p. 545—the allegory in Gal. 4.21.-5.1 p. 546— Paul is gifted at typology, not so good at allegory, and Sanders criticizes his olive tree discussion in Rom. 11 because it’s botanically incorrect [which was not the point] An allegory is a description or narrative presenting literal characters and event which contain sustained reference to a simultaneous structure of other ideas and event— he gets this def. from Cambridge Guide to Lit. in English 3 (2006). p. 547— the only info... Read more

p. 539— What does Paul mean in Gal. 4.1-11 by stoicheia—elemental spirits, elementary principles, elements of the world? p. 540— He says they could have been controlling thoughts but probably what is meant is supernatural beings who govern the stars and so controlling powers [N.B. there is no evidence for this meaning of the term before or during the NT era, and in Hebrews it means elementary principles] p. 541— Paul says we all become sons of God through adoption... Read more

This movie has already garnered a lot of attention and has been called many things, including, aptly, ‘No Country for Old X Men’. And this is indeed a movie about old X men, in particular Charles Xavier the leader of the band of X men, and Wolverine, known as Logan in this film. It is unlike any other Marvel movie ever in many ways. It is a serious drama, and Stephen Colbert says its the only Marvel flick that ever... Read more

p. 530—Sanders takes Gal. 3.19 to mean that the Law was given to create transgression, based on what Paul says in Rom. 4.15; 5.13; 5.20. [But the verse could mean that the Law was given on account of sin (to contain it). The Romans passages suggest that the Law turns sin into transgression, and especially in Rom. 5 Paul makes clear that Paul means that the effect of the Law on sinners is not the same as the purpose of... Read more

p. 525—“The translators who changed Deut. 27.26 from its primary emphasis on intention and commitment to perfection of obedience thought that their view was true, and they were not being intentionally dishonest.” Sanders beef is the translating of the Hebrew confirm or uphold or the Greek uphold as ‘obey’. In Gal. 3.11-12 Paul quotes Hab. 2.4— the righteous by faith will live which proves no one is righteoused before God by the Law, then he quotes Lev. 18.5 which proves... Read more

p. 518– he goes with the translation ‘after receiving the Spirit by faithing what you heard… have you started with the Spirit but finished with the flesh (3.3). This may refer literally to the foreskin and hence to circumcision but in Gal. 5.17-18 flesh is the natural opposite of Spirit and flesh is connected to the Law. Sanders thinks flesh=works of the Law. p. 519— In bringing up Abraham and arguing against circumcision Paul avoids Gen. 17.9-27 and instead focuses... Read more

The main argument runs from Gal. 2.14-3.29. p. 502—The main issue is who is in the in group and who is not. The question about 2.14-21 is where does Paul stop quoting his rebuke of Peter. He quotes Lightfoot to the effect that we can’t really distinguish text and commentary here very well. But Sanders thinks it is sequential and thinks the quote should stop after vs. 14. p. 503— In any case Paul is saying what he deeply believes... Read more

p. 489—With regard to tithing and purity laws it applied only to Jewish farmers who grew food in Palestine. It was a non-issue in the Diaspora, “nor do we know of any purity laws, such as hand washing or immersion that governed Jewish meals in the Diaspora.” This leads to the suspicion that the issue was Jews fraternizing too closely with Gentiles coming into contact with idolatrous practices. “I think this was probably the problem.” He gives the example of... Read more

p. 473—It is important to distinguish: 1) what Paul’s conclusion was on the matter; 2) how he argued for it, and 3) his reason for coming to the conclusion. A distinction between the arguments and the reason behind them is important. p. 475— This is an angry letter, dictated in anger and it led him to make a few extreme statements which when compared to his other letters are exaggerations. The proof is that he modifies or retracts some of... Read more

p. 460-61– The practice of circumcision was very ancient at least as far back as 3000 B.C. The Hebrew form of it involved removing the entire foreskin, the Egyptian practice seems to have just involved making a slit in the foreskin, and mainly involving Egyptian priests. On how ancient the Jewish practice was see John. 5.2 and Exod. 4.25 using flint knives. It was practiced by a variety of ancient people (e.g. the Moabites and Edomites) but not the Philistines,... Read more