The every vigilent Richard Fellows has noted that Carlson’s dissertation has bolstered his argument for the timeline of events with relation to Galatians 2:12. Check out his post and see what you think. The reading ἦλθεν is attested to by P46 01 03. However, NA28 won’t see any change by the look of it so most translations will stick with ηλθον “they.”
In Monday with Mounce he looks at Galatians 2:20 and asks in what sense do I still live? How should we translate Χριστῷ συνεσταυραύρωμαι?
Head on over to see what he has to say and most importantly ask yourself his conclusion: “So the question is, how different is your life? Is it characterized by death to self and a life of faith and love? Or, if the truth be known, is there little difference?”
You might also want to see
Scot McKnight, “The Ego and ‘I’: Galatians 2:19 in New Perspective.” Word & World. 20:3 (2000): 272-280.
I haven’t had a chance to read it but there is an interesting sounding article in the latest issue of CBQ:
Debbie Hunn, “Christ Versus the Law: Issues in Galatians 2:17-18.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 72:3 (2010): 537-555.
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.
Michael F. Bird is writing an essay for a volume in honour of Martin Hengel on “The Incident in Antioch: The Making of Paulinism.” You can surf on over for a summary of what he takes to be the formative factors and decisive events leading up to the incident in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14).
My title pretty much sums up the story. He looks at the structure of these verses in light of the problem in Galatia. In light of what has been discussed lately with regard to James and the circumcision party I note this statement “Note also that the James Gang are recharacterized as ‘the circumcision,’ further confirming that the Jew/Gentile distinction is the crux of the matter.”
We finally come to ἀλλά in v. 14, which Levinsohn, Brannan and I understand to introduce something the [sic] corrects or replaces some proposition from the preceding context. The question is, what is it? From my view, the proposition that is corrected is v. 12, essentially hanging out with the Gentiles, then deciding it was wrong when distinguished guests arrived. One could argue that v. 13 should be included in the “proposition to be corrected,” but I view it as being an ancillary result of the core issue with Peter. Had he not withdrawn, there is a good chance the others (EVEN Barnabas!) would not have withdrawn either.
Brannan is Ric Brannan, also of Logos Bible Software, who has written extensively on the use of ἀλλά. Head on over for the rest of the post.
Biblica has posted its latest issue and it includes an article on Galatians. I see that they have changed their presentation to graphics which preserves the formatting but prevents searching. I’m kind of surprised that they don’t just give us pdf files but I suppose they are trying to prevent them from being widely distributed.
Debbie Hunn, “Pleasing God or Pleasing People? Defending the Gospel in Galatians 1–2.” Biblica. 91:1 (2010): 24-49.