Wednesday, May 08, 2013

Galatians 2.20b reconsidered

The latest issue of Novum Testamentum has an interesting article:
J. van Nes, '"Faith(fulness) of the Son of God"? Galatians 2:20b Reconsidered' NovT 55 (2013), 127-139.

In this article van Nes argues for the P46 reading: EN PISTEI ZW TOU QEOU KAI XRISTOU and argues that these are both objective genitives ('I live by faith in God and Christ') which suggests that other Pauline pistis Christou references are also likely objective genitives.

This of course is not news to readers of this blog, since I argued for this reading in 2006 (here, with, as usual, some helpful discussion in the comments) [and the blog posting is noted on p. 132 note 17, and also on p. 137 note 38].


  1. I suppose the problem will not go away, because someone will undoubtedly argue that this variant reading should be translated "I live by the faithfulness of God and Christ" instead. So what's new?

  2. After reading the article, although I learned of several new nuances and a couple new resources, I too was hoping to see more dialogue with recent TC work on this passage that this article could have benefited from and/or dialogued with. For example, as Peter Head noted his 2006 thoughts, I'll point to some of mine: chapter 6 of "Revisiting the Corruption of the NT," pages 254-256; albeit still a very brief treatment stating that more work needs to be done.

  3. Anonymouse: I tend to agree. I understand this is Stephen Carlson's view in his PhD on the text of Galatians (mentioned in the article).

  4. Brian,
    Thanks for that. I hadn't thought of reading the variant in the way that Bart Ehrman does, and doubt his argument/assertion really represents what this text was thought to mean. (In fact his whole discussion is a little flakey).

  5. Thanks, Peter. I need to check Stephen's thesis.

    (remembered to sign this time :))

  6. Yes, Peter, you are correct about my view.

  7. Peter,

    I'm not sure about Ehrman's latest position on the text, but I'll take your word for it.

    One of my points was that Harris, Brown, Wainwright, and others have noted that the "kai" can be translated appositionally if one goes with that variant, and I've noted some syntactical parallels (though there are others just with "kai").

    Thus, even if we grant his TC conclusion, must we translate it that way w/o further justification?

  8. I read Stephen's dissertation, and I tend to agree with him.