# The Correct reading of Galatians 1:4?



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2005)

In my textual criticism class we are about to look at Galatians 1:4. My professor, whom I really respect after all these years, does not hold to the substitutionary atonement. This passage will bring us to another debate--we had previously debated _hilasterion_ in Romans 3:25. He knows I hold to the substitutionary atonment as well. 

Here is how Galatians 1:4 reads from my Nestle-Aland Novum testamentum Graece:
_Tou dontos eauton *huper* town hamartion hemon_. He will argue that the best MSS tradition does not read huper town hamartion hemon but rather *peri* town hamartion hemon. He would like to translate it [Christ] gave himself _concerning_ our sins, thus negating the substitutionaroy aspect.

I could easily point out to him that his moderate-Baptist/ semi neo-othodox background conditions him this way. Anyway, to the MSS evidence itself:

the MSS supporting *peri are:
P46, a corrcter of Aleph (Sinaiticus, I believe), A D G and Psi, among others. The MSS supportinh * huper are P51, apparently the original of Aleph, B H and others. 

He will argue that the evidence is more impressive for peri and it should be in there instead. Any help?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 2, 2005)

Well, I just finished using Bibleworks to find what I suspected to be true, but then I opened up my Galatians commentary by Longenecker (one of the good volumes in the Word series)"¦ He sums up what I found much more succinctly than I could:




> Whether u`pe.r or peri is to be preferred is difficult to determine from the manuscript evidence alone. Likewise, it is difficult to determine from Paul´s usage elsewhere, for he uses both prepositions with the genitive to mean both "œconcerning" and "œon behalf of" "“ though with peri most often signaling the former and u`pe.r most often the latter. And this same interchangeability of prepositions appears in the extant Koine Greek materials outside the NT.



This alone means that even if your professor´s reading is correct, the meaning he wants to derive from it is not necessary. Thus I think it is perfectly acceptable to bring this up to highlight his presuppositions.
But, anyway, Longenecker continues, and I think he does a good job defending u`pe.r as the original reading. He writes:




> [P]reference should probably be given to u`pe.r principally because of 1) the use of u`pe.r in the confession of 1 Cor 15:3 (Cristo.j avpe,qanen u`pe.r tw/n a`martiw/n h`mw/n) to which we have compared this affirmation, and 2) the parallel use of u`pe.r in Gal 3:13.



I hope this helps!
Ben



[Edited on 4-2-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2005)

That does help and does get me thinking.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 2, 2005)

I looked at the apparatus and it does, indeed, appear that _peri_ has an old attestation BUT _huper_ has broader geographical, versional, and patristic attestation. Wallace notes (p. 383) that the two have interchangeable meanings when used with reference or respect to something. I think you are right about his bias guiding his approach.


----------

