Gal 2:19-20 ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι · 20 ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός · ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.  

RE The text of Gal 2:20, Ehrman’s brilliant student, Carlson has convinced me of ** you do not have permission to see this link **:

“the intrinsic probabilities suggest that “God and Christ” fits the context better than “Son of God,” and the transcriptional probabilities also favor the “God and Christ” reading. For these reasons, the “God and Christ” reading, τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ, ought to be
adopted for a critical text of Galatians.”

In favor of his rejection of the “Son of God” reading, Carlson (p. 131) cites Campbell saying: “‘The Son of God’ is not a name for Paul (and only Gal. 2:20 uses it).”

Against his argument, Carlson (p. 132) cites the NET:

“54 So NET 860: “The construction ‘of God and Christ’ appears to be motivated as a more explicit affirmation of the
deity of Christ (following as it apparently does the Granville Sharp rule). Although Paul certainly has an elevated
Christology, explicit ‘God-talk’ with reference to Jesus does not normal appear until the later books.”

Also, Carlson cites Ehrman (p. 132) who says that:

“…if the reading was original to Paul, it would refer to two separate persons, not to a single God-Christ person.”

—————–

Supposing Carlson is right–“God and Christ” was what Paul wrote. And also being convinced that Ehrman is right–it is not like Paul to refer to a single God-Christ person–My question is this:

Was Paul quoting a pre-Pauline tradition? Perhaps a very early tradition calling Jesus “God” in the sense that the king was called “God” in Ps 45:6-7 (Cf Heb 1:8) as discussed by ** you do not have permission to see this link **:

“Even more stark is ** you do not have permission to see this link **, where the king is addressed in the following remarkably exalted terms, as a God:

Your throne O God, endures forever and ever

              Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;

You love righteousness and hate wickedness

              Therefore God, your God, has anointed you

                             With the oil of gladness beyond your companions…

It is clear that the person addressed as “O God”  (Elohim) is not God Almighty but the king, because of what is said later:  God Almighty is the king’s own God and has “anointed” him with oil – the standard act of the king’s coronation ceremony in ancient Israel.  And so God has both anointed and exalted the king above all others, even to a level of deity.   The king is in some sense God.  Not equal with God Almighty, obviously (since the differentiation is made clearly, even here), but God nonetheless.”

Robert said

Gal 2:20  ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ π

What are your reasons for thinking part of Gal 2,20 is a pre-Pauline tradition? 

I have my own reasons for thinking the “God and Christ” reading it is original to Galatians. I think Hebrews echoes the Christology of Gal 2:20 where God and Christ are possibly to be understood in the sense of Heb 1:8. Also Heb echos Gal 4:14, where “an angel of God” and “Christ Jesus” are equated. Cf Heb Ch 1-2. Hebrews is working out the implications of the ambiguities of Paul’s language in Galatians. But Carlson makes the case quite well on other grounds, so I’m not trying to prove that he has already proven. I’m only working out the implications.

As to why I think it might be pre-Pauline:

1. It is not like Paul to call Jesus a God-Christ person.

2. It could be part of an early exaltation Christology where the risen Son of God is also called “the God and Christ” in the sense of an Israelite king who is “anointed” by “God” and is also called “God” in Ps. 45:6-7.

3. On the other hand, or in addition, it could have been part of an incarnation Christology because of what happens: Jesus is the God and Christ who love me and gave himself for me. As in the Christ hymn of Phil.