Garlington’s Galatians Commentaries

I previously posted about Don Garlington’s commentary on Galatians being available as a free PDF from the Paul Page. But I wasn’t sure exactly which Galatians commentary it was. So I emailed Dr. Garlington and got the official answer.

As for Galatians, I appreciate that the situation is confusing. The thing has gone through an “evolutionary process.” First there was the manuscript for EBC, which was submitted three years ago and still awaits publication (supposedly in the Fall). That is a very basic commentary aimed at a more general audience.

Afterwards there have been several editions from Wipf & Stock, largely expanded, more technical and aimed at a more theologically educated readership. Very soon now the third and final edition will appear. It was the manuscript of this edition that was on the Paul Page. I had it withdrawn for the moment in order not to conflict with the print version. I placed it there to begin with because it seemed that W/S were not interested in pursuing this project any further.

However, that turned out not to be the case and the book should be available within several weeks.

So oddly enough, his contribution to the forthcoming EBC commentary appears to be the oldest one!1 The first edition of his W&S commentary (332 pp.) was published in 2002, the second edition (362 pp.) in 2004, and the third and final edition (452 pp.) was just released in 2007, which is the one you’ll want to pick up for Garlington’s most most extensive and mature understanding of this ever-important letter.

I hope this helps to clear everything up. By the way, since Dr. Garlington removed the PDF from the Paul Page, I have also removed it from my site.

1. I’m not entirely sure how to reconcile all the dates with his statement that his manuscript for the EBC commentary was submitted in 2004 and the first edition of the W&S commentary was published two years earlier in 2002. Perhaps the EBC was completed much earlier than 2004, but not submitted until then; or perhaps by “first” and “afterwards” he wasn’t speaking chronologically but logically. But how they could be an expansion of a subsequent commentary, I’m not quite sure. I’m going to going with my first resolution. Regardless, the EBC is a shorter, more popular commentary; the W&S is expanded and more technical. [↩]