Galatians roundup

Blog posts on Galatians seem to be feast or famine. We can go a couple of weeks with nothing and then suddenly there are several to report.

Michael F. Bird reports that the two most persuasive arguments he has read regarding Gal. 2.11-14 are by Mark Nanos and Peter Tomson. You can check out the reasons for that here or read Tomson’s book, the details of which are below.

Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Section Three. Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature, 1). Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990. 9023224906, 9789023224907. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. 080062467X, 9780800624675.

Peter M. Head looks at the argument of Angela Standhartinger [“Colossians and the Pauline School” NTS 50 (2004): 571-593] with relation to Galatians and concludes that she overstretches the evidence in making her conclusion that Paul did not anticipate his letters being copied.

Stephen C. Carlson reports on extensive errata in Swanson’s collation of C in Galatians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s