Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Galatians

  • Galatians 3:2: AKOE PISTEOS

    Or should I make that AKOH PISTEWS? Note that a similar question can be asked in Galatians 3:5, but I will assume due to theme that one will give the same answer in both places.

    Writing an exegetical article on this verse could be quite lengthy, but I agree with J. Louis Martyn in his commentary on Galatians when he says:

    . . . Paul is not asking the Galatians which of two human acts served as the generative locus in which they received the Spirit, a decision on their part to keep the Law or a decision on their part to hear with faith. On the contrary, he is asking rhetorically whether that generative locus was

    • their act in becoming observant of the Law or
    • God’s message (akoh).

    — page 288 [some punctuation/formatting including Greek rather than transliterated text is mine-HN]

    The specific translation of akoh pistewj depends on two factors. First, should the word “hearing” be active or passive, in other words is the thing that generates the reception of the Spirit the act of hearing, or the content of what is heard, the message? The second is how does faith relate to the message. Is it a message that is faith, or is it a message that elicits faith? Martyn (op. cit.) Romans 10:16-17, where the message is much more clearly established as that which elicits faith, and the word akoh is also pretty clearly established as passive in intent.

    So how do translations compare on this. Here are some examples, showing the variety on these two points:

    • TNIV – Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard. [This agrees with the NIV, which is surprising considering the accusations of Calvinist bias in the NIV translation.]
    • REB – did you receive the Spirit by keeping the law or by believing the gospel message?
    • NLT – Did you receive the Holy Spirit by keeping the law? Of course not, for the Holy Spirit came upon you only after you believed the message you heard about Christ.
    • ESV – Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
    • CEV – How were you given God’s Spirit? Was it by obeying the Law of Moses or by hearing about Christ and having faith in him?
    • TEV – did you receive God’s Spirit by doing what the Law requires or by hearing the gospel and believing it?

    I don’t see any translation that gets quite the nuance that I see in this passage, though perhaps I’m being a bit too tense. In this case, I think the NLT actually has the best translation with the CEV and TEV following very close after.

    Of course, it’s hard for translations to get everything right. In this case, however, I think that formal equivalent translations, such as the ESV really leave the English reader hanging, because “hearing of faith” cannot possibly elicit the same semantic ranger as akoh pistews, with unfortunate results.

  • Galatians and Penal Substitutionary Atonement

    It will generally surprise nobody that I am not a fan of penal substitutionary atonement, as I’ve written about it before. I do believe that PSA is one valid metaphor that helps us understand the greater truth that is the atonement. What I object to is making this particular metaphor the central fact of the atonement.

    One pillar on which PSA stands is the idea that justification should be understood primarily in a judicial sense. In commenting on this on Compuserve Religion Forum, I brought material in from J. Louis Martyn. The following is quoted from my message there:

    At an earlier time I would have granted the notion that Paul’s use of “justification/justify/righteousness” was related to the language of the courtroom, but I am changing my mind on that point.  I have been reading Galatians through in Greek for my devotions, along with J. Louis Martyn’s commentary from the Anchor Bible series.  He makes some serious points on understanding Paul’s usage of the terms, starting from the basic early Jewish-Christian (Christians of Jewish birth) understanding, through the concord between the Jewish and Gentile missions, and from there to the specific approach of the teachers against whom Paul argues in Galatians.

    Let me just quote a short portion:

    “. . . All of the translation options listed above [he has listed the major English translations-HN] have one weighty liability: they are at home either in the language of the law– where “to justify” implies the existence of a definable legal norm–or in the language of religion and morality–where “righteousness” implies a definable religious or moral norm.  As we will see, Paul intends his term to be taken into neither of these linguistic realms. . . . ”  — p. 249-250, commenting on Galatians 2:16

    It would be well beyond the sort of effort I’m willing to put in to quote all the relevant arguments, not to mention it would bring up questions of copyright, but I think Martyn does an excellent job of discussing these points.  In fact, those who read “justify” in a legal context fall into part of the error of the teachers who are the target of Paul’s wrath.

    I would commend reading Martyn’s work on Galatians and also from his collection of essays Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul.  I have to admit that I have had to shift a number of my previous viewpoints on Paul’s views through reading these two books.  As another example, Martyn argues convincingly that Paul never speaks of Judaism as such in Galatians.  When he refers to Jerusalem as Hagar (Galatians 4:21-31) he does not mean Jews and Judaism, but rather the church of Jerusalem and specifically the mission that was claiming its support in a mission to the gentiles that required Torah observance of gentiles.

    I have to add this now to my short list of books that have fundamentally shifted some portion of my Biblical understanding.  Jacob Milgrom’s Leviticus is first, then Gordon Fee’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, Brevard Childs’ Isaiah, and now Martyn’s Galatians.  All of them powerful pieces of writing.

    Feel free to comment either here or in the Religion Forum thread as linked above.

  • Martyn on Historical Methods (Galatians)

    I’m doing a run through J. Louis Martyn’s commentary on Galatians (Anchor Bible)Galatians (Anchor Bible), and enjoying it a great deal. He has a paragraph on historical methodology to which I want to call your attention:

    Convincing attempts to present a chronology of Paul’s travels and labors are based on a simple rule: Our first and decisive attempt to discern the chronology of Paul’s work is to be made on the basis of the letters alone. As a second and separable step, we may turn to Acts. Even in that second step, however, one accepts from Acts only points of confirmation and supportive elucidation. . . . — p. 17

    This is a key dividing point in Biblical studies generally between those who accept Biblical inerrancy, particularly in his stronger forms, and those who do not. If one believes the Bible is in all cases historically inerrant, one will tend to accept all Biblical sources equally, though with due consideration to perspective. One might even tend more readily to accept Acts as the better historical source, seeing as it was ostensibly written with the intent of presenting a historical account. (In fact, Acts was more written with an apologetic intent, but that is another issue.)

    If we look at Biblical texts from a historian’s point of view, we will take a different approach. In that case, a document written by one of the primary characters is a primary source of information, while a history written by someone else, based on such sources, even though he presumably had access to witnesses and to better documentation that we have today, is still a secondary source. Your first and best option is what you can learn from the primary sources.

    In taking such a historical view, however, one needn’t be quite as pessimistic about the historicity of Acts as Martyn appears to be, by accepting only “points of confirmation and supportive elucidation.” Acts must be itself evaluated as an historical source, and it appears to me that Martyn himself gives it a fairly substantial role in areas other than chronology in the rest of his commentary.

    Whichever side of this divide you are in terms of approach to studying the Bible as history, you need to be aware of the divide, because it will color debates, especially in online forums and the blogosphere where a large number of different viewpoints clash quickly. Understanding the methodology behind such choices is important. If two people are not in agreement on the weight to be given the various sources, they are unlikely to come to the same conclusions about any particular historical event.

    An interesting example of a later connection between the story in Acts and that in the Pauline letters comes in relation to Acts 15 and the Jerusalem conference. It is interesting to note that Paul’s accusation against the teachers, that they were “troubling” (Galatians 1:7) uses the same Greek word as does Acts 15:24 in describing what certain people had been doing in the gentile churches. Is it possible that Paul is specifically referring to the decree of that conference? A combination of texts from Galatians could be used to gather a more precise idea of the nature of that Jerusalem meeting. (Note that while the connection is mentioned, Martyn does not bring up the issue of historicity in connection with these two verses.)