Galatians 1:14

1:14 I ¹  was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my nation, ²  and was ³  extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. ⁴ 

Galatians 2:12

2:12 Until ⁵  certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this ⁶  and separated himself ⁷  because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. ⁸ 

Galatians 3:19

3:19 Why then was the law given? ⁹  It was added ¹⁰  because of transgressions, ¹¹  until the arrival of the descendant ¹²  to whom the promise had been made. It was administered ¹³  through angels by an intermediary. ¹⁴ 

Galatians 4:25

4:25 Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

[1:14]  ¹ tn Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation. Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

[1:14]  ² tn Or “among my race.”

[1:14]  ³ tn Grk “was advancing beyond…nation, being.” The participle ὑπάρχων (Juparcwn) was translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

[1:14]  ⁴ sn The traditions of my ancestors refers to both Pharisaic and popular teachings of this time which eventually were codified in Jewish literature such as the Mishnah, Midrashim, and Targums.

[2:12]  ⁵ tn The conjunction γάρ has not been translated here.

[2:12]  ⁶ tn Grk “he drew back.” If ἑαυτόν (Jeauton) goes with both ὑπέστελλεν (Jupestellen) and ἀφώριζεν (afwrizen) rather than only the latter, the meaning would be “he drew himself back” (see BDAG 1041 s.v. ὑποστέλλω 1.a).

[2:12]  ⁷ tn Or “and held himself aloof.”

[2:12]  ⁸ tn Grk “the [ones] of the circumcision,” that is, the group of Jewish Christians who insisted on circumcision of Gentiles before they could become Christians.

[3:19]  ⁹ tn Grk “Why then the law?”

[3:19]  ¹⁰ tc For προσετέθη (proseteqh) several Western mss have ἐτέθη (eteqh, “it was established”; so D* F G it Ir^lat Ambst Spec). The net effect of this reading, in conjunction with the largely Western reading of πράξεων (praxewn) for παραβάσεων (parabasewn), seems to be a very positive assessment of the law. But there are compelling reasons for rejecting this reading: (1) externally, it is provincial and relatively late; (2) internally: (a) transcriptionally, there seems to be a much higher transcriptional probability that a scribe would try to smooth over Paul’s harsh saying here about the law than vice versa; (b) intrinsically: [1] Paul has already argued that the law came after the promise (vv. 15-18), indicating, more than likely, its temporary nature; [2] the verb “was added” in v. 19 (προσετέθη) is different from the verb in v. 15 (ἐπιδιατάσσεται, epidiatassetai); virtually all exegetes recognize this as an intentional linguistic shift on Paul’s part in order not to contradict his statement in v. 15; [3] the temper of 3:1–4:7 is decidedly against a positive statement about the Torah’s role in Heilsgeschichte.

[3:19]  ¹¹ tc παραδόσεων (paradosewn; “traditions, commandments”) is read by D*, while the vast majority of witnesses read παραβάσεων (parabasewn, “transgressions”). D’s reading makes little sense in this context. πράξεων (praxewn, “of deeds”) replaces παραβάσεων in Ì⁴⁶ F G it Ir^lat Ambst Spec. The wording is best taken as going with νόμος (nomo"; “Why then the law of deeds?”), as is evident by the consistent punctuation in the later witnesses. But such an expression is unpauline and superfluous; it was almost certainly added by some early scribe(s) to soften the blow of Paul’s statement.

[3:19]  ¹² tn Grk “the seed.” See the note on the first occurrence of the word “descendant” in 3:16.

[3:19]  ¹³ tn Or “was ordered.” L&N 31.22 has “was put into effect” here.

[3:19]  ¹⁴ tn Many modern translations (NASB, NIV, NRSV) render this word (μεσίτης, mesith"; here and in v. 20) as “mediator,” but this conveys a wrong impression in contemporary English. If this is referring to Moses, he certainly did not “mediate” between God and Israel but was an intermediary on God’s behalf. Moses was not a mediator, for example, who worked for compromise between opposing parties. He instead was God’s representative to his people who enabled them to have a relationship, but entirely on God’s terms.