Abstract
This book is a collection of the author's articles and chapters on Galatians—the earliest from 1982, the latest 2012. Instead of revising earlier work, Murphy-O'Connor let the original essays stand, including a postscript to each to inform the reader of the present state of research.
In chapter 1, Murphy-O'Connor argues that, despite Acts 15–18, the evidence of Paul's letters indicates that “prior to the Jerusalem Conference of AD 51 [Paul] had evangelized Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia” (p. 21). Chapter 2 is a brief note on Paul's aside that he “went away into Arabia …' (Gal 1:17), arguing that “Arabia” is likely “Arabia of the Nabataeans,” a region hostile to the Jews at this time. Consequently, Murphy-O'Connor postulates that only political opposition to his missionary activity could account for Paul's brief stay and the continuing desire of the Nabataeans to arrest him (2 Cor 11:32–33). Thus, Paul saw himself as a missionary from the beginning. Chapter 3 explains Paul's usage of two words for Jerusalem—Hiersoloyma and Ierusalêm—by suggesting that the former word was used by Paul's opponents (as was customary when Diaspora Jews addressed Gentile audiences) and the latter was Paul's own usage based on the LXX. To explain how Paul could emphasize his independence from human authority (Gal 1:11–12) while stating that he feared that leaders in Jerusalem would render his work “vain” (Gal 2:2), chapter 4 posits a “literary sleight of hand” (p. 58). Paul, the skilled orator, plays up the authority of the Jerusalem leaders only to ram home the earlier conclusion of these leaders that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. The supposed contradiction is, thus, formal/rhetorical, not material. In chapter 5, Murphy-O'Connor explains James' reversal of policy from accepting Gentiles into the church without circumcision at the Jerusalem council (Gal 2:1–10) to requiring strict observance of dietary laws in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). Murphy-O'Connor argues that the former stance on circumcision is motivated by James' nationalistic concern to avoid diluting Jewish identity with potentially disloyal Gentiles, while the latter position on dietary laws strengthened ties to Jewish identity for Jewish Christians at Antioch. The incident at Antioch, then, was the impetus for Paul becoming “resolutely and radically antinomian” (p. 73). Murphy-O'Connor argues in chapter 6 that Paul's unique understanding of Jesus as the sinless self-sacrificing Messiah provides the key for understanding his thesis in Gal 2:15–16a. Here Paul attributes a position to his opponents that they should have maintained—viz., “no one is justified by the works of [the] law but only by [the] faithfulness of Jesus Christ” [Murphy-O'Connor's translation]—because, based on popular messianic expectation, when the Messiah came the law would no longer define the “community of salvation” p. 82). Again, Paul's rhetorical skill is on display, as he employs bait-and-switch tactics to refute his opponents. Chapter 7 is Murphy-O'Connor's explanation of the apparent anachronism of Galatians 3:15, in which Paul asserts, falsely, that a ratified will cannot be cancelled or amended. Expanding a suggestion of William Ramsey that Roman adoption law is the proper background of the verse, Murphy-O'Connor argues that Paul appeals here to “the common estimation” of these laws in which adoption of an adult heir should not be subject to reversal. Consequently, at this point in Galatians, Jewish tradition is much less important in Paul's argument than the common opinion of Greco-Roman law. In Chapter 8, Murphy-O'Connor brings Galatians 4:13–14 to bear on the question of the recipients and location of Galatians, arguing that the fact that Paul initially preached only because an illness forced him to stop travelling and that he addresses the Galatians in the second-person plural provide strong evidence for the North Galatia hypothesis. This is so because “[t]he natural meaning of the text is that Paul's illness had an impact on a relatively small number of people at the same time” (p. 118), a situation that is not possible under the North Galatia view. Rejecting the common view that Paul's curious phrase “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2) refers to the law of Moses somehow transformed by Christ, Murphy-O'Connor offers in chapter 9 an account of “the law which is Christ” as “a living unwritten law” (p. 139), further supporting his view that Paul is antinomian. In chapter 10, Murphy-O'Connor argues that the development in Paul's Christology between 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Galatians, specifically his emphasis on Jesus' crucifixion and the union of believers with Christ in the latter, is due to the polemical situation in Galatia. The emphases of his opponents on Abraham and righteousness through the law led to disunity, forcing Paul to deploy his Christology in novel ways to hold the church together.
Murphy-O'Connor deploys his knowledge of early Christianity and the Greco-Roman world to historical and literary problems. Though his solutions do not always convince, the problems identified are real and the evaluations of the major alternatives fair. Occasionally, Murphy-O'Connor relies on contested scholarship without alerting the reader to the debate—e.g., “messianism” in Judaism and “messiah” in Paul are controversial topics (see Matthew V. Novenson Christ Among the Messiahs, Oxford University Press, 2012). Murphy-O'Connor's assumed audience reads French and German and is able to follow discussions of Greek grammar, suggesting a specialist reader. These essays can, however, be read with profit by nonspecialists, and Murphy-O'Connor's carefully argued chapters provide useful guides to a number of key issues in Galatians.