Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
Transcript of Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
1/21
New Testament Studieshttp://journals.cambridge.org/NTS
Additional services for New Testament Studies:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here
Is Paul Defending his Apostleship in Galatians?
Bernard Lategan
New Testament Studies / Volume 34 / Issue 03 / July 1988, pp 411 - 430
DOI: 10.1017/S002868850002018X, Published online: 05 February 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S002868850002018X
How to cite this article:Bernard Lategan (1988). Is Paul Defending his Apostleship in Galatians?. NewTestament Studies, 34, pp 411-430 doi:10.1017/S002868850002018X
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 147.142.186.54 on 06 Apr 2016
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
2/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
New Test.
Stud. vol.
34,1988, pp. 411-430
BERNARD LATEGAN
IS PAUL DEFENDING HIS APOSTLESHIP IN GALATlANSr
TH E FUN CTION OF GALATIANS
1.11-12
AND 2.1&-20
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PAUL'S ARGUMENT
1.
INTRODUCTION
In recent research, the claim ha s been made th at Paul's statem ents
about the law in Galatians are often misread from the perspective
of the post-reformation law/gospel debate.
1
The thesis of this article
is th a t Gala tians ha s also suffered from a different kind of misread-
ing, that is a reading from a specific perspective of the Corinthian
correspondence and which mistakenly assumes that the main
issue in Galatians is a defense of Paul's apostolic authority . It will be
argued that the main focus is on the nature of Paul's gospel and,
therefore, on the theological basis on which it rests. For this pur-
pose,
a number of arguments will be presented relating to the
function of Gal 1. 10—11 and 2. 20, both critical tra ns itions in th e
structure of the letter. These arguments are based on a pragmatic
analys is of the let ter as a whole, which cannot be discussed he re in
any detail. It should be stressed, however, tha t for the determining
of the rhe torical function of any subsection of the letter, an analysis
of the en tire text a s a communicative unity is essen tial. Therefore it
is necessary to explain certain methodological implications of the
approach which will be followed here.
2. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
2.1
The renewed interest in the rhetorical function of this letter is
largely due to the pioneering work of H.-D. Betz.
2
Whether he
Short main paper presented at the 42nd General Meeting of SNTS in Gottingen on August
25,1987.
1
Cf. E. P. Sanders, Paul the Law and the Jewish
People
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); J.
G. Dunn, Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law', NTS 13 (1985) 527; H. Raisanen,
'Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism', N TS
31
(1985) 544; D. Moo, 'Paul and the
Law in the Last Ten years', SJTh 40 (1987) 287-307.
2
Cf. H.-D. Betz, 'The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians',
NTS 21 (1974/5) 353-79; 'In Defense of the Spirit: Pa ul's Letter to the G alatians as a
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
3/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
412 BERNARD LATEGAN
would like to take responsibility for the flood of rhetorical studies
which has since appeared , is ano ther matter.
1
Indeed, there is need
for caution here, lest rhetoric becomes a new catch-phrase and a
flag under which cargoes of the most diverse nature are put to sea.
At the same time, it should be realized that the renewed interest in
rhetorical studies in NT circles is stimulated from at least two
sources. The one is the rediscovery and re-evaluation of the
rhetoric of classical antiquity. The second stems from develop-
ments in modern literary theory and especially work relating to
the pragmatic dimension of texts. NT research can benefit from
bo th the se app roac hes . A gre at dea l of the confusion in rhetorical
studies stems from the failure to distinguish carefully between the
needs of the
original
readers and those of the
present
readers. Any
sta tem en t concerning the latter is dependent on an as clear as poss-
ible un de rs tan ding of the text as intended for its original reade rs -
and , therefore, (in the case of Ga latians) dependent on an adequate
grasp of the rhetorical techniques Paul is using in his historical
context. At the same time, the analysis of the text can never be re-
stricted to the communication with the original readers and we
have to remind ourselves constantly that it is always a present
reader who reconstructs the 'original' meaning for the 'original'
reader. The interpreter should be informed by both these perspec-
tives.
2.2 Very illuminating for our purpose is Betz's remark that Gal-
at ians ,
as a letter, is part of an ongoing communication process
which not only involves the original senders and addressees, but
Document of Early Christian Apologetics', Aspects of
Religious
Propaganda in Judaism
and Early Christianity (ed. E. Schiissler-Fiorenza; Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame,
1967) 99-114; Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
1
For a discussion of recent work on Galatians, cf. J. D. Hester, 'The Use and Influence of
Rhetoric in Galatians', ThZ 42 (1986) 386-408. Cf. also J. Smit, 'Paulus, de galaten en het
judai'sme. Een narratieve analyse van Galaten 1-2', TTh 25 (1985) 337-62; 'Redactie in de
brief aan de galaten. Retoriese analyse van Gal. 4,12-6,18', TTh 26 (1986) 113-44; H. Hub-
ner, 'Der Galaterbrief und das Verhaltnis von antiker Rhetorik und Epistolographie',
ThLZ 109 (1984) 241-50; B. Standaert, 'La rhe torique antique et l'e pitre aux Galates', FV 84
(1985) 33—40. Further: M. Bunker, Briefformular und
rhetorische Disposition
im 1. Korin-
therbrief (GThA 28; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1983); C. Forbes, Comparison, Self-praise
and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric
1
, NTS 32 (1986) 1-
30;
W. Wuellner 'Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation', Early Christian Litera-
ture and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: In honorem Robert M. Grant (ed. W. R.
Schoedel and R. L. Wilken; Paris: Beauchesne, 1979) 177-88; 'Paul's Rhetoric of Argu-
mentation in Romans', CBQ 38 (1976) 330-51; 'Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking
Us?', CBQ 49 (1987) 448-63 . For a brief discussion of the various reactions to his approach,
cf. H.-D. Betz, Der
Galaterbrief
Ein Kommentar zum B rief des
Apostels
Paulus an die Ge-
meinden in Galatien (Miinchen: Kaiser, 1987) 1—4.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
4/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
PAUL'S APOS TLES HIP IN GALATIANS 413
also the present readers.
1
He himself therefore opens the question
of Paul's wider audience. It is the implication of this statement
which we want to pursue further. Betz, in fact, an ticipates m uc h of
what consequently has emerged from a reader-oriented approach
to NT texts. In an im portant article,
2
Hartman discusses the issue
in more detail. The assumption of a wider audience has important
methodological implications for the interpretation of these letters,
as Hartman points out.
3
Not only is the focus shifted from the
au thor's side of the communication to the recipient's, but th e possi-
bility of multiple receptions (the original letter situation, the first
rereading [e.g. Eph esus], the presen t reader), places further pr es s-
ure on discovering the communicative th ru st of the text. It is in th is
context that insights from reception theory can render a useful
service to NT exegesis. In particular the concept of the 'implied
reader' , as a literary construct, can be an important bridging
mechanism to plot the methodological transition from author to
recipient(s). Acknowledging the role of the reader sets in motion a
whole series of further methodological consequences, which cannot
be discussed extensively in this context. It will suffice if we note th a t
any reconstruction of the original real readers of biblical texts is
dependent on a prior encounter between the text and the present
read er in which the meaning potential of the tex t is actualized. Our
entrance to a first century text is via a twentieth century reading.
Once the critical function of the reading process ha s been acknowl-
edged, biblical hermeneutics must sooner or later face up to the
challenges coming from the side of deconstruction. How this could
be done, is the subject for another study.
2.3 In trying to establish the pragm atic dimension of
texts,
i.e. how
they are used and what their intended effect is, the interest in the
reader and the phenomenon of reception can play an important
role.
But it has also helped us to unde rstand the role of the au th or
better and the way in which he communicates with his reader.
This has led to a redescription of the audience (or readership
4
), as
1
Betz, Galatians, 24. It is well-known that in several of
his
letter openings, Paul explicitly
addresses a wider audience, e.g. 1 Cor 1. 2; 2 Cor 1. 1; Rom 1. 7.
2
L. Hartman, 'On Reading Others' Letters',
Christians among Jews and
Gentiles.
Essays
in Honor of Krister Stendahl on H is Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. G. W. E. Nicklesburg and
G. W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 137-46.
3
Hartman, 'On Reading', 141. Cf. also B. C. Lategan, 'Current issues in the hermen-
eutical debate',
Neotestamentica
18 (1984) 4.
4
On the relationship between written and oral communication, see notes 4 and 5 on page
415 below.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
5/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
4 1 4 BERNARD LATEGAN
those whom the auth or wishes to influence.
1
In the first place the
reader,
or
audience,
is a
construction
of
the author
and
must
be
recognized
as
such. That
is why a
wri ter
can
comm unicate w ith
readers whom
he or she has
never
met or
does
not
know person-
ally, provided that
the
wri ter h as
a
gen eral idea of the ir situation,
their a t t i tudes
and
their expec tations.
For the
interpretation
of
Galatians this
is of
pa rtic ul ar significance, because
in the
intense
discussion
of
Pa ul's 'opponents'
the
tendency
is
always
to
identify
them directly with specific historical persons
or
groups.
2
This does
not deny th a t they were pe rson s of flesh and blood, but the exegete
should always be aware th at such an historical identification de-
pends on
an
interme diate ste p, th at is, on
a
reconstruction of Pau l's
construct of his audience. From Paul's statements, his arguments,
adm onitions, curses and bless ings w e infer w hat would be convin-
cing
to his audience, wha t would sway them , w hat Pau l supposed
would
be
reasonable
to
th em , w h a t common ground existed
be-
tween them .
In
this way we are able
to
delineate the features of this
presupposed audience
as a
literary construct, which we then,
as a
second step, can
compare with w ha t
we
know
of the
historical
persons involved and can attempt
an
historical identification,
as far
as th e evidence allows us to do so.
2.4 Signals
to the
reader operate
on
various levels of the text.
For
the purpose of analy sis, tex t ling uistics usually distinguishes be-
tween the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels.
3
The com-
peten t writer (and this certainly applies to the au thor of Galatians)
makes full use of the syntacto-semantic possibilities of language to
achieve the desired rhe toric al effect. These rhetorical feature s may
be studied from different perspectives and for different purposes: to
identify the figures of speech employed
in
the text, to compare these
with what we know
of
first century rhetorical traditions,
to
deter-
mine the background and training
of
a specific author and so forth.
In
the
case
of
Galat ians,
the
pragmatic intent
of
the text
is un-
deniable, th at
is the
way
in
which P au l
is
presupposing
a
reaction
1
Cf. W. Wuellner, 'Reading Romans in Context
1
(Paper read in the SNTS Seminar on the
Role of the Reader, Gottingen 1987) 3; C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhet-
oric. A Treatise on Argumentation
(Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame, 1969) 19.
2
For an overview of the different methodological approaches used to identify Paul's
opponents, cf. K. Berger, 'Die Implizieten Gegner. Zur Methode des Erschliessens von
»Gegnern« in neutestamentlichen Texten', Kirche. Festschrift filr Gunther Bornkamm
zum 75.
Geburtstag
(Hrsg. D. Luhrmann und G. Strecker; Tubingen: Mohr, 1980) 373-400.
3
Cf. D. Hellholm, Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse I (CB 13:1; Lund:
Gleerup, 1980) 27-62.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
6/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 4 1 5
from his audience, persuading them to adopt a certain set of beliefs,
a certain attitude, to follow a certain line of conduct.
2.5 The epistolary framework which Pau l uses to achieve his rhet-
orical and pragmatic goals, presents us with a further compli-
cation. Epistolography and rhetoric should not be confused and the
relationship between them is in urgent need of further investi-
gation and clarification.
1
Here we are dealing with entities which
are not really comparable - the letter is a literary form, while
rhetoric has to do with th e way in which language is used to be per-
suasive. In other words, rhetorical effect can be achieved by a
variety of strategies and devices,
inter alia
by using the lette r form.
In Galatians we have the interesting situation that already in
the formal ep istolary conventions, which serves as th e external
bracket for the body of the letter, Paul has introduced certain
elements which have a clear rhetorical purpose. Betz refers to the
way in which the prescript is used to introduce topics which are to
be expanded later in the letter, giving evidence of a remarkable
unity of composition.
2
2.6 Problem s arise when rhetoric is restric ted to the context of oral
delivery in a 'live' situation. No doubt rhetoric was first and fore-
most developed as an
ars bene dicendi
w ith an oral presentation as
final goal. Betz rightly shows that the sender of a letter cannot
make use of the range of rhetorical devices which becomes avail-
able only in the situation of the pronunciatio.
3
The absence/
presence of the sender represents a special problem in epistolo-
graphy.
4
At the same time, as Ricoeur has shown,
5
inscripturation
also has its advantages. Not only does it lend a certain durability to
the text, but it enables the communication to continue beyond its
immediate context, making it possible for Paul to reach a wider
audience. Moreover, there are good reasons for believing that
1
Cf. Betz, Galatians, 14; Hiibner, 'Epistolographie'; Bunker, Briefformular, 11-15, 76-80;
B. Jewett,
The Thessalonian
Correspondence.
Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety
(Foundations and Facets; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 63-8; J. L. White, 'Literature in the
Framework of Ancient Epistolography', ANRW II. 25.2 (1984) 1733-51; N. R. Petersen,
'Prolegomena to a Reader-oriented Study of Paul's Letter to Rome' (Paper read in the SNTS
Seminar on the Role of the Reader, Gottingen, 1987) 9-14.
2
Betz, Galatians, 15 note 113.
3
Betz, Galatians, 24.
4
Cf. R. W. Funk, 'The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance', Christian History
and Interpretation: Studies
presented
to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and
R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 249-68; Bunker, Briefformular,
25-6; H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und
Phraseologie
des
griechischen Briefes
bis 400
n. Chr. (Helsinki: AnAcScFen, 1956) 38-42.
5
P. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory:
Discourse
and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth:
Texas Christian University, 1976).
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
7/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
4 1 6 BERNARD LATEGAN
Paul's letters were meant to be presented orally to their first
audiences.
1
Although the relationship between oral and w ritt en
communication is complex and still unclear in many respects, it
cannot be denied that rhetorical considerations can and do have a
decisive influence on the shaping of written tex ts. This is especially
tru e in th e case of Galatians.
2.7 In th e following discussion, the focus will be on the
function
of
the various rhetorical devices which Paul employs and the way
they are used to develop the theological argument in the first two
chap ters of th e letter. As far as the rhetorical str uc tu re is con-
cerned, B etz's analy sis will be followed in broad term s.
2
At the same
t ime,
some of his conclusions will be tested from a pragmatic per-
spective.
3. READING GALATIANS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY
3.1 To illustrate some aspects of a reader oriented approach to
Galatia ns, we tak e a s our point of departure the widely held opinion
that the basic issue at stake in the letter is Paul's authority and
independence as an apostle. In view of the Corinthian correspon-
dence it is understandable that such an idea could take root.
3
But
the transference of the apostolic issue to Galatians has created
more confusion than clarity. Apostolic authority certainly is an
im portan t them e in Pauline theology. The question is whether this
is the dominant issue in Galatians. The preoccupation with apos-
tolic status is part of a long tradition which goes as far back as
Chrysos tom
4
and was given further impetus by Lightfoot who,
1
Cf. Hartman, 'On Reading', 139; Hester, 'Rhetoric
1
, 387; R. W. Funk, Language, Her-
meneutic
and
Word
o f
God
(New York: Harper and Row, 1966) 245.
2
In the introduction to the German edition of this commentary, Betz clarifies his position
on various of the issues raised in the subsequent discussion of his work, but concludes that
his basic approach and the necessity of a rhetorical analysis of the letter remains unchal-
lenged. The choice between Galatians as an apologetic or a deliberative letter represents a
false alternative as the former does not exclude elements with a deliberative function. At
the same time, paraenesis can form part of an apologetic letter. Betz also discusses issues in
need of further investigation, e.g. the use of the example of Paul as an argumentative
device and the theological development of his thought- cf. Betz, Galaterbrief 1—4.
3 I am indebted to Professor Carl Holladay for drawing my attention to other statements in
the Corinthian correspondence (quite apart from the apostleship issue) which might support
the thesis presented in this article and which will be the subject of a further investigation.
4
Cf. B. R. Gaventa, 'Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm', NT 28 (1986) 310 note
2 for bibliographical details.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
8/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 4 1 7
already in his 1865 commentary, identified the 'name and office of
the apostle' as a special problem in Galatians.
1
For the purpose of
this article, the study of Schiitz (in his otherwise very valuable
book) provides a good example of this approach. H e rightly ins ists
that Paul's letters 'are to be understood against the background of
their specific occasion
1
.
2
In the case of Galatians 1 and 2, Schiitz
considers this background to be polemical, rather than apologetical.
So far, so good. But then the res trictive move tak es p lace - 'polemi-
cal'
is taken to mean a defence of Paul's apostolic status.
3
The
problem w ith this emphasis on the person of Pa ul and his authority
becomes clear in Schiitz's subsequent analysis of Gal 1. 6-9 . He ha s
to concede that the connection between the person of the apostle
and the gospel is not at all prominent in these verses. 'Here the
arg um en t does not move from defending P au l's own claim of apos-
tolic legitimacy to attacking those who have attacked him.'
4
This
puzzling omission in terms of Schiitz's own thesis is explained by
referring to the n arra tive sections which follow lat er in these chap-
ters and where Paul does feature prominently.
5
But it is exactly the
function of these sections which is disputed. As far as the double
curse in Gal 1. 8-9 is concerned, Schiitz concludes correctly that
'the rhetorical device itself points up the precedence of the gospel
over the preacher',
6
thereby further underm ining his own thesis.
7
3.2 The difficulties encountered by Schiitz are characteristic of
any in terp reta tion of Gal 1—2 which assu m es th a t th e m ain issue
in these chapters is the defence of Paul's apostolic authority. The
fact remains th at in
1.1-12,
ctKoaxokoc, occurs only in 1. 1, while all
attention is focused on evayyeA-iov as the main topic
(1.
6; 1. 7
[2x];
1.
9; 1. 11 [2x]). In the letter as a whole, arcoaxotax; and derivatives
occur four times, et>ayyeXiov and derivatives fourteen times.
8
This
is reason enough to try a different approach a nd to analy se the
argument from a reader's point of view — that is, to look at the
1
J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul s Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865) 92-101.
2
J. H. Schiitz, Paul and the Anatom y of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cam bridge Uni-
versity, 1975) 3. For another good statement of the apostleship position, cf. K. Kertelge, 'Apo-
kalypsis Jesou Christou (Gal 1, 12), Neues Testam ent und Kirche. Fur Rudolf Schnacken-
burg.
(Hrsg. J. Gnilka; Freiburg: Herder 1974)
266-81 ,
who nonetheless stresses the close
relationship between gospel and apostleship.
3
S c h u t z , P a u / , 1 2 7 .
4
Schtitz , PauZ, 118.
5
Schiitz, Paul, 123.
6
Sc h u t z , /
>
a u / , 1 2 1 .
7
For a further critique of Schutz's position, cf. Hester, 'Rhetoric', 393 note 25.
8
anoazoXoc, an d de riva tive s: 1. 1; 1. 17; 1. 19; 2. 8. eixxyyeXiov an d de riv ati ve s: 1. 6; 1. 7; 1. 8
(2x); 1.
9;
1.
11 (2x); 1.16; 1. 2 3; 2. 2; 2. 5; 2. 7; 2 .14; 4 .13 .
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
9/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
418 BERNARD LATEGAN
direct and indirect instructions for the reader incorporated in the
text. Prereq uisite for such an und ertakin g is reading the letter as a
communicative whole.
1
In the context of this article, it will not be
possible to repeat all the steps in such an analysis, which starts off
with a discourse analysis and then gath ers readers' instructions on
different levels in order to establish the full pragmatic effect of the
text. We shall rather try to illustrate the results achieved by such
an analysis and for this purpose restrict ourselves to two crucial
transitions in Paul's argument, namely 1. 11-12 and 2. 19-20,
wh ich form the key to the function of the n ar ra tiv e sections in
chapters 1 and 2 and their connection with the res t of the letter.
4. READING GALATIANS AS A COMMUNICATIVE WHOLE
4.1 The God-man tension in Gal 1-2
One of the most important results of a pragmatic analysis is
making the exegete aware of the tension between God and man
which dominates the first two chapters. Various scholars have
already drawn attention to Paul's preference for chiastic struc-
tures and antithetical reasoning.
2
Bultmann has argued that the
apostle's theology reveals what may be called a binary structure
(two modes of existence - life before faith and life in faith).
3
But
quite apart from these general features, Gal 1 and 2 reveal a
fun da m en tal opposition between God and ma n which forms th e
presupposition of Paul's whole argument. In the very first verse of
the letter, this contrast which occurs in various forms throughout
th e le tt er, i s announ ced in a double ch iastic form: &v9pcbjtcov . . .
&v0po>7to\)/'lT|ao\) Xpiaxov . . . 9eoi). This fe atu re has la rgely been
1
Cf. Funk, Language, 248; B. C. Lategan, 'Het motief van de dienst in Galaten 1 en 2', De
knechtsgestalte van Christus. Studies aangeboden aan
Prof.
Dr. H. N. Ridderbos (red.
H. H. Grosheide et al.\ Kampen: Kok, 1978) 76-80.
2 Cf. J. Jeremias, Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgesehichte
(Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1966) 285-6; N. R. Petersen, 'Prolegomena', 23-5; W. Stengel,
'Biographisches und Idealbiographisches in Gal
1,11-2,14,
Kontinuitdt und Einheit , Fest-
schrift fur
F.
Mussner (Hrsg. P. G. Muller und W. Stengel; Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 128-9;
J. L. Martyn, 'Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians', NTS 31 (1985)
410-24; D. Aune, Review of Betz, Galatians, RelStudRev 7 (1981) 325; G. Bergnyi, 'Gal 2,20:
a Pre-Pauline or a Pauline Text?', Biblica 65 (1984) 525-2 8; Smit, 'Pau lus', 341 . Cf.
especially H. Boers, 'The foundations of Paul's Thought: A Methodological Investigation',
paper read at the SBL Annual Meeting, November 24,1986 in Atlanta.
3
R. Bultmann,
Theologie
des
Neuen
Testaments (9. Aufl.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1984) 192.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
10/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 4 1 9
neglected by exegetes. An actantial analysis confirms the import-
ance of this contrast, which creates an element of tension right
through these chapters and which is only relieved in 2. 20.
l
In
his study of Pauline autobiography, Lyons is one of the few who
pays attention to this phenomenon. He discusses various forms of
Pauline antitheses, including the 'man-God
1
contrast,
2
and cor-
rectly stresses the relationship between 1.1 and
1.11—12,
but fails
to see the link w ith
2.
20 (which we sha ll discuss later) .
4.2 The pivotal function of
1.
11-12 and the
significance of ov Kara avOpatnov
Galatians, like the Corinthian correspondence, reflects a very
intense communication situation, where different forces are at
work. Because of this, interpreters are often misled and under-
stand the underlying tension between God and man as a tension
which primarily has to do with Pa ul's apostleship. Such an unde r-
standing is linked to various statements in this section, viz. 1.1; 1.
6-9; 1. 10 and 2. 20. However, the key passage to all these inter-
pretations is
1.11-12,
which calls for closer exam ination.
Betz correctly identifies these verses as a critical transition in the
whole of Paul's argument. 'The thesis is very concise, but it does
contain the whole bas is upon which Paul's gospel, as well as h is own
mission, and indeed his defense in the letter, rest.'
3
He continues:
'The entire
narratio
is so designed that it makes the introductory
statement (1.11-12) credible.'
4
A pragmatic analysis not only con-
firms the key function of
1.11—12
within the first two cha pters , bu t
also in the epistle as a whole.
It is, therefore, surprising that the basic statement in this key
passage has not received the attention it merits: to euayyeXiov ...
OUK
eaxvv Kara avBpamov.
The Kata avGpcojtov is a description
of quality,
5
which gives
a cryptic but fundamental characterization of the
nature
of the
1
Cf. Lategan, 'Motief , 81-2.
2 G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography. Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta:
SBL, 1985) 146-64, esp. 152-6. Cf. T. Baarda, 'Openbaring - Traditie en Didache
1
, Zelf-
standig geloven. Studies
voor
Jaap
Firet
(red. F. H. Kuiper, J. S. van Nijen en J. C. Schreu-
der; Kampen: Kok, 1987) 156, who also emphasizes the antithesis between God and man in
1.11-12.
3
Betz, Galatians, 56.
4
Betz, Galatians, 61.
5 Baarda, 'Openbaring', 155.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
11/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
4 2 0 BERNARD LATEGAN
gospel as preached by Paul.
1
The gospel does not conform to hum an
criteria, does not take human considerations into account. It does
not function in a human way, does not honour human preferences.
Th is is w ha t d istinguishes it from the 'other gospel'. Pa ul is m aking
a profound theological statement which is of decisive importance
for the rest of his argument. That this is not the expression of an
anti-human attitude or a negative evaluation of human existence
as such, will become clear in our discussion of 2. 20. But it does
mean that the gospel implies an 'Umwertung aller Werten' - a
reversal of accepted norms as many of Jesus' parables so clearly
illustrate, where the first will be last, and the last first. For the
understanding of Gal 1. 11—12 it is important to realize that the
crypt ic form ula ou Kaxcc av9pcorcov is connected to a whole web of
inte rre late d ideas which reaches to the hear t of Paul's theology.
2
Despite the qualifying force of xatd as an indication of quality or
norm, Gal 1. 11 is often associated with the origin of Pa ul's gospel
3
and understood as expressing a negative attitude towards human
tradition. The reason for this tendency is to be found in the follow-
ing verse, where Paul explains his initial statement (cf. the second
yd
p
in 12a) by saying:
ov>8e Y&P £Y
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
12/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 4 2 1
In his analysis of this section,
1
Baarda argues that th e two negative
clauses introduced by ot>8e and oine should be tak en as a paren-
thesis and t hat the real contrast is to be found in l l a and 12c, th at
is ,
between ot> Kara avOpomov and
aXka
8 i' a7ioKaA,-6\|/£co
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
13/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
422 BERNARD LATEGAN
The only reference
is to 'him who
called
you'
xox>
KaXeaavxoc,
v\ia.c).
The
attention
is
immediately shifted
to the
Galatians'
own
experience
of
their conversion
as a
reminder
of
the unusual nature
of this occurrence
and,
subsequently,
to the
other gospel
and the
gospel of Christ. This can hardly be considered
as
evidence of a
pre-
occupation with himself or with
his
apostleship.
4.2.3
Gal
1 .
8-9:
The
double curse
in 1. 8-9
provides some further
pointers. Betz argues that
the
curse should
be
read
in
conjunction
with
the
blessing
in
6.16,
1
which makes
the
letter
a
'magical letter'
and adds
a
divine dimension
to his
rhetorical efforts
to
persuade
the
Galatians
of the
t ru th
of
his gospel.
But
these verses also have
a
specific theological function
in so far as
they strengthen
the God/
m an c on trast. Somebody who
is
willing
to
ut ter
a
divine curse over
those
who
differ from
him,
certainly
is not
acting
in a
very diplo-
matic
way, or
Kaxoc avGpamov. This
is
confirmed
by the
following
verse.
4.2.4 Gal 1. 10: The two
rhetorical questions
in
verse
10
draw
the
conclusion which Paul wants
to
achieve with
his
double curse.
There
is a
difference
of
opinion among exegetes concerning
the
force of th e particip le TI
in
these questions. Lyons
has
argued exten-
sively that
the
-q
in 10a has
disjunctive force, thereby contrasting
the pleasing
of man or God as two
alternative possibilities.
2
Then
the inte rpre tation would be: Paul
is
not trying
to
appeal/strive
to
please
men, but
God. Betz,
on the
other hand, un derstands TI
as a
copulative, expecting
an
emphatic denial
to
both questions
—
'the
'persuasion
of
God'
m ust be interpreted
as a
'polemical definition
of
magic
and
religious quackery
1
.
3
The
implication
of the
rhetorical
question would then
be
that Paul
is
neither
a man-, nor a God-
pleaser.
From
the
perspective
of the
man-God contrast underlying these
chapters,
it
would
be
more natural
to
interpret TI
in a
disjunctive
sense, with
the
implication that Paul
is not
trying
to
please
man,
but God.
But
even when
the
first
TI
is
taken
as a
copulative (which
certainly
is a
possibility),
the
second clearly
is
meant
to be
disjunc-
tive,
m arking
the
pleasing of man
as a
negative possibility. The real
contrast therefore lies
in
10c, which
is the
direct opposite
of
being
Ch rist 's slave. W hether
the
first
-q in 10a is
taken
as
disjunctive
or
as copulative,
the
basic contrast w ith being
a
true servan t of Christ
remains.
The
alternative,
in
case of a disjunctive inte rpre tation,
is a
1
Betz,
Galatians
25,
52-^1.
2 Lyons, Autobiography , 136—44.
3
Betz, Galatians 55.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
14/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 423
'man-pleaser';
in
case of a copulative in terp retatio n,
the
alternative
is
a
man ipulator
(not a
servant)
of
man
and
God.
In
this sense
the
curse
in
verses
8 and
9,
and
its implication
in
10, prepa res the scene
for
the
decisive argum ent
in
verses 11-12 .
4.2.5 Gal 1. 11-12 once again:
Joop Smit
has
recently published
a
number
of
rhetorical studies
on
G alatians, including
a
narra t ive
analysis of chapters 1
and
2.
1
On the s treng th of his analysis, he
has
serious doubts about
the
importance which comm entators us ua lly
attach
to
1.11—12
and
concludes that the idea that chapters 1
and 2
are
a
further explanation
of 1.
11—12,
is in
need
of
serious recon-
sideration.
2
The problems which Smit encounters
can be
traced back
to a
basic assumption that
Gal 1 and 2 are a
defence
of
the
origin of
Paul's gospel
and
his
independence as an
apostle.
3
His own exegesis
shows that this assumption cannot
be
m aintained with
any
degree
of confidence. Paul clearly
is
concerned with
the
contents
of his
preaching. Therefore, Smit
is
quite right th at Gal 1
and 2
cannot
be
explained
in
terms
of
origin
or the
apostolic status
of
Paul. This
section serves
a
theological purpose,
and
tha t
is to
give
an
il lus-
trat ion
of the
premise
of
1.
12
from real life. Ba arda comes ve ry
close
to a
correct formulation
of
this theological purpose when
he
says that
for
Paul
the
gospel
is the new
perspective
on the
signifi-
cance
of the
cross, which
was
revealed
to him, but he
does
not
pursue
the
implications
of
this insight further.
4
In
view
of
these
considerations,
it
becomes
all the
more critical
to
establish
the
rhetorical function of the narrative sections
in
these chapters.
4.2.6
The
narrative sections
in Gal 1-2:
In his
study
on
paul ine
autobiography, Lyons gives special attention
to the
na r ra t ive
sections.
He
comes
to the
correct conclusion that
1. 13-2. 21 is
a subs tantiation
'of his
claim
in 1.
11—12 concerning
the
n a t u r e
and origin
of his
gospel
1
.
5
But his
further conclusion,
viz.
t h a t
Paul 'considers himself in some sense
a
representative
or
even
an
1
J. Smit, 'Hoe kun je de heidenen verplichten als joden te leven? Paulus en de torah
in Galatan 2,11-21',
Bijdragen
46 (1985) 118-40; 'Redactie'; 'Paulus' (see note 1, page 412
above).
2
Smit, 'Paulus',
340-1.
3
Smit, 'Paulus', 340.
4
Baarda, 'Openbaring', 161—2. In a remarkable procedure, Baarda adds emphasis to the
apostleship issue in the Galatian situation by following the suggestion of Rodrigues to use
fragments from the Pseudo-Clementine homilies as a co-text for the letter, where the
apostleship theme is prominent (162-3). Is it the absence of any strong emphasis on the
apostleship issue in Galatians which necesitates such a procedure?
5
Lyons,
Autobiography,
171.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
15/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
4 2 4 BERNARD LATEGAN
embodiment of that gospel',
1
should be treated with reservation. Gal
4.
12-20 certainly provides important arguments for the idea of an
imitatio Pauli,
as Lyons himself points out.
2
But it still remains a
question w hethe r th at is w ha t lies behind the narrative sections in
Gal 1-2, a s we shall see in our discussion of Gal 2. 20.
The problem perhaps lies in the concept of autobiography
itself,
which leads Lyons, despite himself, to think primarily still in terms
of an historical reconstruction when dealing with the Galatian
material. In this way, the focus remains on the person of Paul, his
authority and independence, and not on the theological
nature
of
the gospel
—
hence h is efforts ag ai n to play down the prominence of
Paul.3
To prevent any m isun ders tand ing on this point, it must be stated
very clearly th a t Gal 1-2
does,
of course, offer important, if not the
most important historical data about Paul's life during this period.
It is and will remain a primary source for Paul's chronology and
for the reconstruction of NT history. Studies in this tradition by,
e.g., Robinson, Jewett, Ludemann and others are not only legiti-
m ate, bu t also essential for our discipline.
4
W hat inte rests u s her e, is a different question. We are not talking
about the information these chapters can yield for reconstructing
the events of Paul's life. We are concentrating solely on the func-
tion these narrative sections have for the development of Paul's
a rgument .
In th is respect, Betz's descrip tion of these sections in the letter as a
'statement of facts' with which the case is presented,
5
may still be
the best way to characterize P au l's argum entative procedure here.
After 1. 11—12, he is offering tw o 'case stud ies ' to illus tra te the
claim that the gospel is not Kcexa avGpcorcov. The use of narrative is
1
Lyons, Autobiography,
171.
2
Lyons, Autobiography, 164-70. Cf. also Betz, Galaterbrief 3.
3 In a recent study ('Idealbiographisches
1
- cf. note 2, page 418), Werner Stengel discusses
the im porta nt difference between 'Biographie' and 'Idealbiographie', with special
reference to the narrative sections in Gal 1 and 2. He shows that 'Idealbiographie' (in con-
tras t to biography in the usual sense of the word) has to do with the public and official side of
the subject's life and especially those events which establish him in his public function. A
narration of these events is not to be understood as a chronological record of the subject's
life,
but as a confirmation of his official position. Following Ludemann (Paulus, der Hei-
denapostel
I [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1980] 74), Stengel correctly understands the biblio-
graphical references in Gal 1-2 as 'erzahlende Argumentation' in support of the claim
made in 1. 11—12 ('Idealbiographisches
1
, 127).
4
Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976); R. Jewett, A
Chronology
of Paul s Life (Philadelphia; Fortress, 1979); G. Ludemann, Heidenapostel.
5
Betz, Galatians, 19, 56.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
16/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 4 2 5
very suitable for this purpose. What Paul is talking about is not only
theory, but can be illustrated in real life. And the examples he
chooses do not come from his experience alone — he draws them
from all possible sources. In fact, only the first has to do with Paul
exclusively
—
the second actually is an illustration from Peter's life.
In the same way, he uses examples from the lives of Abraham,
Sarah, Moses and others in the rest of the letter.
1
Betz prefers to describe Pau l's defence of the gospel as a 'defense
of the Spirit'. He correctly observes that, although Paul's vocation
and apostolic office are intimately connected with his defence of the
gospel, this is not the main focus of the letter.
2
Passages like 3. 2
provide good arguments for making the Spirit the all-encompas-
sing term for the content and nature of the gospel. But what Betz
understands as the
content
of this gospel of the Spirit, correlates
exactly with the power of the phrase ox> KCITCC avGpcorcov. The Spirit
is,
by definition, outside human control.
3
The experience of sal-
vation by Pau l and th e Galatians is a vivid illustration of this tru th:
'what happened to the Galatians should never have happened'. By
'human' or 'normal standards' Paul's own conversion and his call
to apostleship, the official approval of his preaching by the auth-
orities in Jerusalem, and the table-fellowship between Jewish
and gentile Christians are unthinkable. The unexpected, unusual
nature of the gospel does not only concern Paul's apostleship, but
the whole Christian community. The Christian experience was
consistent with God's ways, it was 'granted against human expec-
tation, in disregard of hum an stan dard s, without hum an m erits -
by grace alone, as new creation
(KOUVTI KXIOIC
6. 15c)'.
4
This de-
scription by Betz tallies exactly with what we have explained as the
real intent and content of ov KOCTOC avGpcorcov in 1.11.
4.2.7 To sum up : the misreading of Galatian s from an apostleship
perspective obscures the communicative thrust of the letter. In the
1
For this reason, Hester is both right and wrong in understanding this section as an
egressus
(J. D. Hester, 'The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11-2:14', JBL 103 [1984]
232). He is right in so far as Peter is the main figure in this section, not Paul. But he is
wrong
in understanding the Peter-episode as a deviation or interruption of Paul's thought.
This episode forms an integral part of Paul's argument. In a further study entitled
'Placing
the Blame: the Presence of the Epideictic in Galatians One and Two' (of which
Professor Hester kindly made a pre-publication draft available to me), he now understands
2.
11-14 as an expanded chreia which has the same function as the Jerusalem incident,
namely to illustrate Paul's character in defence of his gospel and the value system derived
from
it .
2
Betz,
Galatians, 28.
Cf. also his essay 'In Defense' (cf. note 2, page
411
above).
3 For the following exposition, see Betz, Galatians, 29-30.
4
Betz, Galatians,
31.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
17/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
426 BERNARD LATEGAN
enfolding of the argument Paul's apostleship remains a secondary
issue - both in terms of the formal occurrence of the apostleship
theme and in terms of the substance of his argument. Without a
doubt his credibility and position as an apostle also are under severe
pressure, but that is a secondary consequence of the fact that the
gospel is un de r a ttack in the first place.
The contrast with Jerusalem cannot be explained in terms of dif-
ferences about human tradition and divine revelation as channels
for gospel transmission or in terms of a leadership struggle. The
negative references to human involvement only make sense
against the backdrop of the God/man contrast in these chapters
and, more specifically, as a closer explanation of the fact that the
gospel is ov Kara avGpomov. The nature of the gospel as contrary to
human expectations, not based on human effort, is first and fore-
most illustrated by Paul's conversion from persecutor to preacher
an d his calling as apostle. Tha t is also true of the conversion of the
G ala tians, who were called a s gentiles. The sam e them e occurs re-
peatedly in the rest of the letter. Sarah's and Abraham's attempts
to fulfil God's promise by their own efforts (even with the help of
Hagar), turn out to be in vain. God fulfils his promise on his own
terms and in his own time. 1. 12 forms an important link in the
theological network which stretch es across the whole letter.
4.3 Gal 2. 19-20
O ur contention t h a t Pa ul is ma king a theological, not an historical
or bibliographical point in Gal 1-2,
1
needs to be tested a t one further
crucial point, namely 2. 19-20. In these verses the transition to
cha pters 3 and 4 and the rest of the letter take s place. Throughout
the history of Galatian exegesis it has remained a puzzle how 1-2
fits in with the rest of the letter, if read from an apostleship
perspective. In most cases, it is seen as a diversion in which Paul
vents his personal feelings and defends his apostleship in a rather
exaggerated way, before he comes to his theological argument in 3
and 4 , and his paraenesis in 5 and 6.
2
If our suggestion about the theological function of 1-2 is valid, it
should be ab le to provide an acceptable answer to this problem. Let
us,
therefore, briefly review the structu re of the two chapters :
1
So correctly Gaventa, 'Ga latians 1 and 2', 312.
2
Cf. L ategan, 'Motief for a fuller discussion of this problem.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
18/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 427
1.1—12:
Introduction arg um en t
1.13—2.10:
Paul and the leaders na rrat ive
2.1 1-1 6: Paul and Peter narr ative
2.
17-21:
Conclusion ar gu m en t
The two narrative sections are enclosed by two argumentative
sections, providing an introduction and conclusion. We have seen
that the introduction ends with the programmatic formulation in
1.11 of the the sis which forms th e basis of Pau l's whole exposition.
The two narrative sections provide proof for the statement of 1.11.
2. 17-21 draws the conclusion from these examples and provides
the transition to the rest of the letter. But exactly how is this
achieved? From a discourse analysis it becomes clear th a t the final
section in chapter 2 is linked with strong bonds both to the pre-
ceding and the following pa rts of the letter. We shall examine these
in turn.
First of all, the antithetical structure, which is so typical of the
preced ing sections, is continued and even intensified. Bere nyi
describes it as a verse which 'abounds in antitheses and para-
doxes,
like all the preceding passages '.
1
The an tithes is between God
and man, between the self and Christ, is indeed reaching break-
ing point. Paul's own persecution of the church, Peter's
lapsus
in
Antioch, the G alatians ' fickleness in turn ing to anothe r gospel
—
all
these examples illustrate the strength of the resistance to God's
grace, how ingrained the notion of m an is to live by his own term s.
In th e no rmal course of thing s, the contrast between God and m an
seems insurmountable. Therefore its resolution calls for extra-
ordinary m easu res, which is in line with the un usu al n atu re of the
gospel. The tension is resolved in a dramatic denouement: the
self-
existence of man has first to come to an end. The self does not live
any more. This can be described in no other way but in the
metaphor of dying (2.19). It is imp ortant to note tha t, a t this stage
of the argument (verse 18 onwards), a transition from the personal
T to a universal T has taken place.
2
In term s of the theory of argu-
mentation, Paul is addressing a universal audience. At the same
t ime,
his argument is not wholly metaphoric or a-historical, it is
related to his own experience - and even more importan tly - it ha s
its basis in the death of Christ on the cross. How exactly this con-
nection is to be understood, is disputed. For Paul the beginning of
1
G. Bertnyi, 'Gal 2, 20', 527.
2
Cf. Betz, Galatians 122: 'The parad igmatic I '; W. Sch m itha ls, 'Judaisten in Ga latia',
ZNW
74 (1983) 4; 'der uberindividuelle Ich
1
; Bergnyi, 'Gal. 2,20', 529.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
19/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
428 BERNARD LATEGAN
the new existence of the believer coincides with Christ's death.
Being crucified with C hrist, therefore, is not to be understood as a
reference to his conversion or to an existential experience of the
believer. Christ's representation on his behalf is so real that Paul
considers himself part of that event. This close association with
Christ has existential consequences for Paul and the individual
believer, as he will spell out in the rest of the letter, but that is a
secondary result flowing from the primary solidarity with the
Christ-event.
For our argument concerning 2. 20, it is important to note
that the focus on Christ is in line with our contention that Paul's
apostleship is a secondary issue which illustra tes only the theologi-
cal point he is making about the nature of the gospel. The orien-
tation to Christ goes back to 1. 4,
1
where Paul chooses - among
many other christological attributes - exactly the phrase which
set s the tone for the first two chapters and which anticipates w hat
he explains in 2. 20: Grace and peace come from God and Christ,
'. . . who gave h imself because of our sins , in order t hat we may be
saved from the present evil dispensation, according to God's will'.
Berenyi argues extensively that the use of
8{8coni
and Jtapoc8{8con.i
should be carefully distinguished in the NT. In combination w ith a
reflexive pronoun, the latter always has a negative connotation, in
the sense of a person 'delivered up to his enemies so that those
might treat him as they like' .
2
She uses this argument to support
he r thes is th a t Gal 2. 20 is not a pre-pauline formula, but a ph rase
shaped by Paul himself. For the purposes of our argument, this is
not the issue. Whatever the difference between 8(8coni and Ttapoc-
8{8a>ni might be, the structural link between 1. 4 and 2. 20 can
hardly be denied.
It would ap pe ar the n th at 2 . 20 is linked to Paul's preceding argu-
ment in two ways
—
structurally and content-wise. Structurally,
th e link is with 1. 4, which an ticipates what is to follow in 2. 20 and
which already prepares the scene for the focus on Christ, not Paul,
th at is, unde rlining the
theological
rather than the biographical or
personal nat ur e of Paul's argum ent.
Regarding content, the tension between God and man is sus-
tained righ t throug h the argum ent up to 2. 20, where the dram atic
denouement takes place and where Paul can show that the un-
usual nature of the gospel implies that true human existence is
1
Cf. Schmithals, 'Judaisten
1
, 40.
2
BenSnyi, 'Gal. 2,20', 530.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
20/21
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54
PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 4 2 9
possible only in co-operation and co-existence with God, not in
opposition and resistance to God.
If
2.
20 ha s clear links with the preceding par t of the lette r and
indeed highlights the integral and consistent nature of Paul's argu-
ment, how does it link up w ith what follows in 3-4 and 5-6?
Betz iden tifies verses 19—20 as the
expositio
where Paul presents
the basic elem ents of his own theological position. These verses are
not only connected with preceding questions (as we have also
argued), but 'they are also to be elaborated in the rest of the letter'.
1
He shows that Paul formulates his position in a rather unusual
way in the form of four s tatem ents:
19a: 1. Through (the) law I died to (the) law, in order that I might live for
God.
19b: 2. I have been crucified with Christ.
20a: 3. It is no longer I who live, bu t Christ lives in m e.
20b: 4. What I now live (in) the flesh, I live in (the) faith in the Son of God
who loved me and gave himself up for me.
In the I'va-clause of the first statement (woe 0eo> £f|aa>) Betz sees a
'telos formula
1
, being the quintessence of Paul's personal credo: To
live for God sum s up Pau l's concept of Chr istia n existence, soteri-
ology as well as ethics.'
2
This very intriguing formulation of Betz is
in need of further clarification. It is our contention that the link
with th e preceding and following sections of the le tter is to be found
in Betz's fourth statement (20b).
We have already referred to Paul's extensive use of theological
'abbreviations
1
.
3
These code-like formulations are important link-
ing devices in his argument. He uses them to anticipate themes
which he is to elaborate later in the letter by dropping a hint in
shorthand style at an earlier stage. Then again, he refers back to
preceding discussions in the same abbreviated way. In order to
understand the cohesion of the letter and to follow the train of
Paul's argument, it is very important not to miss these hints
dropped a t strateg ic points and to be aware of the references to both
preceding and subsequent discussions. Gal 2. 20 provides a good
example of this technique. The attributes used here to describe
Christ (xov oVyoutTiaavTOi; |ie ical 7tapa86vxoq eoruxov ujtep e\iov) not
only link 2. 20 with 1. 11-12 and 1. 4, but also anticipate the the-
ological and ethical sections which follow in
3—4
and 5—6:
tou dyanricavTo^ ue is an abbreviated description of the ethical
1
Betz,
Galatians 121.
2
Betz, Galatians 122.
3
Cf.
note
2,
page
420
above.
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/
-
8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians
21/21
430
BERNARD LATEGAN
content of the gospel, as personified by Christ and his 'Verhalten',
and w hich forms the content of chapters 5 and 6.
KOU
7tapa56vxoq eoruxov vrcep e|xou desc ribes the theologica l or
soteriological basis for the Christian existence and its ethical con-
ten t, and is the subject matter of chapters 3 and 4.
Therefore, 2. 20 not only links 1-2 in an integrated way to 3—4
and 5-6, revealing an amazing unity of construction and content,
but appeals to Christ in a double way: his cross not only makes
th e new ex istence of the believer soteriologically possible, bu t a t the
same time demonstrates the ethical content of the gospel by the
style of th is existence as selfless giving.
5. CONCLUSION
Far from focusing on Paul, his apostleship and authority, Galatians
has as subject the remarkable gospel which presupposes the 'Um-
wertung aller Werten', which does not devaluate human existence
or suppress th e
self,
but , for the first tim e, sets hum ans free to dis-
cover the rea l natu re of their existence and to realize their potential
as human beings. Both the experience of Paul and the Galatians
conform to the unexpected and liberating nature of the gospel and
it is this gospel ou Korea avGpcojcov to which he wants them to
re turn .