Most Influential Commentaries on Galatians (Top 5)

A little over a year ago I wrote a post about the Top Galatians Commentaries. For that list I chose the 5 best in terms of teaching the text the closest to how I think it should be understood. I still stand by those 5—although with the recent addition of Doug Moo’s commentary I think I’d probably change the list slightly (and you can read my review of his commentary over at Themelios)—but every time I read a commentary on Galatians I still think to myself that the best commentary on Galatians hasn’t been written yet. I’m not quite satisfied enough with any one particular commentary to say, “this is the best commentary on Galatians.” Perhaps one day.

But in terms of influence, an entirely different set of 5 commentaries emerge. For today’s post I want to list the most influential commentaries on Galatians. These commentaries have had the biggest impact on the larger  interpretation of Galatians, offered massive paradigm shifts that greatly affected scholarship, and subsequently they became voices that everyone had to deal with. Now there are obviously other crucial studies on Galatians in article and monograph form, but here I just want to focus on commentaries. And I’ll list them in chronological order.

1) St. Jerome: Of all the extant patristic commentaries on Galatians, Jerome’s is by far the most thorough and engaging. And one can see his influence on subsequent generations by the fact that medieval and reformation commentators still engaged his commentary.

2) Martin Luther: Obviously Luther’s new perspective on Paul created a landslide in the Christian world. His exposition of Galatians codifies his thought well. It’s perhaps the most repetitive commentary I’ve ever read—apparently every verse in Galatians is about justification by faith—and if the reason why you read a commentary is to understand the source material, then this isn’t a good commentary. But no doubt this is one of the most influential commentaries ever written. (If you like Reformation exegetes, go with Calvin. Every time.)

3) Sir William Ramsay: Ramsay’s commentary on Galatians, from about the early twentieth century, excelled in bringing firsthand knowledge of the topography and archeology of ancient Anatolia into his exegetical decisions. The most significant of these is the way that he championed the view that Paul wrote to the southern part of the Galatian province. Most would agree that J. B. Lightfoot was a better exegete, but Ramsay’s commentary wins the day in terms of influence because of the way in which he significantly altered debates about the destination of the letter.

4) H. D. Betz: Betz’s commentary has changed the way Galatians scholars—and actually New Testament scholars across the board—analyze the New Testament texts in light of ancient rhetorical handbooks. Betz was basically the first to apply this strategy to any writing of the New Testament, and he did it first with Galatians. He argued in the late 1970s that Galatians was a piece of forensic rhetoric. Most writers on Galatians do not accept Betz’s particular analysis but people are still trying to ascertain the rhetoric of Galatians following the lead of Betz.

5) J. Louis Martyn: First of all, Martyn is a game changer. He is to Johannine scholarship what E.P. Sanders is to Pauline scholarship. But he isn’t just a paradigm shifter in Johannine studies, he’s also written what I regard to be the current most influential commentary on Galatians. He is famous for his “apocalyptic reading” of Galatians and one can see his influence in several current scholars like, Douglas Campbell, Beverly Gaventa, Susan Eastman, Martinus C. de Boer, etc. Whatever you make of Martyn’s “apocalyptic reading” of Galatians—and in all honesty I don’t make much of it—one has to acknowledge the sheer brilliance of his commentary.

So these are the commentaries on Galatians that I regard to be the most influential. Which commentaries were most influential in your reading of the letter?

John Anthony Dunne

You might also enjoy…

9 responses to “Most Influential Commentaries on Galatians (Top 5)”

  1. Andrew

    This should be a series. Do the rest of the NT.

  2. Your comment on J. Louis Martyn’s work brings up a question that I have often with scholarship:

    If you think something is almost totally wrong (as you say about Martyn’s “apocalyptic reading”), is it fair to still call it brilliant?

    1. John Anthony Dunne

      Hey Andrew,

      Good Question. I definitely think so. This immediately reminds me of a talk that Francis Watson gave at New College, Edinburgh last year. Someone asked him a question about Trobisch’s view about the NT canon’s formation, and he said, “it’s absolutely brilliant, but manifestly false.” And I think that attitude recognizes 1) that scholarly competency ought to be acknowledged, 2) that a level of humility is required when criticizing others. For me, I think Martyn’s commentary really is brilliant. He is able to make sense of just about everything in Galatians in light of his reading. His reading is brilliant because of its explanatory potency. I think he’s wrong, because I go in a different direction on a number of exegetical decisions, but I recognize the masterpiece that it genuinely is.

  3. CB

    How would your list of top 5 commentaries change in view of Moo’s commentary?

    1. John Anthony Dunne

      Thanks for your question! I was referring to the list I put together for “Top Commentaries” (http://www.thetwocities.com/biblical-studies/top-galatians-commentaries/). So it would not alter my list for most influential, but I would include it in my list of top commentaries. For instance, given the similar affinities with Schreiner’s commentary (e.g. evangelical and Reformed), I’d prefer Moo’s commentary for its added detail.

  4. CB

    Thank you so much John, that’s exactly what I was asking “which commentary on your top 5 would be replaced by Moo.”

    Does that mean if one was to choose between Moo and Schreiner for academic and preaching purposes you would advise they go with Moo? Does this mean you won’t be assigning Schreiner anymore for your course on Galatians?

    I also haven’t seen Hays (NIB) mentioned on your list (or blog?). Have you worked through it? What’s your take on it?

    How about “interpreting Galatians by Silva” is it a helpful tool?

    Sorry for too many questions … need help.
    Thank you again.

    1. John Anthony Dunne

      Great questions! Whether I’d assign Schreiner over Moo would probably depend on the level of the course (i.e. whether it was more oriented towards exegesis of the Greek text). Since I find Schreiner’s commentary (and the layout of the ZECNT) to be more accessible, I’d prefer it over Moo for a course that isn’t based on Greek exegesis. That’s just my preference though. I’d say that Schreiner is still technical, but Moo is certainly more technical and more detailed.

      I do like Hays, though that series is not my favorite (it’s less detailed because the volumes contain multiple books of the NT). It’s great for quick insights and things along like that, but I wish the commentators in that series had more space to dive deeper.

      Silva’s book is great, absolutely. It’s not really a commentary, but it addresses quite a bit of important exegetical questions. That’s a great book to have alongside another commentary for sure. But he’s wrong on the meaning of πάσχω in Galatians 3.4 : )

  5. CB

    Thank you so much John, really helpful comments there.

    You are right about the NIB, contributions are brief but I found Hays very suggestive for preaching even though I do not agree with him on his subjective genitive reading of “pistis christou.”

    Hahaha “πασχω” = Silva.

    1. John Anthony Dunne

      Yea I don’t go the subj. gen. route either, but I don’t have a problem with the position theologically. In fact, I affirm much of the theology behind the way that Hays and Wright, especially, speak of subj. gen.

      Ha, yea I’m convinced the question Paul asks in Gal. 3.4 is about the suffering and the Galatians. The implication being that they can forfeit the positive outcome of their suffering by receiving circumcision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *