A new article has appeared:
Hans Förster, “Zwei Papyrusfragmente mit sahidischen Texten aus dem Neuen Testament (Lk 9,12b. 17c-18. 22b-23a und Gal 4,20c-24a. 25c-28): Edition von P.Vindob. K. 7654 und P.Vindob. K. 7598.” Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie. 15 (2009): 77-84.
“Two papyrus fragments with Sahidic texts from the New Testament (Luke 9.12 b. 17c-18th 22b-23a and Gal 4.20 c-24a. 25c-28): Edition of P. Vindob. K 7654 and P . Vindob. K. 7598.”
J. R. Daniel Kirk has stated emphatically that Galatians 5:6 should be translated as “faith working through love” in opposition to the NIV’s use of “faith expressing itself through love.” Peter Kirk has posted a long reply in which he sets out the argument that it should be rendered as “something like ‘faith put to work through love,’ but perhaps it is necessary to make more explicit that it is not believers who are putting faith to work.”
I have a done a quick comparison of translations and obviously the majority have gone with “working” although there are a number of other options used:
“faith working through love” ASV, Darby, ESV, HCSB, KJV, LB, LEB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NET, NJB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, YLT, (Douay-Rheims, “works by charity”)
“faith expressing itself through love” GW, Message, NIV, NLT, TNIV, Wuest, (NIrV, “shows itself through love”)
“faith that makes you love others” CEV
“faith that is active through love” ISV
“faith that is activated and energized and expressed and working through love” Amplified
“trusting faithfulness expressing itself through love” JewishNT
I’ve been taking an intensive linguistics course this week and have barely been able to even keep up with all the posting on Galatians. When it rains it pours. For your edification here’s what’s being discussed.
Stephen C. Carlson writes on “Translating Σάρξ in Gal 3:3.”
Jason Staples replies on why “‘Flesh’ is not ‘Human effort’ in Gal 3:3.”
There has been a lot written on the flesh/Spirit contrast in Galatians but they both focus on 3:3.
Brian LePort takes a look at “Translating προεγράφη in Galatians 3.1.” LePort concludes his post with “Is it possible that Gal. 3.1 is some sort of reference to Jesus being portrayed from Scripture? What does Paul mean by being publicly portrayed?” After many replies he posted a second time…”Is προεγράφη in Galatians 3.1 a Reference to Drawing/Sketching the Crucifixion?”
LePort has obviously been busy studying Galatians 3 this week as he also posts on “An Oft Ignored Definition of the Gospel: Galatians 3.8.” Both posts have several comments from knowledgeable bloggers so they are worth checking out.
Mouce asks “To metaphor or not to metaphor; That is the question of Galatians 3:24.” What does the Law being “put in charge” mean? Head on over to check our the discussion.
After mentioning the paucity of new Galatians material recently I have come across several in the last week. Here’s another one by Bruce Longenecker. A limited preview is available on Amazon.
Bruce W. Longenecker, “The Poor of Galatians 2:10: The Interpretative Paradigm of the First Four Centuries.” In, Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2009. 205-221. 9780802864147.
Last month saw the release of a new entry in the Library of New Testament Studies:
Bruce Hansen, All of You Are One: The Social Vision of Galatians 3.28, 1 Corinthians 12.13 and Colossians 3.11. (Library of New Testament Studies) T&T Clark, 2010. $120. 0567136043, 9780567136046.
This book is based on a 2007 dissertation submitted to St. Andrews and supervised by Richard Bauckham and Joel B. Green. You can read and download it here.
Here is the blurb from Amazon about his thesis:
Hansen argues that unity formula employed in “Gal 3.28”, “1 Cor 12.13” and “Col 3.11” offers equality between competing social groups. Hansen argues against prevalent views that the unity formula employed in “Gal 3.28”, “1 Cor 12.13” and “Col 3.11” reflects either a Hellenistic anthropology of ideal androgyny or a modern liberal conception of social equality. Rather, Hansen contends, attention to function and context demonstrates each epistle’s vision of social unity. Insights from ethnic theory elucidate how the epistles characterize this unity in terms of a new social identity, and the practices warranted by that identity. Furthermore, Hansen claims that because identity construction is continual, dynamic and discursive, alternate identities (e.g. ethnic, gender, religious, economic) within the new Christian communities, may be seen as influencing one another and may be termed as the collective Christian identity. Hansen employs theories from Ethnic study as tools for assessing how such overlapping identities persist and interact with one another. His analysis thereby demonstrates that the social unity promoted by this formula opposes cultural dominance by any particular group and, conversely reinforces the persistence of marginal social identities within new communities. The issue is then not one of gender equality, but of the equality that Paul wishes to develop between competing social groups.
The Better Bibles blog has a post today on Galatians as a hortatory text. There haven’t been too many posts related to Galatians recently so it is good to get my fix today :). Here’s the conclusion:
The main reason to suggest that Gal 2:11-21 happened after Gal 2:1-10 is the assumption that things ought to be told in chronological order, but as I have tried to show, such an assumption does not apply to a hortatory text. The problems and admonitions in such a text are rarely told in chronological order, since that would be irrelevant for building up the case for change.
