Loading...
I see that I have fallen behind in this series on the “New Testament in a Nutshell” in my posts that provide a bullet-point overview of each book (“at a glance”) and the kinds of questions I ask my students to reflect on after they have studied the text. Catch-up time! Here I deal with the letter to the Galatians. If you want to review the earlier nutshell posts on it, you can find them here:
At a Glance: Galatians
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
- The letter to the Galatians is written to a group of churches in the Roman province of Galatia, in Asia Minor.
- Paul had established churches there; but after he left, other missionaries arrived proclaiming a different version of the gospel.
- These other missionaries insisted that Gentiles had to become circumcised and keep the Jewish Law to be fully right with God.
- Paul’s angry response begins with an autobiographical sketch designed to show that his version of the gospel came directly from God through a vision of Christ, not through any human agency.
- He then argues vehemently that salvation comes to Gentiles by faith in Christ alone, not by keeping the Jewish Law. Any Gentile who thinks Law observation is necessary has missed the point and may well miss out on salvation.
- The letter concludes with ethical admonitions, showing that for Paul, the Law-free gospel does not lead to lawless behavior.
Questions for Reflection: Galatians
- Paul seems unusually angry in his letter to the Galatians, more than in his other letters. Why do you think that is? Compared with, say, the severe moral and theological problems in Corinth the Galatians’ issues seem far less significant. Why would Paul be so upset if the men in the congregation decided to be circumcised?
- Pretend you are a Christian in the church of Galatia who thinks that Paul has gotten his gospel completely wrong, while the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem (e.g., James and Cephas) have it right: to be a true follower of the Jewish messiah, you have to follow the Jewish Law. Argue your case.
- Paul makes a vehement argument in Galatians that followers of Jesus are not to adopt the ways of Judaism, and are not to be concerned about keeping the “works of the [Jewish] law.” If that’s the case, why, near the end of the letter, does he tell his readers they are to serve one another because the law is fulfilled by those who keep the commandment “love their neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5:14; quoting Leviticus 19:18). Doesn’t that assume that they are to fulfill the law? Why not the entire law?
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
17 Comments
Leave A Comment
Hi Bart /Dr Ehrman.
I’m aware of your views in regards the Jews believing the soul did not go on after death to punishment or rewards.
What do you think of 1 Enoch where it seems to show the soul going to an afterlife realm specifically to Sheol in a different compartment? Thanks.
Hi Bart /Dr Ehrman.
I sent you a thank you card almost 4 weeks ago with a return envelope and two pics and two lables to sign. Just wondering did you get them?
Regards Daniel
Greetings Bart; on the questions of reflections, I believe Paul was angry, Paul took the rejection of his theology as not only personal to himself but a rejection of a theology he felt passionate about. Compared to the Corinthians who had some moral issues, I think Paul looked at that as folks who needed his love and guidance, and of course, Jesus. I think it can be argued that you can’t be a true Messiah follower without first immersing oneself in the Jewish law, customs , rituals and the Jewish God. Only then, is one going to fully know how God wants us to act towards each other, and his plan on the future Messiah. Once one has that knowledge, they should understand the role Christ played (his sacrifice) and the torn curtain.
I believe Paul truly believed that if one loved his neighbor as himself he would be fulfilling Gods law along with loving God with all your heart sole and mind at the same time.
The executive summaries provided do more for my easy understanding of the letters than I could have imagined.
Good! Thanks.
Hello Bart/ Dr Ehrman.
I read this comment below that I didn’t know how to deal with. Mabie you can shed some light on what you think of this comment. Thank you.
In the second temple period Greek and zoroastrain influences led sheol to be reimagined to be a place of punishment or a place of blessings, and punishments in different compartments, similar to the Greek Underworld where there are compartments of bliss and torment (Elysian fields and Tarturus ) or the zoroastrian underworld ( basically the common notion of hell) these ideas of the immediate afterlife bliss/torment isn’t necessarily exclusive from ideas of a Resurrection. These second temple Jewish Concepts were influential to Christian notions of heaven and hell. I would think as such it is very possible that Jesus and his disciples along with Jews of his day to hold to a dualistic understanding of human anthropology.
Well, I’m not sure what this person is referring to in Judaism, unless it is 1 Enoch. In my book Heaven and Hell I explain why I don’t think Zoroastrianism had much effect on Jewish and then Christian thought; but the notions of hell as a place of torment definitely has parallels in Greek and Roman tradition, seen vividly in some passages of Plato and Virgil.
Hello Bart, What was Peter’s or James views on why a Pagan would have to follow the Jewish law and believe in Jesus in order to be forgiven or fulfilled in Gods eyes? If one were to live by the Golden rule, wouldn’t that be enough? The Hebrew people had a covenant with God, Pagans were in a different position were they not?
God made the Israelites his chosen people and gave them the covenant, which entailed the entire Law of Moses. Being among the people of God entailed keeping the covenant, not simply keeping the golden rule. That was a standard Jewish view, and they were committed Jews. (As it turns out, the vast majority of Christians then and now did not think keeping the Golden Rule was sufficient; from the outset, one had to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The question was whether one had to become a member of God’s chosen people)
Thanks Bart!! I was so focused on Jewish law vs golden rule and death/resurrection. I didn’t see that the focus was becoming a member of Gods chosen people. Reminds me a little bit of today’s world. Thanks again
I’ve recently discovered the field of rhetorical criticism, particularly through the work of the late George A. Kennedy, a fellow scholar of yours from UNC Chapel Hill. I find this approach fascinating and plausible, as it’s reasonable to assume that Paul was trained in the rhetorical strategies common during his time. This perspective opens up (at least for me) whole new avenues for interpreting his writings.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on rhetorical criticism as a subset of New Testament criticism. Regarding Aristotle’s observations on rhetoric, it’s intriguing to note that he recommends a polemical style when writing to young, enthusiastic audiences, while a more distinguished style is better suited for older readers.
This got me thinking about Paul’s tone in Galatians. Perhaps his apparent anger isn’t solely a reflection of his personal emotional state but rather a deliberate rhetorical strategy tailored to his audience. If the Galatians were on average a younger audience, Paul may have employed a more passionate tone, leveraging pathos to convey his message effectively. What are your thoughts on this interpretation?
Yes, Kennedy’s approach to rhetoric was the old-style Aristotelian approach applied with rigor to the NT. I think there can be some good uses of this kind of approach, but the problem very quickly became that graduate students and scholars who were attracted to it thought that if one coule identify the various rhetorical features of a text they had then “interpreted” it. Generic features are, of course, important for literary analysis; but they are only a part of a very big piuzzle and interpretation entails so much more than that.
Do you think it’s too simplistic/reductionist to suggest that Paul’s harsh tone in Galatians is primarily due to his audience’s age, given Aristotle’s advice to use a polemical approach with younger audiences and a more refined approach with older ones?
I wouldn’t say it’s simplistic. I’d say there is nothing to suggest it. Nothing suggests Paul wsa influenced directly by Aristotle, angry letters can be found throughout antiquity, almost always because the writers were angry!