Abstract
Lutheran scholars of Galatians might feel themselves ‘under the curse of the Law’, because their stance is sometimes treated as something from which Pauline scholarship must be redeemed. Few Lutheran commentators would utterly dismiss critique of Luther’s methodological presumptions, especially the use of Paul to reconstruct ancient Judaism; yet, as Das intimates in his preface, Luther’s scholarly descendants can be pigeon-holed as stalwarts, stubbornly and uncritically defending Luther’s draconian presuppositions. This commentary skilfully counters such prejudice.
Unsurprisingly, Das is sceptical of ‘New Perspective’ scholarship. Dunn’s influential position that Torah’s principal constraint is its congenital marginalization of Gentiles is given short shrift for failing to adequately explicate ‘righteousness’ in Galatians. For Das, it is not that the Law limits righteousness to Jews, but that it simply cannot convey righteousness (p. 275); furthermore, the ‘curse’ language of 3.10 is unrelated to the ethnic aspects of the Law (p. 313). Das argues that the implied premise of Law’s curse is humanity’s inability to keep the Law faultlessly.
Positively, Das’s commentary gives welcome attention to complex quandaries in Galatians, like the Spirit–promise relationship (pp. 332-36) or love fulfilling Torah (pp. 548-55), routinely quieted by more publicized debates (though laypersons may find the meticulous detail intimidating). Das’s commitment to offering a breadth of hermeneutic possibilities based on linguistic nuances will be particularly useful to scholars doing more extensive Galatians research. Occasionally, his appeals to ancient secular literature in support of minority readings of texts feel somewhat labyrinthine. Nonetheless, Das’s commentary will prove an invaluable scholarly resource for studying Galatians.