Betz and Bruce on Galatians

By Moisés Silva

Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. xxx, 352. $27.95). F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. xx, 305. $15.95). This article is a revision of a lecture delivered at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, under the auspices of the Student Association.

Paul’s short letter to the churches in Galatia has had remarkable influence throughout the history of the Christian church—one need only think of Luther in this regard. The fascination that this epistle continues to hold may be gauged from the large number and great variety of popular expositions that seem to appear without interruption.[1] Moreover, the amount of research that modern scholarship has devoted to these six chapters seems completely out of proportion to the size of the epistle.

The interpretation of the Greek text of Galatians during the past century has been dominated by the imposing presence of two commentaries. One of these, authored by J. B. Lightfoot, was first published in 1865. Strikingly lucid, this work was characterized by a deceptive economy of language (only 236 pp.) that concealed the author’s massive erudition. The other commentary was anything but succinct: Ernest DeWitt Burton’s 600-page work, published in 1921, became a showpiece for the International Critical Commentary series. Burton’s detailed grammatical explanations and his extensive lexical notes discouraged even the most ambitious from attempting a commentary on the Greek text of Galatians for over half a century.

But now, within three years, two major works have appeared: one by Hans Dieter Betz, who teaches at the University of Chicago Divinity School, and the other by F. F. Bruce, who only a few years ago retired from the Rylands Chair at the University of Manchester. We are today exceedingly fortunate to be able to enjoy these works on the Greek text of Galatians, not only because they are both up-to-date and highly competent, but because, in spite of some inevitable overlap, they deal with the material from very different perspectives. Indeed, it would be difficult to think of two prominent figures in contemporary biblical scholarship more different from each other than Bruce and Betz are. These two commentaries are, in effect, a study in contrasts.

To be sure, much of the difference is to be attributed to the nature and purpose of the series for which these commentaries were written. Betz writes for Hermeneia, a project that up to this point had only included (except for the OT vols.) translations of the famous Meyer series—commentaries addressed to the scholarly world and characterized by detailed interaction with current and technical literature. In contrast, the New International Greek Testament Commentary is specifically designed for the use of students “who want something less technical than a full-scale critical commentary” (from the foreword). But even after making allowance for that distinction, it would be foolhardy to deny that these commentaries reflect the stereotypical contrast between the Anglo-Saxon style and the Teutonic Geist. Bruce personifies the best in those qualities—politeness, moderation, absence of parochialism—that most of us, rightly or wrongly, have come to associate with British scholarship. And Betz, though he writes in virtually flawless English, treats us to a thoroughness and scholarly depth that surely arise from his German culture and academic training.[2]

Because commentaries demand of their authors that they express judgments at every turn, no reviewer can avoid noticing many statements that either raise questions in his mind or stimulate his adrenal glands. Rather than listing areas of disagreement, therefore, I propose to compare and contrast these two works in such a way as to focus our attention on principles of interpretation and method of exposition. Though it would be difficult and unwise to avoid dealing with particular exegetical decisions—after all, these illustrate the principles being used—my primary interest is the assessment of these commentaries as wholes, with a view to helping the reader evaluate accurately the substance of the authors’ specific comments as he or she finds occasion to refer to them.

1. Format

On the assumption that form should not—indeed, cannot—be divorced from content, we should recognize that commentary formats have a significant effect on the exposition. In subtle ways, therefore, the user of a commentary, in his attempt to understand Paul via the commentator, may end up the victim of a publisher’s decision.

Those already acquainted with the Hermeneia series are aware of the innovative physical appearance and typesetting of these volumes. It is always a delight to see such care expended on a biblical commentary.[3] One difficulty arises from the encyclopedic character of Betz’s work. His innumerable bibliographical references and quotations from ancient sources have to be put somewhere, and in the Hermeneia series the bottom of the page is the place for them. Now those readers who, like the present reviewer, are afflicted by a peculiar moral scruple that regards as iniquitous the bypassing of numerical superscripts, will find Betz’s work a nightmare. Here is a typical sentence (p. 174):

It is one of the principal doctrines of Judaism101 that God gave102 the Torah103 for the purpose of providing a way for Israel into eternal life.104

The record possibly goes to a long sentence on p. 262, graced as it is with superscripts 81 to 86. Surely this is the foot-and-note disease gone mad.[4] Many of these notes (particularly those consisting only of biblical references) could have been incorporated into the text, as Bruce often does; at times two or three notes could have been combined into one. It must be admitted, however, that for someone who is able to ignore all those little numbers, Betz’s text is remarkably clean and readable.

Of greater moment is the verse-by-verse feature that characterizes both of these commentaries. The convenience afforded by this method guarantees its continuing existence, but in effect it is no more appropriate for the accurate exposition of Paul’s thought than a bar-by-bar analysis is adequate for the evaluation of a Brahms symphony.[5] Bruce himself, in his popular commentary on Romans, has shown one way to deal with Paul’s writings that does greater justice to the coherence of whole paragraphs.[6] At any rate, the user of the typical commentary must develop some sensitivity to the fact that any writing is almost inevitably distorted if one approaches it in atomistic fashion. Paradoxically, the more complicated the passage—so that it appears especially to require a detail-by-detail treatment—the more it suffers from such an approach. Note especially either Betz’s or Bruce’s discussion of Gal 2:17–20.

A few other features call for comment. Both authors provide their own translation of Galatians. Betz accompanies his with selected alternate renderings culled from the standard modern versions, whereas Bruce includes textual notes after each section is translated. Betz divides his comments into two sections: one is the analysis, which consists primarily of literary remarks, and the other is the interpretation. Both works provide indexes, but particularly helpful is the full subject index in Bruce’s commentary.

2. Textual Criticism

In their text-critical comments one finds little contrast between these two commentaries—they are both disappointing, as is virtually every contemporary expositor. I do not mean that their judgment is poor; it is simply that (with a couple of exceptions in Bruce’s work) they do not seek to advance the discussion but rely on the text common today. It used to be in days gone by that someone writing a commentary on the Greek text of the NT was assumed to be an editor of that text. Lightfoot, for example, gives us his Greek text of Galatians at the top of the page (Dean Alford and others did the same for the whole NT). While that approach became less necessary after the work of Westcott and Hort, we find that Burton pays a great deal of attention to textual matters and offers his considered opinion based on an evident familiarity with the MSS themselves. But today NT scholars have largely relinquished their responsibility in this area. Part of the blame goes to the availability of highly regarded editions, most recently the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, a most serviceable instrument but one that may be bringing with it a measure of scholarly apathy.

Bruce, it will be recalled, was involved in the production of Souter’s 1947 edition of the Greek NT. As one might expect, he is comfortable handling the textual evidence, which he summarizes in a selective apparitus. He includes more variants than the UBS text does, but not as many as Nestle-Aland. The number of witnesses mentioned for each variant is roughly comparable to that in Nestle-Aland (that is, fewer than in UBS). Clearly, much thought and care has gone into producing this material. Unfortunately, Bruce devotes no space in the introduction to matters of text, thus we have no way of determining his criteria for selecting variants and witnesses. Whatever value there may be in his data will be lost on most users of the commentary. It should be pointed out, however, that on a few instances Bruce gives considerable attention to text-critical problems; for example, the interesting question regarding the omission of hois oude in 2:5 receives well over a page of informative discussion.

Betz devotes a brief section to the text of Galatians in his introduction (pp. 12-14), but this consists merely of lists that are otherwise available. What the reader needs is a clear overview of the textual history of the epistle, where significant patterns would show up; without some such picture, both commentator and reader are left to evaluating variants and their witnesses in isolation from each other—one more example of atomistic interpretation. As for Betz’s text-critical comments, these are consistently relegated to a couple of lines in the footnotes; there the most frequent statement is, “See Metzger, Textual Commentary.”[7] The flaw, of course, is that when Metzger and the other members of the UBS committee have to make textual decisions, they consult commentaries. But a commentator’s exegetical judgment on competing variants is often of little value unless that judgment has been formed by his familiarity with the textual tradition (for which some examination of the MSS themselves is indispensable). The present estrangement between the fields of textual criticism and exegesis is not very encouraging, and students must learn to take text-critical comments in the commentaries with a good dose of salt.

3. Language

Here too we do not find much of a contrast between the two works, but in this case the reason is that both are very good. Bruce with his background in classics and Betz with his expertise in Hellenistic Greek literature provide excellent models for the responsible handling of Greek. It is all the more interesting to note an absence of philological acrobatics. Any reader hoping to find some fancy footwork on the aorist tense will be greatly disappointed. One is tempted to conclude that an inverse relation exists between a genuine knowledge of the Greek language and the use of subtle grammatical distinctions as a basis for exegetical decisions.

In comparison with Lightfoot and Burton, however, it should be noted that Betz and Bruce often fail to lay out the interpreter’s options when the syntax is ambiguous, as in 2:4 and 4:17–18. (To put it differently, the two older works have not been made obsolete by the two newer ones.) On 3:11, strangely, neither Betz nor Bruce makes the reader aware of the important controversy between the translations “the righteous shall live by faith” (preferred by Betz) and “it is the one who is righteous that will live” (preferred by Bruce); the student surely needs some clear arguments here, such as both authors persuasively give in support of the objective genitive at 2:16, another debated syntactical crux. As mentioned earlier, both authors give less than satisfactory treatments of 2:17–20.[8]

In general, the student of Greek will of course receive more help from Bruce, who incidentally gives brief discussions of semantic fields and other valuable linguistic material; Betz usually assumes that the reader has figured out the syntactical problems on his own.

4. Literary Structure

The differences between the two scholars become especially clear under the present category. Bruce has never shown much interest in the formalities of structural analysis. This does not mean he is insensitive to the importance of literary context; his good exegetical sense consistently alerts him to the need for interpreting details as links in a developing argument. But he never really makes the attempt to formalize those instincts. As a result, his outlines are not always helpful in revealing the structure of the argument.

With Betz it is quite the opposite. In fact, perhaps the single most important contribution of his commentary lies precisely in this area. On the basis of extensive research into the methods of rhetoric in antiquity, Betz has concluded that Galatians belongs clearly to the genre of the “apologetic letter.” His resulting outline consists primarily of a narratio or narrative, a propositio (transitional statement), a probatio (the most decisive section, where the proofs are presented), and an exhortatio; these are in turn divided into numerous subheadings. My initial reaction[9] was one of considerable skepticism, since Galatians bears all the marks of an urgent, passionate letter. Paul, who in any case had no patience with artificial eloquence (e.g. Col 2:4), was least likely in these circumstances to pull out his rhetoric textbooks and carefully compose a literary masterpiece (one senses this incongruity especially in Betz’s analysis of 1:6–7, on pp. 44f).

As one works through the commentary, however, it is difficult to avoid the force of the evidence. In contrast to other attempts at innovative outlines,[10] Betz’s ideas as a rule confirm the intuitions of our finest scholars. Moreover, some of the parallels between Paul’s arguments and Quintilian’s advice are simply too obvious to be disregarded. To be sure, some reservations about this approach remain. Betz never really addresses the question whether Paul actually knew the rhetorical textbooks; and if he did, whether he followed their advice deliberately or unconsciously (granted that no sharp distinction holds between these two modes). Second, at a number of important points Paul seems to go his own way. For example, the hortatory section of the epistle seems an anomaly—even Quintilian does not deal with parenesis (p. 254 n. 2). And in chaps. 3 and 4 of Galatians, where the analysis is described as “extremely difficult,” we are offered the explanation that Paul was very successful “in disguising his argumentative strategy” (p. 129)! Third, Betz himself acknowledges (pp. 54f) that Paul regarded the “art of persuasion” as “rather negative and unfitting” because of its deceptive qualities; yet Betz never attempts to reconcile that fact with Paul’s apparent use of the method. In spite of these reservations, however, I have found the approach illuminating and worthy of further attention.

5. Historical Setting

As one would expect, an important feature distinguishing these commentaries is the relative value they place on the historicity of Acts. Bruce, building on the impressive work of William Ramsay at the turn of the century, has been a leading spokesman for the view that Acts is a reliable historical document. It would be a mistake to think that this view is merely a reflection of Bruce’s theological conservatism. Bruce, one must remember, was trained as a classicist, and the first part of his teaching career involved the study of Thucydides and other ancient authors. His transition to biblical studies must be understood as an attempt to examine the NT documents according to the methods he had learned to use when studying classical literature.[11] This approach, rather than some theological commitment, is primarily responsible for Bruce’s dependence on Acts as a source for reconstructing the historical background of Galatians.

In contrast to all this, Betz has little use for Acts. True, at one point he expresses himself rather positively (pp. 81f):

The author of Acts is a historical writer, interested in historical detail, but he writes from a later perspective, and his information is limited. He adds his tendencies to whatever tendencies may have already been contained in his source material. None of these considerations, however, necessarily renders the data unreliable.

This is a sober assessment that raises our expectations, but only for a moment. Two pages later we read: “It should be clear that the two visits of which we read in Galatians cannot be harmonized with Acts” (p. 84; similarly, p. 63 on Paul’s conversion; p. 10 more generally). On p. 4 he had warned us that “the historical reliability of the itineraries in Acts” is only a “hypothesis”—an exceedingly curious remark, unless he is prepared to apply the same description to any material for which we have only one historical source (in which case the remark is a truism). One might be better disposed toward the author if he had interacted with opposing viewpoints; instead, he basically ignores the massive evidence that has been marshalled in support of Acts. Already in 1970 Bruce had commented: “It is disquieting to see how superficially the North Galatian hypothesis is defended by many of its champions nowadays.”[12] He might as well have been describing Betz’s very weak historical treatment in the introduction to the commentary.

Bruce’s statement, incidentally, may suggest to some readers that a low estimate of Acts goes hand-in-hand with the North Galatian hypothesis (which implies a date for the letter during Paul’s third missionary journey), while a conservative view of Acts favors the South Galatian destination (with the letter usually dated right after the first journey and before the council recorded in Acts 15, AD 49). Bruce himself argues correctly that such a correlation “is neither necessary nor deliberate” (p. 17). We need only remember J. B. Lightfoot and J. Gresham Machen to confirm Bruce’s judgment. Unfortunately, the South Galatian theory is often tied to an early date for Galatians, which many evangelicals feel is necessary in order to avoid a contradiction between Acts 15 and Gal 2:1–10. With considerable overstatement, one conservative scholar has commented that

Paul’s silence in Galatians regarding the decision of the Jerusalem Council forces the irreconcilable dilemma of declaring that either (1) the Acts account of the Council and its decision in Acts 15 is pure fabrication, or (2) the letter to the Galatians was written prior to the Council.[13]

But the similarities between Acts 15 and Gal 2:1–10 are so fundamental, that dating Galatians prior to the Jerusalem Council requires us to use the least satisfactory method of harmonization: the positing of two distinct events when the prima facie reading of two passages suggests that they are treating the same event.[14] There are indeed some difficult problems in equating Acts 15 with Gal 2:1–10, but dating Galatians prior to the events described in Acts 15 is too easy a solution. Though not very popular, the view that combines a South Galatian destination with a dating of the letter during Paul’s Ephesian ministry appears most faithful to the evidence.

6. Jewish Background

Professor Betz has devoted much of his scholarly effort to mastering Hellenistic literature as a means of shedding light on the NT.[15] The index in back of his commentary lists over 200 separate references to Greek and Latin authors; in addition, he has some 30 references to the works of Philo. One is baffled to notice, however, that references to Rabbinic literature come to only about two dozen (and more than half of these are to Pirke ‘Abot). Is it really likely that Paul the Pharisee reflects his Hellenistic background ten times more clearly than his Jewish background? That is probably an unfair way of putting it; and in any case one should allow each scholar to capitalize on his or her interests and expertise. Users of the commentary, however, should be aware of a potential distortion of the material resulting from such heavy dependence on only one side of Paul’s background.[16]

Bruce is certainly much more balanced (and therefore, someone is likely to suggest, less exciting) in his presentation. Moreover, his expertise in Qumran and related areas makes him sensitive to Paul’s Palestinian background. Still, one can argue that even Bruce has not done justice to the exegetical significance of this factor. I am not now concerned primarily with the failure of both commentators to make better use of current Jewish scholarship.[17] Indeed, the problem is not that we need more bibliographic references or more specific parallels.

What is missing is rather a general interpretive framework, a pervasive approach that coincides with the very milieu that gave rise to the epistle in the first place.

Since the author of this review article can hardly pass for an expert in halakic studies, one simple illustration will have to do. The all-important chap. 3 of Galatians appears at first blush to be a general, inclusive statement of Paul’s understanding of the nature and purpose of the Mosaic law. All of us, I fear, tend to isolate this passage from its historical (i.e. first-century Jewish) setting. Paul, however, was in the midst of a struggle for the truth of the gospel, a struggle that involved a very specific group of people with very specific views about the law. Those views were, mutatis mutandis, Paul’s own views before he came to a knowledge of the truth. And in this very epistle (1:14) Paul describes those views as “the ancestral traditions” (tōn patrikōn paradoseōn). Surely no Jew could hear that phrase without interpreting it as a reference to the tôrah šebeʿal peh, the Oral Law—those teachings of men that, according to Jesus, nullified the word of God (Mark 7:8).

Now we would be moving to the opposite extreme if we were to interpret nomos in Galatians 3 as a reference, not to the Mosaic law, but to first-century halakah.[18] But is it really plausible that Paul, in the midst of a controversy with Judaizers, could speak of the law in isolation from the way that law was normally understood in the synagogue? The proper approach to this question has been formulated most clearly by Ridderbos, who argues that again and again Paul takes his starting point from the law

as it functioned in the synagogue’s doctrine of redemption opposed by him, …the law as he saw it before him in the life of the Jews, the law as he himself had also lived from it (Phil 3:6), that is, the law before Christ and the law without Christ.[19]

A greater concern for this aspect of the discussion would naturally have affected Betz and Bruce in some of their theological formulations, a topic to which we now turn.

7. Theology and Exegesis

Bruce tells us in an introductory comment: “Romans must not be made the standard for interpreting Galatians: Galatians must be read and understood in its own right” (p. 2). An almost identical concern is expressed by Betz in his preface: “The attempt to harmonize Galatians with other Pauline letters has been resisted, and so has the attempt to interpret Galatians by interpreting ‘Paul’s theology’ into it” (pp. xv-xvi). This is becoming a common type of remark nowadays,[20] and it reflects a valid and important hermeneutical concern: we must resist reducing all the data in Paul’s letters to their lowest common denominator; we must be sensitive to the distinctive features of each epistle.

As usually expressed, however, this viewpoint is unhelpful, because in effect it entails the abandonment of the principle of contextual interpretation. My criticism may seem strange, but only because we are used to operating with an unjustifiably narrow conception of context; in fact, what Paul says in Romans is part—and a crucially important part—of the context of Galatians.[21] And just as there is nothing wrong with attempting to “harmonize,” say, Gal 3:3 with vv 4 and 5 —that is the fundamental basis of interpretation—so there is nothing wrong in attempting to harmonize Galatians with Romans.

Fortunately, fine exegetical sense prevents our commentators from adhering consistently to their stated rule. Bruce, for example, pays considerable attention to comparing Gal 5:17 with Rom 7:7–25, while Betz makes good use of Rom 4 in explicating Gal 3:6. But more is needed. Greater sensitivity to Paul’s theology in general would surely have kept Betz from attributing to Paul the impossible dichotomy that “the Torah was not given to be faithfully obeyed as covenant, but for the purpose of breaking it and generating sin” (p. 145). Both commentators, in their attempt to be faithful to Paul’s negative characterization of the law, fail to explain to us what is the conceptual difference between (a) stating “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”—with the related curse in Deut 27:26—and (b) listing fornication and idolatry as works of the flesh, the practice of which prevents people from inheriting the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19–21).[22]

Furthermore, it can be argued that the broader concerns of systematic theology provide an additional level of context that must not be ignored by the exegete. At this point, no doubt, I am abandoned by the few who may have followed me thus far. After all, it is normally assumed that the best preparation for exegesis is the good fortune never to have taken a course in dogmatics. Given the confines of this review, I must be satisfied with merely registering my dissent. Someone, however, needs to write an essay on “Systematic Theology as the Presupposition for Responsible Exegesis.”[23]

* * * * *

Many pastors and students of the NT, intimidated by the scholarly apparatus (as well as the price) of Betz’s commentary, will quickly opt for Bruce as their main resource in the exegesis of Galatians. Most certainly, a large proportion of Bruce’s material will prove to have direct value for the pastor. But why choose one over the other? It would be a great shame if concern for relevance—sometimes a disguise for anti-intellectualism—were to keep students of Paul from enjoying the rich and stimulating education that Betz offers in his commentary. And, as a colleague has remarked in a different connection, consider how much more expensive than the book is tuition at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Notes

1. To mention only two recent works of very different character: the well-known theologian Gerhard Ebeling, partly as a result of his study of Luther, has produced a substantive exposition, Die Wahrheit des Evangeliums. Eine Lesehilfe zum Galaterbrief (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981); George C. Lubbers, after nearly fifty years of ministry as pastor and missionary, has produced a warm and very practical book, Freeborn Sons of Sarah: An Exposition of Galatians (Grand Rapids: River Bend Publications, [1982?]).
2. It is indeed ironic that Fortress Press, in publicizing this commentary, has highlighted the fact that this is the first work in Hermeneia originally written in English.
3. Occasionally the Hebrew letters are not aligned properly, as the taw (twice) on p. 145 n. 62. (In this same quotation the he in torah has been spelled with an ‘alep; on p. 321 the Hebrew for “Israel” is also misspelled.)
4. And mark that the author of this review loves to use footnotes.
5. It can be said in all seriousness that a careful reading of a few of Donald F. Tovey’s Essays in Musical Analysis (6 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935–59) might prove of great help to any Pauline expositor.
6. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale NT Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). This work provides verse-by-verse comments only after the respective sections have been expounded as wholes. Similarly, some volumes in the Anchor Bible series make excellent use of the division between Notes and Comments characteristic of that series.
7. How much thought Betz has given to some of the textual variations may be gathered from his comment on Cristou (Gal 1:6): “A number of good witnesses do not have it…, but others do have it…” (p. 48 n. 55). Also symptomatic of the contemporary situation is the fact that, as far as I am aware, no reviewer of Betz’s commentary has expressed dissatisfaction in this area.
8. Cf. most recently Heinz Neitzel, “Zur Interpretation von Galater 2, 11–21, ” TQ 163 (1983) 15–39. It is, I think, remarkable how very clear and helpful are J. Gresham Machen’s comments on the syntax and argument of this passage (Notes on Galatians [ed. John H. Skilton; Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972]), particularly in view of the fact that this material was written originally for a column in a church paper that could not assume any knowledge of Greek on the part of the reader.
9. Betz first published this thesis in “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1974–75) 353–79.
10. Note especially John Bligh, Galatians: A Discussion of St. Paul’s Epistle (London: St. Paul, 1969), which proves progressively unsatisfactory the more one uses its suggestions regarding chiastic structures.
11. Cf. Bruce’s SNTS Presidential Address, “The New Testament and Classical Studies,” NTS 22 (1975–76) 229–42, esp. pp. 235-36. Bruce’s first major work was The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (London: Tyndale, 1941). Some biblical students find this work a little strange, failing to realize that the format is basically what one would expect from a commentary on Thucydides.
12. In “Galatian Problems: 2. North or South Galatia?” BJRL 52 (1969–70) 243–66, esp. p. 261, now reprinted in the commentary, p. 14.
13. Richard Longenecker, The Ministry and Message of Paul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) 48; also in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (5 vols.; ed. M. C. Tenney and S. Barabas; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 4.637. Cf. also Bruce himself (Commentary on the Book of Acts [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954] 299): “If Gal 2:1–10 and Acts 15:6–29 purported to relate one and the same set of events, then one at least of the two accounts could not be acquitted of misrepresenting the facts.” In contrast, and interestingly, Bruce does not even consider this problem as he argues for an early date in his commentary on Galatians (pp. 43-56).
14. As Lightfoot (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians [London: Macmillan, 1890] 123–24) noted, both passages agree on (a) geographical setting, (b) relative chronology, (c) persons involved, (d) subject of dispute, (e) character of the conference, (f) general result. He then concludes with studied understatement: “A combination of circumstances so striking is not likely to have occurred twice within a few years.” (Cf. also Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921] xliv.) Lightfoot wisely refrains from saying “impossibIe”—only “not likely,” just as it is not likely that, say, Jesus had two encounters with rich young rulers. Ronald Yam-Kwan Fung, in his Ph.D. thesis und@r F. F. Bruce (“The Relat:onship Between Righteousness and Faith in the Thought of Paul, as Expressed in the Letters to the Galatians and the Romans” [2 vols.; University of Manchester, 1975] 1.577-82) has sought to refute Lightfoot’s argument; it is a valiant effort, but to my mind wholly unsuccessful, especially since Fung’s only substantive point is the well-known problem (a serious one, to be sure) that Paul makes no mention of the apostolic decrees.
15. His first major publication was Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament (TU 76; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961). Among other important works note Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978).
16. This weakness in Betz’s work has been noted by most reviewers, particularly by W. D. Davies in Religious Studies Review 7 (1981) 310–18. However, since no commentary can be expected to cover all the bases adequately, it is perfectly legitimate, and even necessary, to have specialized works of this sort. One must assume that every commentary user recognizes the danger of relying on only one perspective and therefore the need to check more than one work.
17. Neither Betz nor Bruce, as far as I can tell, availed himself of the magisterial synthesis by Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975; 2nd ed. 1979). Since the author of Galatians was a Jew—indeed a rabbi—and since this letter was written to address a basically Jewish problem, one is inclined to suggest that acquaintance with Israeli scholarship on early rabbinic literature may be just as important for the Galatians expositor as familiarity with the latest German interpretations of Paul. At any rate, a systematic exploration of tannaitic documents seldom fails to illuminate the NT text. See in the present issue of this journal Daniel Hayden King, “Paul and the Tannaim: A Study in Galatians.”
18. Similarly, it would be too simple to say that nomos refers to “legalistic misunderstandings” (Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980] 98). For a most valuable discussion of this whole issue see Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45 (1983) 73–100.
19. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 154.
20. Cf. John W. Drane, Paul: Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Epistles (London: S.P.C.K., 1975) 5ff, and my review in WTJ 40 (1977–78) 176–80.
21. I have attempted a more detailed formulation of this concern in Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 138–59.
22. To his credit, Betz is very conscious of the problem raised by Gal 5:14ff (see especially p. 274). Moreover, he is correct when he describes the fruit of the Spirit as being “in fact the fulfillment of the Torah” (p. 275; in contrast, Bruce [p. 255] states that when the fruit of the Spirit is “in view we are in a sphere with which law has nothing to do”). But when Betz suggests that Paul “could do well without” the law “as far as his own theology is concerned,” and that the apostle integrates the concept of Torah into his teaching only “because the Galatians are so preoccupied with” it (p. 275), an unbearable inconsistency is injected into Paul’s thinking. Betz’s frank effort to face the issue directly, however, is a most refreshing aspect of his commentary.
23. For starters, readers may be referred to the helpful comments in D. A. Carson. “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology,” in Scripture and Truth (ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 65–95, esp. pp. 90-93.