Galatians - Sept 14
Tweet
Galatians is loaded with good commentaries. For those who do not want a technical commentary, Scot McKnight's work in the NIV Application series is quite good. Two of the better evangelical works are by F. F. Bruce (NIGTC) and Richard Longenecker (Word). A New Perspective take on Galatians is present in J. Dunn. He also has doen a Theology of Paul's Letter to the Galatians. These should get one well down the road in this key book of Paul and the issues tied to Christianity, Judaism, and Law.
Scot McKnight on Galatians
Interesting that the day you posted this was the day I started reading McKnight's commentary in preparation for my dissertation. It does seem to be a good work, but I'm surprised that you didn't comment on McKnight's commitment to the fundamental components of the NP. This appears in the opening pages of his commentary:
Two scholars deserve special mention for the way in which they have influenced my thinking over the last decade: Professor James D. G. Dunn and E. P. Sanders. The former was my dissertation supervisor, has himself written at length on Galatians in different academic publications, and deserves my heartfelt thanks for his stimulating studies and personal guidance on “matters Galatian.†E. P. Sanders, with whom I have breakfasted but once, has influenced my work in massive ways through his major publications. I have followed the light that these two scholars have shed on Galatian problems and theology to the degree that they have become my mentors.
I've made it only a couple dozen pages into the commentary so far, but it does seem that McKnight is thoroughly NP in his approach to Galatians. Seeing that you pointed out Dunn's view and not McKnight’s when they seem to be in basic agreement on the fundamental points of the NP, I'm curious to know if you would classify him differently than Dunn, and if so, why.
Thanks.
Phil Gons
McKnight on Galatians
Interesting that the day you posted this was the day I started reading McKnight's commentary in preparation for my dissertation. It does seem to be a good work, but I'm surprised that you didn't comment on McKnight's commitment to the fundamental components of the NP. This appears in the opening pages of his commentary:
Two scholars deserve special mention for the way in which they have influenced my thinking over the last decade: Professor James D. G. Dunn and E. P. Sanders. The former was my dissertation supervisor, has himself written at length on Galatians in different academic publications, and deserves my heartfelt thanks for his stimulating studies and personal guidance on “matters Galatian.†E. P. Sanders, with whom I have breakfasted but once, has influenced my work in massive ways through his major publications. I have followed the light that these two scholars have shed on Galatian problems and theology to the degree that they have become my mentors.
I've made it only a couple dozen pages into the commentary so far, but it does seem that McKnight is thoroughly NP in his approach to Galatians. Seeing that you pointed out Dunn's view and not McKnight’s when they seem to be in basic agreement on the fundamental points of the NP, I'm curious to know if you would classify him differently than Dunn, and if so, why.
Thanks.
Phil Gons
P.S. This is the second time I'm posting this.
dlb - McKnight Galatians
Phil:
No I do not distinguish between Dunn and McKnight. McKnight does hold to the NP. I simply was noting Dunn because he is one of those most often mentioned for helping to frame this view. So thanks for your note. By the way. Dunn was McKnight's supervisor.
DLB
Thanks
Thanks for the follow up and clarification.
Blessings,
Phil
Post new comment