 :2 2 -2 3

1 4 :1 1 -1 3 1 4 :1 2 1 4 :1 4

lx ix lx v 2 , 174

19:23

2 0 :3 0 2 0 :3 3 -3 5 2 1 :4

47

2 :1 2

297

2 :13 2 :1 4

118 x lv iii, 178

47

2 :1 4 -1 5

180

2 1 :1 0 -1 1

47

2 :1 6

1 4 :1 9

lx ix

2 1 :1 2

33

14:21

190

14:23

6

1 4 :2 6 -2 8 14 :2 8 15

lx x x i, 7 2 45 liv , lx iv , lx v , lx v i, lx x v i, 4 5 , 6 0 , 6 1 , 64

1 5 :1 -2

lx x x ii

15 :1 -3

lx x v iii

1 5 :1 -4

72

2 1 :1 5

33 lx x iv 56 38

2 :25

2 1 :2 0

30

2 :2 7

2 1 :2 4 2 1 :2 5 2 2 :3

1 266

55

31

3:3

88

3 :4

9 1 ,293

14, 5 9

2 2 :5

193

257

1 5:6

lx x v iii

2 2 :1 6 2 2 :1 7 -2 1

91 95

2 2 :4

15:5

91 137 99

46 liv , lx x ii

2 2 :5 -1 6

111

3 :1 -2

liv , lx x iv , lx x v ii, l x x v iii, lx x ix , 4 6

2 2 :1 2 - 1 6

162

3 :1 -9

1 5 :1 -3 5

45

3:1

277 x lv iii

3:2

lx x x

1 5 :1 -3 0

2 2 :3 -1 6

2 :2 4

1 2 2 ,24

2 9 , 3 0 , 35

7 2 , 75

1 5 :2 -4

2 :2 0

2 1 :1 8 - 1 9

1 5 :1 -2 9

15:2

2 :1 8 2 :2 1 -2 5

2 1 :1 8

2 1 :2 0 - 2 6

99

16 278

14 :1 5

2 1 :1 5 -1 7

99

3:5

127

34

3:6

91, 180, 293

4

3:7

137

155

3 :9

137

3 :1 0

111

47

Index of B iblical T exts 262

7 :7 -1 2

1 20

1 4 :1 0

1 3 7 ,1 9 1

x lv iii

7 :7 -2 5

95, 293

14:12

282

53

14:13

22

8 9 , 1 1 8 , 137

7:9

x lv iii

7 :1 2

x lv i, x lv iii, 1, 86

1 4 :1 4

153

88

7 :13

2 7 ,9 1 ,2 8 3

293

7 :1 4

x lv iii, 86

14:15 14 :1 7

2 5 8 ,2 6 1

92

14 :1 9

2 6 1 ,2 8 2

282

14 :2 2

92· 1 1 8 ,1 1 9 7 4 ,1 7 0 99 8 4 ,1 1 8 7 4 ,1 1 8 9 1 ,9 5 ,2 9 3 9 9 , 137

7 :1 4 -2 5 7:25 8 8:1

lv

15

7

277 lx x v i

5 1 ,1 5 3

15:1

275

8 :1 -2

173

15:2

283

8 :2 -3

152

15:4

100

lx x x iv

15:8

8 :2 -2 5 8:3 8 :3 -4

x lv iii, 3 0 , 1 2 0 , 1 7 0 , 2 9 3

74

1 5 :9 -1 2

115

1 6 6 ,1 6 7

15:13

261

1 1 2 ,1 1 3

8:7

255

15:1 4

262

1 1 3 ,1 1 8

8:9

9 3 ,1 7 3

1 5 :1 4 -3 2

188

8 :9-11

9 3 ,1 7 3

15:15

289

50, 118, 277

7 4 ,1 1 3

15 :1 6

16

113

8 :1 2

282

1 5 :1 8 -2 0

32

7 4 ,2 6 6

99

8 :15

8:11

1 7 3 , 1 74

1 5 :1 9

16

172

15:23

130

8 :1 5 -1 7

156

8 :1 7

3 0 , 143

lx x x v ii, 175

40

1 5 :2 5 -3 2

x x v ii, 4 9

1 5 :2 5 -3 3

x iii, lx x v

8 :2 0

222

7 4 , 130

8:21

5 1 , 148

15:2 6

60

137

8:23

172

15:2 8

259

131

5 8 , 7 4 , 8 8 , 130

8 :2 4

224

1 5 :3 0 -3 2

15, 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 , 178

8 :2 9

2 2 , 3 0 , 195

1 5 :3 2 -3 3

1 30

8 :3 0

1 5 ,1 1 8

113

8 :3 1 -3 5

99

15:33 16:3 1 6 :3 -1 6

288 26 1 287, 298 lx x x v ii 287

7, 94, 272

8 :32

7, 3 0 , 9 4

7

8 :3 4

1 80

16:7

v ii, 2 , 33

118

8 :3 6

111

16:9

lx x x v ii

294

8 :37

94

16:1 6

287

170

9 -1 1

217

16:17

2 5 7 ,2 7 4

173

1 6 :1 7 -1 9

288

7

9:2

92

9:3

17, 2 2

1 6 :1 9

285

3 0 , 153

9 :4

1 3 1 , 172

16:2 0

2 9 4 ,2 9 7

172 131

16:21 16:2 2

42

16:23 1 6 :2 4

>cxvi, 2 8 7 287, 289 287

294 1 20 158

9 :4 -5 9 :6 -7 9:7

7 2 2 ,2 4

50

9 :1 2 9 :1 4

15 9 1 ,2 9 3

272

9 :1 6

282

1 6 :2 5 -2 6

24

120

9 :1 7

114

1 6 :2 5 -2 7

288

281

9 :1 8

282

137

16:25

1 C orinthians

92

9 :2 0

99

120, 137, 272

9 :2 2

262

x lix , 1 3 7 , 143 99

9 :2 4

15 174

1:1 1:2

, 4 1 , 153 13

9 :2 7

lx i, 4 , 5 4

92

10:1

173

9 1 , 9 2 , 1 80, 2 9 3

10:2

193, 256

1:3 1:4

1 5 4 ,2 9 5

10:4

x lv i, 175

1:9

,3 0 , 262

1:10

276, 296

lx x x v i

10:11

1 14

1 :1 0 -1 2

x c ix

94

11:1

9 1 ,2 9 3

92

11:2

1 14

1:11

256

9 1 ,2 9 3

1:12

3 7 ,5 5

1:13

1 0 0 , 155

x lix , 152 9 1 , 1 3 7 , 1 4 3 ,2 9 3

11:11 1 1 :1 1 -1 2

272

154

99

1 1 :1 3 -3 2

217

1 :1 3 -1 7

51

11:22

262

1:15

1 1 :2 6 -2 7

298

1 :1 7 -1 8

100, 2 94

15

1 :18-31

294

127

155

51

11 :2 9

259

11 :3 6

4

1:19

127

259

1 2 -1 3

270

1:20

8 ,9

5 1 ,2 5 9

12:2

8, 9, 2 7 7

1:23

1 2 2 ,2 9 4

1, liii

12:3

276

1:24

9 9 , 162

12:5

158

1 :2 6 -2 9

170 54

9 2 ,2 6 4

12:18

2 61

1:28

191

151

13 :1 2

2 9 ,1 5 5

1:30

13:13

2 5 5 ,2 5 6

92 5 1 ,2 8 2

14

1:31

170 58

lx x ix

2:2

100, 2 9 4

217

2:5

291

259

1 4 :1 -1 5 :1 3

259

14:3

191

2:8

1 0 0 , 143

259

14:4

224

2 :9

173

L, 9 9 , 1 3 7 , 1 4 3 ,2 9 3

1 4 :7 -8

92

2 :1 2

9

Index of Biblical Texts— 2 :1 3

10:4

170

16:23

3:1

160

10:13

262

1 6 :2 3 -2 4

3:3

256

10:2 0

179

282

1 0 :2 7 -2 8

3 :8 3 :9 - 1 7

22

—

16

—

—

319

7, 2 87, 300 298

2 Corinthians

283

10:2 9

51

3:1 3

53, 277

10:33

18, 19

1-9

lx x x iv

3 :1 9

9 , 118

191

1:1

lx i, lx x i, lx x x v ii, 4 , 5, 6 , 2 2 , 27

3 :2 2

11:1

4

55

11:1 8

78

1:2

4:1

84

11:19

257

1:8

4 :2

299

11:21

272

1:12

4 :7

137

11:23

18

1:14

277

4 :9

192

1 1 :2 3 -2 4

94

1:16

lx x iii, lx x v

4 :1 4

195

1 1 :2 3 -2 6

24

1:18

262

4 :1 5

195

11 :2 4

7

1:19

lx x i, lx x v , 3 0 , 3 2

4 :1 7

lx x i, 195

1 1 :2 4 -2 6

294

4 :2 0

258

11:28

84, 2 74

4:2 1

263

11 :3 4

127

5:3

8

12:2

77

5 :6

277

12:3

294

12:7

289

12:7 -1 1

5 :7

27 2 9 , 78

1:23

40

1:24

151

2:7

54

2 :1 2

16

17, 2 2

2 :1 3 -1 4

46

189

2 :1 4 -1 7

190

105

3:1

289

22, 257, 289

12 :1 2

3 7 , 158

3:6

143

40

12:13

1 54

3:7

289

6 :4

191

12 :2 6

1 0 3 ,2 7 5

6:5

155

12:27

158

3 :1 4

153

22

12:31

27

3 :1 7

lx x x v , 5 1 , 1 7 3 , 2 1 2

5 :9 5:11 6 :1 -8

6 :5 -8 6 :9

279

13:1

3 :9 -1 1

156

192

4:1

281

1 3 3 ,257

13:11

162

4 :2

218

6 :1 0

257

13:13

260

4:3

24

6 :1 2

50

14:1

180

4 :4

16

6 :1 3

50

14:5

1 80

4:5

32

6 :1 5

127

4 :6

127

4 :1 0 -5 :5

6 :9 -1 0

9 1 ,293

14:7

7 :1 2

127

14:9

7 :1 4

19, 4 2

14:21

7 :1 5

1 5 , 261

14:33

7 :1 7

x c v iii, 8 4 , 127

15

7 :1 7 - 2 0

18

15:1

7 :1 7 - 2 4

15

15:1-11

7 :1 7 - 2 8

154

15:3

x lv iii

4 :1 6

173 lx x x iv 281

2 61

4 :1 7

27

lx x x v

4 :1 8

274

lx x x iv , 2 2

5 :1 0

78

22

5 :1 2

277

7, 17, 18, 1 0 0 , 2 9 4

5:1 5

92

7:21

51

15:3-11

24

5 :1 6

54, 294

7 :2 2

51

1 5 :3 -1 2

32

5 :1 7

153

7 :2 9

299

7:31

9

7 :3 9

5 1 , 162

8 -1 0 8 :1 -1 1

lx x x 54

8:5

179

8 :6

1 70, 179

8:7

179 294

8:11 8 :1 1 -1 3 9:1

22

15:5 1 5 :5 -7 15:7

3 3 , 3 7 , 55

5 , 1 13, 1 5 1 , 2 7 2 , 2 7 8

3 3 , 38

5:21

122

6:1 6:2

49 131

6 :4 -6

300

6 :6

262

31 8

15:22

1 4 3 , 151

15:23

282

15 :2 4 15:28

190

5 :1 9

15:8 15:11

1 5 :2 3 -2 4

5 :1 8 -2 0

36

36

6:11

99

258

6:1 3

195

30 154

6 :1 4 -1 6

283

7:3

17

279

7 :5 -1 6

46

3 1 ,5 1

15 :2 9

9:5

278 55

15:33 15 :3 6

7:7

256

9 :6

lx x i, lx x v , 4 5 , 4 6 , 77

1 5 :3 9 -4 1

15

7:8

52, 289

9 :7 9 :8

259

15 :4 6

36

7:13

29

127

15 :5 0

3 3 ,258

7 :15

29

9 :9 -1 0

209

1 5 :5 3 -5 4

9 :11

280

15:58

9 :1 2

16

9 :1 5

274, 286

1 6 :1-3

49

9 :1 5 - 1 7

156

1 6 :1 -4

lx x iii, lx x v

9 :1 5 - 1 8

277

1 6 :1 -1 8

9 :3 - 1 4

16:1

143

156 22 lx x , lx v ii, lx ix

188

8:1

22

8 :6 -2 4

46

8:13 8 :1 8 -1 9

58 4 6, 77

8 :2 2

lx x v , 2 7 7

8:23

2, 4 , 192

9 :1 7

55

16:3

277, 289

9:3

277

9 :1 9

51

16:7

152

9 :6

280 259

9 :1 9 -2 1

174

16 :1 0

lx x i

9:8

9 :1 9 -2 3

18, 5 0 , 8 0

16:11

191

9 :1 2 -1 5

9 :2 0 -2 1

187

16:13

222

9:1 3

16

1 6 :1 3 -1 8

285

9:3 5

46

1 90

1 0 -1 3

49

9:21

x lv iii, 5 2 , 2 7 5

9 :2 3

lx x x v ii

9 :2 4

222

1 6 :1 7 -1 8

288

10:1

49

1 6 :1 9 -2 0

287

1 0 :1 -1 2 :1 0

1 5 ,222

16 :2 0

287

10:9-11

289

li

16:21

lx , 2 8 8

1 0 :1 0

191

155

16:2 2

1 7 ,288

10 :1 4

16

9 :2 4 - 2 7 9 :2 6 10 10:2

16:15

lx x x iv 7 3 ,263 17

Index of B iblical T exts

320 11 :4

15 4 0, 52

1 1 :1 0 1 1 :1 3 -1 5

19

1 :1 1 -2 :2 1 1:12

1 8 ,2 1 , 3 1 , 4 7, 4 8 , 84

1 1 :1 9 - 2 0

152

1 :1 2 -2 :1 4

1 1 :2 1 -2 9

293

1:13

11 :2 3

1, 2 9

199, 223 21 c x ii, 18 c v ii, 10, 53

1 :1 3 -1 4

2 :1 5 -2 1

c ix , c x , 1 2 , 2 1 , 9 6 , 1 85, 1 8 7 , 2 1 9 , 293

2 :1 5 -3 :1 8

xcv

2 :1 5 -4 :1 1

189

2 :1 6

16, 3 8 , 1 0 2 , 1 03, 1 0 6 , 1 0 9 , 113, 117,

26

118, 123, 133, 143, 144, 169, 1 7 0 ,283

1 1 :2 3 -2 5

4 0 , 191

1 1 :2 3 -2 7

lx x v iii

1 :1 3 -2 :1 0

c x v ii

2 :1 7 -2 0

9 5 , 135

1 1 :2 3 -3 0

300

1 :1 3 -2 :1 4

1 2 , 2 1 , 2 6 , 106, 189

2 :1 7 -2 1

1 7 5 , 1 77, 301

1 1 :2 4

116

1 :1 3 -2 :2 1

c x v i, 11, 13

2 :1 8

45

1 1 :2 6

2 9, 50

7 , 1 5 , 4 5 , 4 9 , 169

2 :1 9

1 87, 2 9 0

1 1 :3 0

294

11:31

40

1 1 :3 2

34

12:1 1 2 :2 -4

1 :1 3 -1 7

c x v , 35

1:15 1 :1 5 -1 6 1:16

3, 48 x lix , c x ii, 3 0 , 3 1 , 4 5 , 4 7 , 5 4 , 5 9 , 105,

1 5 , 5 2 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 2 , 1 4 2 , 1 52, 1 7 0 , 2 9 3

2 :1 7

2 :1 9 -2 0 2 :2 0

c x i, c x v

2 3 , 3 0 , 3 1 , 3 5 , 9 3 , 1 2 1 , 1 4 3 , 1 7 5 , 1 89,

190

47

1 :1 6 -1 7

47

1 :1 6 -1 9

12:7

192

1:17

1 2 :7 -1 0

191

1 :1 7 -1 8

1 2 :1 2

105

1 2 :1 4

195

1 2 :1 5

29

12 :1 8

46

1 2 :2 0

256

lx x v iii, c x i, 12

2:21

39

2 :2 3

7 , 1 5 , 4 5 , 9 9 , 1 0 6 , 1 2 7 , 1 7 6 , 1 8 9 , 3 01 1 70

1, 4 5 , 1 09, 1 1 0

3 -4

x c ii

3 3 ,213

3:1

lx iii, lx iv , lx x x v i, x c iv , x c v ii, c v ii,

1 :1 7 -2 :1 0

292

1 :1 7 -2 :1 4

4

c x v ii, 1 1 , 2 2 , 3 2 , 9 2 , 1 1 8 , 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 , 1 7 4 , 183, 186, 2 06, 2 6 4 , 2 90, 2 9 4 , 295

lx x x iii, 3 3 , 3 6 , 4 4 , 4 5 , 5 3 , 5 5 , 6 3 , 7 2 ,

3 :1 -5

c x i, c x v i, 1 1 , 9 7 , 1 06, 1 5 4 , 1 78, 183

7 8 ,213

3 :!-7

c v iii

1 :1 8 -1 9

lx x v iii, 3 9 , 5 6

3 :1 -8

17, 2 5 8

1 :1 8 -2 0

lx x iii, lx x v ii, lx x x i, 4 0 , 4 5

3 :1 -1 4

1 3 0 ,2 16

192

1 :1 8 -2 4

x liv , 3 5 , 3 6

3 :1 -1 8

9 7 , 1 0 5 , 1 0 6 , 134, 1 3 6 , 1 4 8 , 1 58,

13:4

100

1 :1 8 -2 :1 0

36

13:5

277

1 :1 8 -2 :1 4

cxv

1 3 :1 0

2 91

1:19

13:2 1 3 :3 -4

1:18

219, 2 6 2 ,264, 2 6 5 ,290, 294

1 7 7 ,2 19, 300 3 :1 -4 :1 1

lx x x v i, c ix , 8, 1 2 , 8 1 , 8 3 , 1 8 7 , 2 2 3

2 , 15, 5 6

3 :1 -4 :3 1

c x , 2 1 , 1 99

13:11

7 , 2 6 1 ,2 7 3 ,287, 298, 299

c x i, 12

3 :1 -5 :2 5

1 3 :1 2

287

1:20

lx x iii

3 :1 -6 :1 0

13:13

298

1:21

lx x v i, lx x x i, 3 6 , 4 0 , 4 4 , 6 3 , 72

1 3 :1 4

4 , 7, 2 8 7 , 3 0 0

1 :1 9 -2 0

1 :2 1 -2 4 1:22

G alatians 1:23 1 -2

x lv , lx v ii, x c v i, c x

1:1

x lv , lv ii, lx x x v i, c x i, c x iv , 1, 2 , 5, 10, 17, 19, 2 4 , 3 1 , 3 3 , 3 9 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 1 26,

2:1

299

291 3 :2 -3

283

1 5 2 , 168

3 :2 -5

1 7 3 ,2 7 3 ,2 8 1 ,284

lx x v iii, 55

lx x x v i

3 :2 -1 4 3:3

1 1 ,9 4 , 1 0 5 , 2 0 6 , 2 1 6 , 2 9 0 , 291

48

3:5

30, 113, 117, 133, 143, 1 7 4 ,216

lx x i, lx x v i, lx x ix , lx x x iii, 3 3 , 3 6 , 4 1 ,

3 :6

c x iii, 1 1 1 , 1 7 0 , 2 6 2 185

3 :6 -9

x liv , x c v , c x iv , c x v i, 1 8 3 , 2 0 0 , 2 1 7 , 2 1 8 ,2 9 8

c x iii

lx x i, x c v iii, 4 4 , 7 5 , 80 1, liv , lx iv , Ixvi, lx v ii, lx x iii, lx x iv , lx x v , lx x v i, lx x v ii, lx x v iii, lx x ix , lx x x ,

3 :6 -1 4

xci

lx x x ii, lx x x iii, 3 8 , 4 0 , 4 4 , 4 6 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 6 1 ,

3 :6 -1 8

187

lx i, lx iii, lx iv , lx v ii, lx x , lx x x v ii, 1, 2 ,

62, 6 4 , 7 1 , 77

3 :6 -2 9

c x v iii

c v iii, 1 c v iii, c v ix , 2 2 , 2 2 3 , 2 8 7

10, 2 7 , 2 8 8 c v ii, 1 , 5, 10, 3 0 0

1:3 1 :3 -4

2 :1 -5 2 :1 -1 0

2 :1 -1 2

1

169, 2 64, 2 94, 295 1, 1 0 8 , 2 8 8 , 3 0 0

2 :2

lx x v iii, lx x x i, c x ii, 2 3 , 3 2 , 5 5 , 5 9 , 105,

3 :6 -4 :1 0

130, 1 8 2 ,2 1 6 , 2 22, 27 6

3 :6 -4 :1 1

c x ii, 1 5 , 4 1 , 8 9 , 9 3 , 1 2 2 , 1 5 2 , 221

2 :4 -5 2 :5

x liv , lx x x ii, 4 4 , 7 3 , 75 x c ix , c x v i, 1, 12, 19, 7 8 , 9 9 , 1 3 0 , 1 89,

lx v , lx x x iv , c v ii, c ix , c x v iii, 7 , 11, 13, 16, 3 0 , 9 7 , 1 0 6 , 1 3 7 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 4 , 2 0 4 , 2 2 1 ,

1 :6-7

300 x c v , x c v iii

1 :6-9

x liii, x c v , c x v i, 18 , 19, 5 3 , 5 5 , 189 11, 12 , 2 0 , 2 2 , 1 8 5 , 2 2 1 , 2 8 7

1 :6 -1 0

2 :5 -6 2 :6 2 :6 -9 2 :6 -1 0 2 :7

2 1 6 ,223 12 lx x x , 3 3 , 8 4 , 2 7 6

c x ii, c x v i, 133

190

3 :6 -4 :7

2 :4

120 lx x x v i, c x v i, 1, 2 , 10, 9 2 , 9 5 , 1 2 1 , 166,

1:5 1:6

lx x v i, 4 0

3 :6 -7

1 :1 -5 :1 2

1:4

c v ii, 1 0 3 , 1 1 7 , 1 3 3 , 1 4 3 , 1 7 4 , 2 1 6 ,

4 5 ,47, 6 3 ,7 2 ,210

1 :1-3 1:1-5 1 :1 -1 2 1:2

21 2 1 , 101

3:2

10, 12, 1 5 , 2 7 , 1 , 5 2 , 8 9 , 9 3 , 1 2 2 , 2 7 , 32, 53, 190, 2 8 3 ,2 90

1 :2 3 -2 4 2

137

11 97 c v ii, 7 4

3:7

c x v i, 3 2 , 1 3 0 , 1 7 0 , 2 1 6 , 2 8 2 284

3:8 3 :8 -4 :7

74, 130, 1 9 3 ,216

3:9

153

3 :9 -1 0 3 :1 0

x lv iii, c x v iii, 7 4 , 1 1 7 , 1 3 7 , 1 4 3 , 170, 258

x liv , 61 1 7 ,44, 47

3 :1 0 -1 2

x liv

1 3 0 ,216

3 :1 0 -1 4

1 2 3 , 183

3 :1 0 -4 :1 :l

1 :6-11

cx

2 :7 -8

37

1 :6 -1 3

c v iii

2 :7 -9

lx x x i, 7 4

3:11

217 1 1 8 ,170

6 5 , 72

3 :1 2

1 2 0 , 1 4 0 , 170, 2 5 8

1 :6 -4 :1 1

11, 1 8 3 , 1 8 4 , 1 8 7 , 2 8 7

2:8

c, 3 0 , 3 2 , 4 8

3 :13

c x v ii, 8 , 5 1 , 9 2 , 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 2 ,

1 :6 -4 :3 1

225

2 :9

37, 45, 4 6, 55, 56, 57, 72, 78, 300

12, 185

l:6 -3 :7

1 :6 -5 :1 2 1:7 1 :7 -9 1:8 1:8 -9 1:9

2 :7 -1 0

288, 290, 296

2 :1 0

c x i, c x v ii, 12 , 1 3 , 2 0 6 , 2 9 0 , 29 1

2:11 2 :1 1 -1 3

17, 6 3 , 7 5 , 2 8 9

x liii, lx x x i, 3 2 , 192, 193

2 :1 1 -1 4

x liv , lx x i, lx x x i, lx x v iii, x c iii,

x c iv , c v ii, 11 , 13, 16, 3 2 , 9 9 , 2 2 2 , 2 5 7 1, c x i, c x v , 11, 13, 8 4

c x ii 1 :1 0 -1 1 1:11 lx x x iv , c v ii, c x ix , 13 , 2 1 , 3 2 , 5 5 , 8 4 , 106, 111, 1 9 0 ,216 1 :1 1 -1 2

1 :1 1 - 2 :1 4

lx x ix , x c v 12, 1 7 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 6 3 , 9 7 , 1 8 5 ,1 9 7 ,

3 :1 4

lx x x v i, 8, 5 2 , 1 6 4 , 169 c x v ii, 3 2 , 4 1 , 5 2 , 8 9 , 9 3 , 1 3 0 , 150, 152, 172, 174, 2 1 6 , 2 7 3 , 2 84, 298

3 :1 5

c v ii, c v iii, 13, 2 2 , 8 4 , 9 5 , 1 2 9 , 1 70, 265

55

3 :1 5 -1 8

x c v , x c v ii, 1 4 2 , 1 8 3 , 2 1 0

c x iii

3 :1 5 -2 2

c x v iii

2 :1 2

x lv iii, lx x x ii, x c , 5 6 , 153

3 :1 5 -2 5

x liv

2 :1 3 2 :1 4

45, 46 15, 19, 2 7 , 3 2 , 3 7 , 5 2 , 5 5 , 7 2 , 130,

3 :1 6

x c v ii, 1 1 1 , 1 1 4 , 1 7 0 , 2 1 5 , 2 1 6 , 2 9 8

3 :1 7

c v ii, 1 3 7 , 1 4 0 , 1 6 1 , 2 1 6

2 :1 5

180, 1 8 9 ,2 1 6 , 2 2 1 ,2 90 x lv iii, 3 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 70

3 :1 8

1 3 7 ,2 1 6 ,2 5 8 , 300

52, 9 5 , 98, 102, 117, 134, 135,

3 :1 9

x lv iii, 8 6 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 7 , 1 2 9 , 192 5

2 :1 1 -1 6 2 :1 1 -3 :4

x lv , c ii, c x i, c x v , 11, 12, 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 6 , 3 3 ,3 4 ,3 5 ,39, 4 8 ,49

1 :1 1 - 2 :1 0

3 :1 3 -1 4

x c v i, 17, 6 3 , 7 5 , 2 8 9

c iii, c x ii, c x v i, 13, 17, 5 9 , 2 2 2 , 2 9 9

1 :10

5 8 , 2 91 37, 55, 78

x c iv , 1 3 0 , 2 1 6

1 8 3 ,2 6 4 , 2 90, 2 9 1 ,2 9 3 ,295

2 :1 5 -1 6

1 6 4 , 1 7 6 , 177, 3 0 0

3 :1 5 -4 :3 :l

3 :1 9 -2 0

124

Index of Biblical Texts

321

3 :1 9 - 2 2

119

4 :2 4

liv , 4 2 , 127

3 :1 9 -2 5

1 1 9 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 8 , 1 5 0 , 157

4 :2 5

lx x x v ii, 3 4

3 :1 9 -4 :7

x c v , x c v iii, 9 2 , 9 7 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 , 125,

3 :1 9 -4 :1 1 3 :2 0 -2 9 3:21

51

4 :2 7

17 0

157

4 :2 7 - 3 0

8

3 :2 1 - 2 4 3 :2 2 3 :2 3

x liv

4 :2 8

e v iii, 2 2 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 , 1 9 5 , 2 1 6 , 2 6 4

4 :2 8 -5 :1 3 4 :2 9

c x v ii, 9 4 . 2 7 3 , 2 9 0 , 2 91

4 :3 0

c x v iii, 5 1 , 1 1 1 , 1 3 3 , 1 7 0 , 2 2 3 , 2 5 8

2 0 7 ,216, 283

4 :31

e v iii, 2 2 , 5 1 , 1 2 6 , 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 , 2 6 5

5:1

c x v iii

3 :2 3 -4 :1 1

281

5 :2 4

1 6 ,9 4 ,1 5 7 ,2 6 4 ,2 9 0

5 :2 4 -2 6

265

5 :2 5

1 03, 1 4 3 , 1 8 6 , 2 1 6 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 8 , 2 7 3 , 2 8 1 ,2 8 4 , 297

5 :2 5 -6 :1 0 5 :2 6

2 6 5 ,270 1 8 6 , 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 3 , 2 7 6 , 281

6:1

e v iii, e x ix , 13, 2 2 , 8 0 , 8 4 , 1 2 6 , 1 73, 186, 2 6 3 ,2 6 5 ,2 72, 273

6 :1 -2

2 7 6 ,2 8 1 ,2 8 4

6 :1 -1 0

2 6 5 ,266

x c ix , 5 1 , 1 8 6 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 0 , 2 2 2 , 2 2 3 , 2 2 4 ,

6 :2

1 8 6 ,2 7 1 , 27 2

2 2 5 ,265

6:3

2 7 1 ,2 7 6 ,2 7 9 ,295

52, 116, 121, 164, 172, 2 0 7 ,219

3 :2 3 - 2 9

c ix

c x v iii lx x x v i, 16, 8 8 , 1 1 6 , 1 1 9 , 1 3 0 , 1 69, 4 1 ,42, 283

3 :2 3 -2 5

3 3 ,4 5

4 :2 6

301 90, 130, 2 1 4 , 290

3 :2 1 - 2 2

4 :2 5 - 2 6

1 3 4 , 1 7 5 , 1 7 7 , 1 8 3 ,2 1 9

5 :2 2 -2 5

5 :1 -4

2 21

6 :3 -4

281

52

5 :1 -1 0

e x iii

6 :4

2 5 7 , 2 71

3 :2 4

x lv i, x lv iii, 193

5 :1 -1 1

7

6:5

270, 279, 295

3:2 5

4 1, 116, 177, 189, 283

5 :1 -1 2

1 8 7 , 1 9 6 ,2 1 8 , 2 9 9

6 :6

1 8 6 ,2 7 1 , 28 4

li

5 :1 -1 5

21

6 :7

84, 186, 2 70, 2 77, 2 7 9 -8 0 , 2 81, 295

15, 4 1 , 5 2 , 8 8 , 8 9 , 9 3 , 1 2 2 , 1 5 1 , 153,

5 :1 -2 6

3 :2 5 - 2 6 3 :2 6

166, 175, 1 8 3 ,2 64, 2 76, 2 92, 293

2 71

5 :1 -6 :1 0

6 :7 -8 6 :8

9 4 , 2 1 6 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 3 , 2 7 9 , 2 8 4 , 2 9 0 , 2 91

lx v , e v iii

6 :9

178, 186, 2 58, 2 70, 2 77, 2 79, 295

l x x x v i, 1 3 4 , 2 2 3 , 2 8 3

3 :2 6 - 2 9

41, 160, 173, 189, 298

5:2 -3

2 91

x lv i

5 :2 -4

c x v iii, 14

6 :1 0

221

6:11

3 :2 6 - 4 :7 3 :2 7 - 2 8

e x ix , 1 5 3 , 1 5 6 , 1 6 4 , 1 8 1 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 5 , 296

5:2

5 :2 -1 2 5:3

259

e x , e x ix , 185

3 :2 6 - 2 8

x c ix , e v iii, 17, 8 4 , 1 1 7 , 2 2 2 , 2 5 8 , 2 9 2 ,

6 :9 -1 0

271 4 1, 78, 111, 186, 2 59, 270, 2 82, 283 lx i, e v iii, e x ix , 6 , 1 8 9 , 2 8 8

6 :1 1 -1 8

x c v , e v iii, c ix , e x , e x ii, 2 2 2

3 :2 8

1i, 1 5 , 5 1 , 5 2 , 8 9 , 9 3 , 1 2 2 , 1 5 1 , 2 6 4 , 295

5:4

x lv iii, 1 1 8 , 1 9 4 , 2 2 2

3 :2 9

c x v ii, 1 3 0 , 1 3 3 , 1 3 4 , 1 7 3 , 2 1 6 , 2 5 8 ,

5:5

1 1 2 ,2 16, 273

6 :1 2 -1 3

2 8 4 ,295

6 :1 2 -1 5

288

5 :6

4 1 , 5 2 , 8 9 , 9 3 , 111, 1 2 2 , 1 5 2 , 2 5 9 , 2 6 0 ,

6 :1 2 -1 7

e x ii, 2 9 0

295

6 :1 2 -1 8

5:7

x c iv , c x v ii, 4 9 , 1 0 0 , 2 8 1

6 :1 3

x c ii, c x v ii, 1 1 7 , 2 9 3

1 8 4 ,222

6 :1 4

x liii, 9 1 , 9 2 , 1 0 0 , 1 8 4 , 2 6 4 , 2 9 0 , 2 9 8

264 3 :3 8

41

4:1

293

5 :5 -6

c v ii, e v iii, 1 3 3 , 2 5 8

4 :1 -3

176

4 :1 - 7

lx x x iv , 1 3 0 , 1 3 3 , 1 3 4 , 135

4 :1 -1 0

5 :7 -1 2

e x iii

5:8

1 5 ,30, 221

4 :2

x lv iii, 116

5:9

c x v ii

4 :3

9, 116, 265

4 :3 - 6

lx x x v i, 8

4 :3 - 7

52

4 :4

5 :1 0

x c iv , e v iii, e x ii, c x v ii, 16, 4 1 , 5 2 , 8 9 ,

5:11

x c v iii, e v iii, 18, 2 2 , 1 0 0 , 1 2 2 , 1 26,

c x v i, 1 6 8 , 1 7 7, 1 8 3 , 2 9 5

136, 184, 264 5 :1 1 -2 0

4 :5

5 1 , 1 1 6 , 121

4 :6

3 0 ,31, 1 7 3 ,273 284

5 :1 2

133, 1 9 3 ,258

5:13

4 :6 -7 4 :7

x c v , c x v , c x v ii, 5 9 , 9 2 , 1 0 0 , 1 04, 264, 294 x c iv , 1 8 4 , 1 9 4 , 2 8 3 , 301

e x iii

6 :1 4 -1 5

cxv

6 :1 5

298

6 :1 6

c ii, e v iii, c x v , 6, 7, 5 7 , 1 1 4 , 1 3 3 , 2 6 6 ,

6 :1 7

lx ix , e x ii, c x v , 16, 1 8 4 , 2 8 7 , 2 8 8 , 301

6 :1 8

e v iii, 7, 2 2 , 1 2 6 , 2 6 5 , 2 8 4 , 3 0 0

93, 122, 152, 182, 222, 291

3 0 , 31, 116, 207

4 :4 -5

6 :1 2

5 :1 1 -6 :1 1

278, 287, 298

187 e x iii

E phesians

222, 288, 290

5 :1 2 -2 1

7 x lv i, e v iii, e x ix , 13, 2 2 , 5 1 , 5 8 , 9 4 ,

1:1 1:2

lx x x v ii, 4 1 , 153 4

1 26, 1 8 6 , 2 2 2 , 2 2 4 , 2 5 8 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 4 , 265, 270, 280, 282, 283, 290

1:5 1:7

172 272

4 :8 -1 0 4 :8 -1 1 4 :9

1 1 ,9 7 e x ii, 12, 8 3 , 9 7 , 185 9 , 1 1 ,9 4

5 :1 3 -1 4

1:10

1 4 3 , 1 5 2 , 170

4 :9 -1 0

14, 1 8 9 , 2 6 3

5 :1 3 -1 5

111

1:13

278

206 c v ii, 1 1 , 4 8 , 9 9 , 2 0 6

5 :1 3 -1 8 5 :1 3 -2 1

266 x c v iii

1:15

13

e v iii e x iii c v ii, e v iii, c ix , c x v i, 12, 2 2 , 1 26, 199,

5 :1 3 -2 4

93 lx x x iv

4 :1 0 4:1 1 4 :1 1 - 2 0 4 :1 1 -3 1 4 :1 2

2 1 9 ,265 4 :1 2 - 2 0 4 :1 2 - 5 :1 2 4 : 1 2 - 6 :1 0 4 :1 3

5 :1 3 -2 5 5 :1 3 -2 6 5 :1 3 -6 :1 0

187

275

lx x x v i, x c v iii, 9 0 , 1 0 1 , 165 lv iii, lx x x v , x c i, x c ix , 1 8 7 , 2 6 9 , 275, 282, 290

1 8 7 ,219 c ix , 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 , 1 8 6 , 1 8 7, 1 8 9 , 2 8 7

5 :1 4

170, 186, 2 20, 2 6 1 ,263

5:15

281

lx iv , lx v , lx ix , I x x ii, c v ii, 3 2 , 2 9 0 ,

5 :1 6

e v iii, 1 4 3 , 1 6 1 , 1 8 6 , 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 , 2 8 1 ,

2 91

1:18

153 272

2 :11 2 :1 4

74 255

2 :1 9 2 :1 9 -2 2 3 :1 -1 9 3 :2 -1 0

2 8 2 ,2 8 3 283 192 24

2 8 4 ,290

3:3

100 78

4 :1 3 - 1 4

300

5 :1 6 -1 7

9 4 ,283

3 :4

4 :1 3 - 1 5

299

5 :1 6 -1 8

216, 2 7 3 ,284

3:5

4 :1 3 - 1 6

15

1:20 2:5

2

184

5 :1 6 -2 1

280

3 :1 2

88

lx ix , 1 7 0 , 2 9 0 , 291

5 :1 6 -2 4

291

3 :13

281

4 :1 5

c v ii, 2 9 0

5 :1 6 -2 5

280

3 :1 6 -1 7

4 :1 7

x c iv , c x v ii, 5 2 , 1 8 4 , 2 0 6

5 :1 6 -2 6

103

4 :2

262

4 :1 4

4 :1 8

5 3 , 291

93

5 :1 7

x lv ii, lv , 1 7 0 , 2 5 8 , 2 9 0

4 :3

261

4 :1 9

c v ii, e x ix

5 :18

116, 2 68, 2 8 1 ,284

4 :1 4

162

4 :2 0

c v ii, 1 1 , 5 3 , 9 9

5 :1 9

2 0 6 ,290

4 :2 1

151

4:2 1

e v iii, 116

5 :1 9 -2 1

89, 94, 273, 283

4 :2 2

27

x liii, x lv , x lv ii, x c v , c x v i, 114,

5 :1 9 -2 3

266, 273

4 :2 8

18 0

130, 133, 187, 196, 2 05, 2 23, 298

5 :1 9 -2 4

265

4 :31

4 :2 1 -3 1 4 :2 1 - 2 6

x liv

4 :2 2 - 2 8

x c v iii

4 :2 2

e x ii, 5 1 , 2 2 3

4 :2 3

5 1 , 2 2 3 , 2 9 0 , 2 91

256

5 :2 0 5:21

liii, 2 5 5 , 2 5 6 x c ix , 17, 1 3 3 , 1 8 6 , 2 5 7 , 2 7 3 , 2 81

5 :2 5:5

133

5 :22

214, 2 5 5 ,260, 282

5 :9

2 5 9 ,2 6 2

5:11

1 8 0 ,2 5 9

5 :2 2 -2 3

265, 2 7 3 ,284

7 ,9 4

322—

—

—

—

Index o f B iblical T exts C olossians

3:4

5 :1 8

257

5:2 5

7, 94

5 :2 6

154

1:1

lx x i, 5

51

1:2

lx x x v ii, 4 1 , 153

6 :1 0

299

1:3

13

6 :1 1 - 1 7

156

1:5

53

33

1:6

259

1:7

6:8

6 :1 2 6 :1 8 - 2 0 6:2 3 6 :2 3 - 2 4 6 :2 4

1 7 ,299

4 :1 -2

190

4 :1 -1 2

270 1 7 ,258

lx x x v ii

4 :6

287

1:10

259

4 :7

15

1:11

262

4 :1 6 - 1 7

36

288

287, 300

lx , lx x , lx x x v ii, 4 , 5 , 4 1 , 153

1 :1 5 -1 7

170

5:1

270

1 :1 6 -1 7

152

5:6

282

1:19

152

5:7

257

1:20

1 00, 1 43, 2 9 4

5:8

156

7

5 :1 4

262

1 :2 3 -2 :5 1:25

1 :2 1 -2 2

189

192

5 :2 0

276

5:21

277

1 :2 6 -2 7

24

5:23

7 , 2 6 1 ,2 8 7 ,298

lx x x v i

1:27

93

5 :2 4

15, 3 0 , 2 6 2

18

1:28

32

5 :25

1:29

93

5 :2 6

287

16, 19, 1 66

5 :2 7

2 8 8 ,289

2:1 3

272

5 :2 8

7, 2 8 7 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 0

2 :1 3 -1 5

264

1:2

4

1:3 1:6

3 0 , 103

1:7 1:8

13

1:11

259

1:12

29

1:14

278

1:15

256, 257

1 :1 5 -1 8

224 273

3 :1 0 4:1

7, 298

P h ilip p ia m 1:1

5 3 ,258 4 8 , 4 9 , 182

3:5 3:8

19, 32

2:8

92

2 :1 4

288

2 Thessalonians

1 0 0 ,2 94

1:17

256

2 :1 4 -1 5

1:19

173

2 :1 6

181

1:1

1:25

29

2 :2 0

9 2 , 166

1:3

13

2:2 3

208

1:6

118

3 :1 -4 :6

270

1:8

16

1:26

277

1:27

1 6 ,4 2 , 224

2:3

256

3:8

2 :3 - 4

276

3:11

2 :4 2 :6 -8 2 :8 2 :1 0

256 5 1 , 7 4 , 1 5 4 , 156

1:11 1:12

15 4 289 17, 53

274

3 :1 2

156, 2 62, 263

2:2

94

3:1 5

7 , 2 61

2:5

3 :2 4

133

2:7

4:3

278

2 :1 4

1 5 ,24 224, 282, 289 94

100, 1 7 1 ,2 94 52

2 :1 2

259

288

2 :1 5

2 :1 6

49, 222, 277

4:5

78

2 :1 6

2 :1 9

lx x , 151

4 :7

lx x x v ii

2 :1 9 - 3 0 2 :2 0

lx i, lx x i, lx x x v ii , 4 , 5 , 6, 2 7 , 4 1 , 151

188 51

2 :2 5

l x x x v ii, 2 , 4 , 1 90

2 :2 8

289

4 :3 -4

289 lx x v

4 :8 4 :1 0

287

4 :1 0 - 1 4

74

4:11

3:1 3 :1 -2 3:3 3:6

59

222, 299 288 262 18

3 :1 0

53

3:1

299

4 :1 3

193

3 :1 3

281

3 :3 -4

291 57

4 :1 5 4 :1 6

287

3 :1 4

289

3 :1 6

289 7 , 2 8 7 ,298

288

3 :1 7

lx , 7, 2 8 7 , 2 8 8 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 0

3 :1 8

3 :4 3 :4 -6 3 :4 -2 1 3 :5 3 :5 -6

35, 294 17

4 :1 6 -1 7 4 :1 8

30

1 Tim othy

1 Thessalonians

3 :6

1 1 7 ,256

3 :7

208

1:1

lx i, lx x i, lx x x v ii, 4 , 5, 6, 2 7 , 4 1 , 153

1:2

54

1:2

13

1:4

294

1:3

2 5 9 ,299

1:8

3 :7 -8 3 :7 - 1 4 3 :9 3 :1 0 3 :1 0 - 1 7 3 :1 4

lx , 2 8 8 , 2 8 7 , 2 8 8 7, 2 8 7 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 0

2, 29

51 86 16, 55

8 8 , 153

1:5

24

195

1:6

190, 278

192

1:9

5 3 , 18 0

1:14

30

1:15

152

1 5 ,49

1:10

1:11

4, 297

1 :1 2 -1 7

192 152

1:16

262

2 :1 -1 2

17

2:5

140

4:1

224

2 :2

16

2 :5 -6

4 :7

7, 2 6 1 ,298

2 :4

5 5 ,277

3 :1 7

lx x x v ii, 2 7 4

3 :1 8

100, 2 94

4 :8 4 :8 - 9 4 :8 - 1 9 4 :9

1:12

7

5

2 :6

7, 94, 282

18

3:1

152

19

2:5

40

3 :1 0

277

288

2:7

1 6 2 ,1 9 5 ,274

3 :13

152

4 :9

152

296

7, 2 61, 2 87, 298

2 :4 -5

2 :8 -9

16

2 :9

278

4 :1 2

27

153

2:11

195

4 :1 5

29

4 :1 5

100

2 :1 2

1 5 ,258

5 :1 8

4 :1 7

259

2 :1 3

1 8 ,278

5 :2 0

4 :1 0 - 1 9 4 :1 3

2 7 8 ,288

4 :2 0

288

4 :2 1

5 , 287

4 :2 2

287

4 :2 3

7, 2 8 7 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 0

2 :1 4 2 :1 4 -1 6 2 :1 7 3:1 3:2

41 29 1

6:1 6 :4

278 78 225 2 5 6 ,257

5 2 ,60

6 :13

298

lx x i

6 :15

282

lx x x v ii, 16

6 :1 6

288

Index of Biblical Texts 6 :1 7 -2 1

288

6 :2 0

100

6 :21

2 8 7 ,300

2 Timothy

H ebrew s 2 :2

152

1:2

4, 297

1:3

13

14 0

2 :1 0

4

2 :1 4

33

2 :1 8 1:1

323

3:1 3:4 5 :1 2

3 :2 0

262

4:3

257

5 :1 4

7

2 P ete r

103 2, 49

1:6

151

1:13

1 66

2:1

263 162 50, 257

1:9

1 5 , 152

5:13

162

2 :7

27

2:1

152

6 :1 2

262

2:8

151

2 :6

259

7:2

36

2 :2 1 -2 2

180

24

8:5

51

3:8

118

2 :1 0

152

8:6

1 4 0 , 141

3 :1 0

166

2 :11

152

9:2

165

3:11

27

2 :8

2 :1 6

29

9 :1 4

173

3 :1 2

166

2 :2 5

263

9 :15

140

3 :15

262

29

9 :2 6

103

3 :1 7

77

3 :9 3 :1 0

262

10:11

51

3:11

lx v

10:13

299

3 :1 2

152

10:27

256

3:1 3

29

11:1 0

214

1:2

3 :1 5

152

1 1 :1 4 -1 6

214

2 :1 5

4 :2

2 6 2 ,278

11:18

42

1 John

2 :1 5 -1 7

37 295 9

4 :7

49

11:27

256

2 :1 8

132

4 :8

299

12:1

222

2 :1 9

143

4 :1 0

lx iii, 4 6

4 :1 8

12:3

282

4 :9

1 6 6 , 167

288

12:5

282

4 :1 0

1 6 6 , 167

4 :1 9

287

12:2 2

214

4:2 1

2 8 7 ,288

1 2 :2 4

140

4 :2 2

287, 298, 300

Titus

13:7

2 7 , 51

1 3 :1 4

214

1 3 :2 0

261

1 3 :2 0 -2 1

7

1:3

55

13:21

273

1:4

4, 46

13:25

7

1:5

47

1:8

263

1:1 0

74

1:11

51

2 :1 3

4

2 :1 4

7, 94

3:2

263

3 :4

262

3:8 3 :9 3 :1 2 -1 4 3 :1 5

152 256 288 287, 298, 300

Philem on

2 John 3

297

Jude 2

297

4

5 0 , 100

Jam es R evelation 1:17 1:19 2 :6 -1 0 2 :2 0

156 73 73 100

1 P ete r 1:1

lx iii, 5 6 , 5 9

1:1 1:5-6

24 9

2 :2 4

5 1 ,274

3 :1 2

214

9:21 10:7 12:4

255 190 224 256

1:11

173

12 :1 2

1:15

27 27

14:6

190

1 4 :1 0

256

14:1 9

256

1:18 2 :4

118 257

1

lx i, lx x i, l x x x v ii, 4 , 5

256

lx x x v ii

2 :1 0 2:11

15:1

2

51

15:7

256

3

4

2 :1 2

27

16:1

256 256

4

13

2 :2 0

1 0 3 , 118

16:19

10 12

195

2 :23

103

1 8 :2 0

289

18:23

256

52

3:1 3:2

27

15

27

19:15

256

19

lx , 2 8 8 , 2 8 9

3:9

2

54

2 1 :2

214

21

289

3:1 5

263

2 1 :8

256

23

lx x x v ii, 2 8 7

3 :1 6

27

25

287, 298, 300

3 :1 7

103

2 1 :2 7 2 2:3 2 2 :1 5

38 17 256