Pauls Argumentation in Gal 1-2

7/31/2019 Pauls Argumentation in Gal 1-2

1/17

Paul's Argumentation in Galatians 1-2*

Johan S. VosVrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

The Gospel of the Rival Missionaries

In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul directly addresses only the Galatian

churches; through them, however, he is engaged in a polemic againstrival missionaries who had influenced the churches with another gospel. If one intends to analyze Paul's argumentation in Galatians 1-2, it is necessary first to ask about the characteristics of these missionaries and theirgospel. In the history of research, many different pictures of the opponentsand their gospel have been drawn. 1 These reconstructions result partly fromthe method of so-called mirror reading; this method infers the position of the opponents by reversing the negations and affirmations in Paul's argumentation. Recently and with good reason this method has been criticized. 2

"This article is an abridged version of a paper presented at the 13th Colloquium OecumenicumPaulinum in Rome in September 1992.

Purveys of the history of research can be found in, for example, Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (HThKNT 9; 3d ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 11-29: John Gale Hawkins, "TheOpponents of Paul in Galatia" (Ph.D. diss.. Yale University, 1971) 5-85, 279-309: BirgerHungerford Brinsmead, Galatians: Dialogical Response to Opponents (SBLDS 65; Chico,CA: Scholars Press, 1982) 9-22.

2

See Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul s Letter to the Churches of Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 6, 56 n. 115; J. Louis Martyn, "A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians " Michigan Quarterly Review


2/17

2 HARVARD THE OLO GIC AL REVIEW

In my analysis I confine myself to what can be said with certainty aboutthe opponents: First, the opponents shared with Paul the belief in Jesus asthe messiah; otherwise Paul could not have termed their message a "gospel" (Gal 1:6). Second, for the opponents the gospel of Paul was incomplete, because it lacked part of the commandments of the covenant,particularly the commandment of circumcision as a prerequisite for fullmembership among the people of God (Gal 5:3-4; 6:12-13). Although Paulhimself did not mention it, we can safely assume that on this point theopponents referred to scripture. Gen 17:10-11, for example, states clearlythat without circumcision no one can be a member of the covenant.

We cannot say more about the opponents with any certainty. In thehistory of research, however, scholars have often tried to reconstruct fromPaul's argumentation the accusations made by the opponents with regardeither to the relation of Paul to the authorities in Jerusalem or to his credentials as an apostle. To some extent, these reconstructions are mutuallycontradictory. On the one hand, from Gal 1:1, 11-12 some scholars havereconstructed the charge that Paul was dependent on humans: the apostlesin Jerusalem or other authorities. On the other hand, it is inferred from Gal

1:10 that the opponents blamed Paul because he acted too independently of Jerusalem by adapting his gospel to human needs. Some even attempt tocombine both arguments into a charge that although Paul was at first dependent on Jerusalem, he later deserted. 3 The weaknesses of these hypotheses have been demonstrated more than once. In the case of the chargeof dependence, it is not clear what the point of such a charge could bewithin the framework of the opponents' argument about circumcision. 4 Inboth casesthe charge of dependence and that of independencePaul's

134. esp. 3089: John M. G. Barclay. '"Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a TestCase." JSNT 31 (1987) 73-93; Robert G. Hall . "Historical Inference and Rhetorical Effect:Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2," in Duane F. Watson, ed.. Persuasixe Artistry: Studiesin New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A Kennedy (JSNTSup 50; Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press. 1991) 308-20, esp. 319.

3For the history of research, see Hawkins, 'Opponents,"' 279-342; Lyons, Autobiography,79-82; J. Schoon-Janssen, Umstrittene "Apologien" in den Paulusbriefen (GThA 45; Gott-

ingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 94-96.4See Anton Fridrichsen, "Die Apologie des Paulus Gal. 1," in Lyder Brun and AntonFridrichsen eds Paulus und die Urgemeinde: Zwei Abhandlungen (Giessen: Topelmann


3/17

JOHAN S VOS 3

argument as a whole would be inappropriate because he repeatedly laidhimself open to attack. 5

Apart from the contention that the gospel of Paul concerning circumcision was not according to scripture, we do not know what the opponents 6

may have said about Paul. In this article, I wish to demonstrate that it ispossible to understand the argumentation in the first two chapters of theEpistle to the Galatians in every detail as an answer to the sole demand of circumcision or obedience to the law of Moses and that it is unnecessary to reconstruct other charges.

Purpose and Structure of Paul's ArgumentationGal 1:1-5: Epistolary Prescript: The direction of the subsequent argu

ment is indicated in the epistolary prescript. Here as in the other prescriptsPaul called himself an apostle sent by God. Through this phrase he established his authority: he was not speaking as a private person, but as anenvoy of God. In Gal 1:1, the twofold correctio ' ' underlines this claim to authority. The only function

of this correctio is to accentuate the positive part of the statement . When one realizes how oftenPaul used this rhetorical figure, 7 it appears unadvisable to interpret it as arefutation of a specific charge made by the opponents. 8 This special accent

5 See Fridrichsen, Paulus und die Urgemeinde, 56; George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology (SNTSMS 35: Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Uni versity Press, 1979) 20-45; Lyons, Autobiography. 83-95; Hans Hubner, "Galaterbrief,"ThRE 12 (1984) 5-14, esp. 7; Bernard C. Lategan, "Is Paul Defending His Apostleship inGalatians?: The Function of Galatians 1:1112 and 2:19-20 in the Development of Paul's Argument," NTS 34 (1988) 411-30, esp. 421; Hall, "Historica l Inference," 316-17; Hawkins,"Opponents," 287-89.

6The problematic aspect of the word "opponents" in this context has been pointed out inrecent literature with good reason: it may carry the unproven connotation that the rivalmissionaries had intruded into the missionary field of Paul with the specific purpose of combating him; see Martyn, "A Law-Observant Mission," 226; and Lyons, Autobiography,79, 104, 120. In my opinion, however, the word "opponents" can be used meaningfully in thiscontext: first, from the perspective of Paul, who described the other missionaries explicitly as the adversaries of the true gospel; second, from the perspective of other missionaries, who,given their own presuppositions, had to combat Paul as soon as they were confronted with


4/17

4 H A RVA R D T H E O L O G I C A L REVIEW

on the apostolic authority in the epistolary prescript anticipates the core of the argumentation in the first two chapters. The divine authorization of theapostle is the decisive argument against the other gospel. Paul's self-presentation in Gal 1:1 is the starting point not of a defensive but of an offensivesort of argument: he first strengthened his position as an envoy of God

before he launched his attack on the opponents.Gal 1:6-9: Propositio: In Gal 1:6-9 Paul presented his most important

point: he rebuked 9 the Galatians for having exchanged the true gospel for a false one, and he repeated his previous thesis that anyone who proclaims

a gospel other than the one he had proclaimed is accursed. Interpreters who, in their attempt to determine the structure of the Epistle to theGalatians, make use of the classical rhetorical pattern of the parts of adiscourse usually term Gal 1:6-9 (or Gal 1:6-10/11/12) an exordium or

prooemium. 10 In doing so, however, one should realize that this term is

9 is hereas often in Greek lettersless an expression of real astonishmentthan of irritation and rebuke; the word is equivalent to . See Heikki Koskenniemi,

Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr (SuomalaisenTiedeakatemian toimituksia, series , 102.2. Helsinki: .p., 1956) 66-67; John L. White,'Introductory Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Letter," JBL 90 (1971) 91-97, esp. 96;idem. The Body of the Greek Letter (SBLDS 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972) 106 n.38; Terence Y. Mullins . "Formulas in New Testament Epistles." JBL 91 (1972) 380-90. esp.385-86; Betz. Galatians, 46 -4 7; George Michael Smiga, Language, Experience, and Theology: The Argumentation of Galatians 3:6-4:7 in Light of the Literary Form of Letter (Rome:Pontifica Universitas Gregoriana, Facultas Theologiae, 1985) 127 (including a reference toNils A. Dahl, "Paul's Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure," apaper presented at the Seminar on Paul at the 1973 Annual Meeting of the SBL. 14); Stanley

K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 87; G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 33-44.

10 This was noted already by Heinrich Bullinger, In omnes apostlicas epstolas, divividelicet Pauli XI. et VII. cannicas, commentarli (Zurich: Froschouer, 1539) 342-46. Inrecent times, see Hans Dieter Betz, "The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letteto the Galatians,"NTS 21 (1975) 352-79 , esp 359-62; idem,Galatians, 44-46; Gerd Ludemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel, vol. 1:Studien zur Chronologie (FRLANT 123; Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1980) 65-73; Gerhard Ebeling,Die Wahrheit des Evangeliums: Eine Lesehilfe zum Galaterbrief (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1981) 55-56; Brinsmead,Galatians,

48-49. 67-69; George A. Kennedy,New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill/London: University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 148; James D. Hester"The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians1:11 2:14 "JBL 103 (1984) 223 33 esp 233: Tjitze


5/17

JOHAN S VOS 5

used in such a broad sense as to be almost meaningless. If one adheres tothe standard description of the proem in the rhetorical handbooks, the termis hardly applicable to these verses. Quintilian warned his readers not tolabel the beginning of every discourse a proem. 11 Only if the beginning hasspecific characteristics should the term be used. According to the rhetoricalhandbooks, the exordium has the function of making the readers well-disposed, attentive, and ready to receive instruction. As such the function of the exordium is preparatory. The accent lies on the psychological aspect:the purpose of the exordium is to make the hearts of the hearers well

disposed.12

The manner in which Paul used psychological means so todispose the hearts of his readers is familiar from his other letters, in whichthe introductory thanksgiving serves as a captado benevolentiae and thushas the function of the proem of a discourse. This strategy, however, isquite absent from Galatians.

Hans Dieter Betz 13 mentions several elements of Gal 1:6-9 that, according to the rhetorical handbooks, may constitute parts of an exordium: summarizing the causa, discrediting the adversaries, blaming the audience,

expressing astonishment, and frightening the judges by threats. Althoughmost of these elements may occur within the frame of an exordium, none,however, is constitutive of it. A summary of the causa can occur within anexordium, but normally only as part of the whole psychological strategy of making the audience well-disposed. 14 Such a strategy, however, is absentfrom this pericope. 15 As is obvious from Galatians itself, discrediting the

2,15ff (WUNT 59: Tubingen Mohr/Siebeck, 1992) 157-58.nQuintilian Inst. orat. 4.1.53.12 See, for example, ibid., 4.1.5: "Causa principii nulla alia est, quam ut auditorem. quo

sit nobis in ceteris partibus accommodatior , praeparemus" ("The sole purpose of the exordiumis to prepare our audience in such a way that they will be disposed to lend a ready ear to therest of our speech"; trans. H. E. Butler. The Institutw Oratoria of Quintilian [LCL; 4 vols.;Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press and London: Heinemann, 1920-22] 2. 9). Compare the speech of Antonius in Cicero De orat. 2.317; according to Antonius, to begin in theproem not in a fierce, but in a gentle way corresponds to a law of nature. That rhetoricaltheory does not always correspond to rhetorical praxis is to be seen m the Exordia of Demosthenes.This collection contains various texts in which it is hard to recognize the characteristics of the proem as described in the handbooks. See Robert Clavaud, Dmosthne: Prologues (Collections des Universits de France; Pans: Les belles lettres, 1974) 5-9.

13 Betz, "Literary Composition," 359-62; idem, Galatians, 44-46.


6/17

6 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

adversaries and blaming the readers can occur within all parts of the letter (Gal 3:1; 4:17; 5:7-12; 6:12-13). If an expression of astonishment is used

within an exordium, it is normally employed more with a view to gainingthe goodwill of the audience than as a means of rebuking it. 16 Concerningthe last elementfrightening the judgeswe must simply deny that Paul was here doing something comparable to what is meant by this in therhetorical handbooks. 17 In order to term Gal 1:6-9 an exordium as it wasunderstood in the mainstream of classical rhetorical theory, it is necessary to show that this pericope as a whole and the particular topoi have merely

a preparatory function and that the essential part comes afterwards. Indeed,interpreters have often explained the text in this way. They have differed,however, in their determination of the place where the main argument begins.On the one hand, there is a tendency to regard Gal 1:11(12) as the

propositio. Heinrich Bullinger, for example, remarked of verse 11: "Up tothis point he prepared the minds of his audience through the exordium. . . ,now, however, he comes to the point." 18 Whereas for Bullinger verse 11 isthe propositio only for the first part of the argumentation (Gal 1:11-2:14),

in recent times there has been a tendency to regard Gal 1:11-12 as theprincipal proposition of the whole letter. 19 Betz, on the other hand, presented a different model, according to which the essential element followsin the propositio (Gal 2:15-21), after the exordium (Gal 1:6-9) and thenarrano (Gal 1:132:14). 20 This model has considerable influence at present. A third variant of this structure is that proposed by Melanchthon, whoregarded Gal 3:1 as the propositio of the letter. 21 The question, however,

1 6See also the criticism of Carl Joachim Classen. "Paulus und die antike Rhetorik," ZNW 82 (1991) 1-33, esp. 10 . 23

1 7 Se e Kennedy, Interpretation, 148.18 Bulhnger, In omnes apostlicas epstolas, 346: "Hactenus para\it auditorum nimos

exordio. . . , nunc vero aggreditur psum negotium."19Pitta, Disposizione, 149; see also the discussion on this subject in J. Lambrecht, ed.,The

Truth of the Gospel (Galatians 1:1-4:11) (Monographic Series of "Benedictina," Biblical-Ecumenical Section 12; Rome: St. Paul's Abbey, 1993) 45. 47-48, 50-51, 53-56.

20Betz, "Literary Composition," 367-68; idem,Galatians. 113-14; similar positions can

be found in Brinsmead,Galatians, 50-51; Hubner, "Galaterbrief," 5-6; Franois Vouga,"Zur rhetorischen Gattung des Galaterbriefes,"ZNW 79 (1988) 291-92; Hansen. Abraham,69 100 101


7/17

JOHAN S VOS 7

is whether this interpretation was inspired mainly by knowledge of the

classical rhetorical pattern or by an analysis of the text itself. Another model of interpretation, however, does more justice to the de velopment of the argument. Concerning the disposino of the whole letter Iagree with George A. Kennedy 22 and Robert G. Hall 23 that Gal 1:6-9 relates to what followsat least to Gal 1:10-5:12as the main thesis to theexplication or, in rhetorical categories, as the propositio to the confirmationIn Gal 1:6-9 Paul directly formulated the main thesis of the letter in theform of a rebuke and a conditional curse: the true gospel is not the gospelof the opponents, but only that of Paul. 25 He used the next part of the letter to undergird his thesis with various proofs and to draw conclusions fromit. The thesis that for the Galatians there is no other gospel than the oneproclaimed by Paul encompasses the whole content of the letter, which can

be outlined as follows:(1) The argument introduced by is the first of several pas

sages in which Paul rebuked the Galatians for their imminent desertion of the true gospel (Gal 3:1-5; 4:8-11; 5:7-10). 26

(2) The Galatians' change of mind, expressed by the words . . . , recurs in several variants of the texts mentioned (Gal 3:3, . . . ; Gal 4:9, . . . . . . ; Gal 5:7, . . . . . . ).

(3) Although in Gal 1:6-9 Paul indicated only that a is at stake, the reader learns at various places in the rest of the letter whatthe content of this other gospel is (Gal 3:1-5; 4:21; 5:2; 6:12; etc.).

22 Kennedy remarks {Interpretation, 148), "The central idea of the proem, that there is noother gospel, is a general statement of the proposition of the letter, which will be taken upand given specific meaning in the headings which follow." Kennedy regards Gal 1:11-5:1 asthe "proof* divided into several "headings" (pp. 148-51).

23 Robert G. Hall, "The Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration," JBL 106(1987) 277-87. Hall structures the letter as follows: (1) Salumion/Exordium (Gal 1:1-5); (2)Proposition (Gal 1:6-9); (3) Proof (Gal 1:10-6:10); (3a) Narration (Gal 1:10-2:21); (3b)Further Headings (Gal 3:1-6 10); (4) Epilogue (Gal 6:11-18).

2 4 For the placing of a propositio at the beginning of a speech, see Aristotle Rhet. 3.13(1414a); Hermogenes De invertitone 3.2 (in Hugo Rabe, ed., Hermogenis Opera [Stuttgart:Teubner, 1913] 128, lines 7-10). For the history of the propositio in rhetorical theory and


8/17

8 HARVARD TH EO LOG IC AL REVIEW

(4) Verbal reminiscences of the phrase

are found in Gal 1:15; 2:21; 5:4, 8.(5) An allusion to the phrase

recurs in Gal 5:10 and, in other words, in 5:12.(6) recurs in

texts in which Paul defended the (Gal 2:5, 14;5:7) or stated that the doctrine of his adversaries is opposed to the truegospel (for example, Gal 2:21; 3:2-5; 4:8-11; 5:2, 4).

(7) The curse pronounced on the messengers of the other gospel recursin another form in Gal 5:10 (see also Gal 5:4). Together with the blessingat the end of the letter (Gal 6:16), this curse makes an antithetic inclusio.

Whereas Gal 1:6-9 covers the whole content of the letter, Gal 1:11-12and 3:1-5 are to be understood as subpropositiones, that is, theses of theseparate proofs, Gal 1:13-2:14(21) and 3:6-4:7 respectively. Because of itsmainly argumentative character Gal 2:15-21 can hardly be termed a

propositio. 21 Although Kennedy takes Gal 1:6-9 to be the propositio of theletter, he nevertheless terms these verses a prooemium. Because the term

prooemium in this case is used in a sense that is much broader than is usualin the rhetorical handbooks, I would prefer to avoid it here.

Gal 1:10-12: Enthymematic Confirmatio: The question about the rhetorical categories and functions is not merely a matter of names. Only if one interprets the relation of Gal 1:6-9 to what follows in the way proposed here will it be possible to do justice to the fourfold in Gal 1: 3 and to give Gal 1:10 a clear function within the argumentation as a

whole. It is a controversial point whether Gal 1:10 belongs logically to Gal

1:6-9 or Gal 1:11-12, or whether it is separate from both parts as a kindof emotional outburst. 28 According to Betz, Gal 1:10-11 constitutes, inkeeping with the rhetorical handbooks, the transitus or transgressio between the exordium and the narrano. 29 To make this interpretation acceptable, however, he must state that "the two rhetorical questions and theassertion in v. 10 put a clear end to the exordium," which I fail to see. Ifind more evidence of John Calvin's interpretation of Gal 1:10: after he hadso confidently extolled his own preaching Paul demonstrated in verses lOff.

"that he was entitled to do so" {se id iure ferisse).30

For this purpose,


9/17

JOHAN S VOS 9

according to Calvin, he used two arguments. The first is an argument ab

affectu animi, that is, derived from the disposition of his mind: Paul hadnot the disposition to adapt himself to people to flatter them (Gal 1:10).The second argument is much stronger: he had handed over the gospelexactly in the form he had received it from God himself (Gal 1:11-12).

The interpretation of Gal 1:10-13 must begin from the insight that eachtime occurs in these sentences it has a causal meaning. 31 These sentences build a causal chain. That has a causal meaning here four timeshas often been challenged. 32 It should be taken into account, however, that

in sentences introduced by the phrase that has to be supported is notalways fully expressed and should be supplied from the context. 33 In thiscase, following Calvin, the sentence "I am entitled to do so" should beinserted. 34 The reason adduced by Paul here is an amplification of Gal 1:1.There he had maintained that he was an apostle sent not by humans but by God; here in Gal 1:10 he demonstrated from the content and tone of Gal1:69 35 that he really was not a slave of humans, but a servant of God andChrist. 36 This argument in its turn functions as a confirmation of his au-

3 1 See also Bernhard Weiss. Die pauhnischen Briefe im berichtigten Text (Leipzig:Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung. 1896) 320-21.

3 2 is often taken to be a confirmative ad\erb with the force of making the questionmore urgent; see. for example. Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 9; 3d ed.; Leipzig/Erlangen: Deichen, 1922) 54-55: Albrecht Oepke,Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (ThHKNT 9: 2d ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstal t,1964) 26; Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (MeyerK; 4th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 41 n. 2: according to Betz {Galatians, 54 n. 100), is used not so muchto connect with what precedes as to introduce another topic.

Insofar as interpreters hold to the causal meaning and the argumentative force of ,they mostly consider Gal 1:10 to be an attempt to justify the harsh language of Gal 1:6(8)9; see, for example. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Kritisch Exegetisches Handbuch ber den Brief an die Galater (MeyerK; 4th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1870) 25Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921) 31; Lyons,Autobiography, 137. A different approachis taken by C. J. Ellicott(St Paul s Epistle to the Galatians [3d ed.; London: Longmans,Green, 1863] 11) who does not connect the argumentative aspect of with the harsh toneof Gal 1:6-9. but with the "unquestionable truth, the best proof of which lay in his [Paul's]

being one who was making God his friend, and not men."3 3 BAG. s v. , 152e gives Matt 2:2; Mark 8:35//Luke 9:24; and Mark 8:38 as further

examples from the New Testament.


10/17

10 H A RVA R D T H E O L O G I C A L R E V I E W

thority as the author of Gal 1:6-9. Behind these short sentences lies thefollowing syllogism:

la. The gospel is true if it is proclaimed by a true servant of God andChrist.

lb. The gospel is false if it is proclaimed by a flatterer and a servantof humans.

2. The content and the tone of Gal 1:6-9 demonstrate that I am not aflatterer and a servant of humans but a true servant of God and Christ.

3. Consequently, the gospel I proclaimed to you is true.

Basically, Paul used a circular argument: he undergirded the truth of hisgospel with his ethos as an apostle. He derived this ethos, however, fromthe character of the gospel.

To understand Gal 1:10 it is not necessary to assume that Paul wasresponding to a charge of being a flatterer. 37 In rhetorical praxis it wascommon for rhetors to legitimize the content of their speech by referring

to their ethos. In doing so they often fell back on the standard distinction between true and false rhetors. The following variants of this distinctionoccur:

(a) Opposed to the rhetor who only flatters and tries to please humansis the one who for the sake of the truth does not spare his audience. 38

(b) Opposed to the rhetor who with all possible rhetorical means tries toconvince his audience is the rhetorically incompetent one, who is concerned only about the truth. 39

(c) Opposed to the rhetor who seeks his own profit, whether glory or money, by corrupt means is the one who unselfishly and with honorablemotives acts only for the sake of the truth. 40

In employing such antitheses, rhetors sometimes had concrete rivals inmind. At other times, however, stereotypical pictures were used, and the

165 n. 20. For a critical review of the differing interpretations of Rudolf Bultmann and HansDieter Betz, see Lyons, Autobiography, 141-43.

3 7

See also Friedrich Sieffert, Der Brief an die Galater (MeyerK; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1899) 50; Betz, Galatians, 55-56; Ludemann, Paulus, 1. 68-72; Lyons, Autobiography 143-44; David E Aune The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Library


11/17

J O H A N S VO S 11

contrasts functioned merely as rhetorical antitheses. Paul used all three variants of this topos (1 Thess 2:1-11; 1 Cor 1:17; 2:4-5; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:1-2); in Gal 1:10 he used the first. 41 It is not always easy to decide whenPaul was defending himself against concrete charges, but texts such as 1Thess 2:4-5 and Gal 1:10 can be understood well without such an assumption. 42

Gal 1:11 is first of all an underpinning of Gal 1:10. 43 With the words Paul repeated the word "human being," which occurredthree times in verse 10. 44 He thus proved his contention that he is not aflatterer and a slave of humans with the fundamental thesis that his gospelis not , in other words, not meeting human norms andexpectations and thus by no means serving to please humans. In underpinning Gal 1:10, verse 11 at the same time supports Gal l:6-9. 4 5 Interpretershave often argued from the use of the ''disclosure formula" 46 that Gal 1:11 is the beginning of a new paragraph. 1 Cor 12:3,however, shows that this is by no means necessary. Within the causal chainthis formula has a clear function, namely, to accentuate the fundamentalcharacter of his argument. Here in Galatians Paul used the first variant of

the above-mentioned criterionthe true rhetor does not spare his audiencein order to distinguish between true and false. This criterion wasfamiliar not only in the Greco-Roman world, where it could be applied topublic figures such as rhetors and statesmen, as well as to private contactssuch as friends, but also in the biblical world, where it was used to distinguish true and false prophets. In contrast to false prophecy, weak leader-

4 1 Betz, Galatians, 54-56.4 2

For 1 Thessalonians 2, see Martin Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher I, II, An die Philipper (HNT; 3d ed.; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1937) 7-11 ; Abraham Malherbe, "'Gentle as a Nurse':The Cynic Background to I Thess ii," No\T 12 (1970) 203-17 .

4 3 The evidence of the manuscripts does not permit a clear decision between and .The arguments for as the original reading have been clearly formulated by Sieffert (Der Brief an die Galater, 52), who writes. "It is not probable that has 'come into the textmechanically from the context' (Meyer); rather it is the original text andwith a view toavoiding the fourfold and because of its apparent intrinsic difficultyhas been partly changed into (in accordance with 1 Cor 15 :1; 2 Cor 8:1) and partly. . . omit ted." See alsoZahn. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 55 n. 55.

4 4

Even if one reads instead of , it is important to see the close intrinsic connection between Gal 1:10 and 1:11. Ruckert interprets the text otherwise (Commentar, 30), defending

h di i h h h h i i i i i b G l 1 10 d


12/17

12 H A RVA R D T H E O L O G I C A L REVIEW

ship, flattering rhetorics, or servile friendship, the speech of the true prophet,

statesman, rhetor, or friend is uncompromising; the content is not whatpeople normally like to hear. In the words of Paul, it is not . 4 7 With the fundamental thesis that the gospel is not Paul legitimized his ethos as described in Gal 1:10 and demonstrated in Gal 1:6-9. That Paul formulated such a fundamental thesis hereonly in a negative form has to do with the fact that here and in Gal 1:10he did no more than support the polemical proposition of Gal 1:6-9.

In Gal 1:12 Paul undergirded this fundamental thesis with a statementabout the origin of the gospel: he had not received it from human beings,

but directly by a revelation from God or Jesus Christ. The logical presupposition of this argument is the thesis that the origin of a matter determinesits essence. 48 Gal 1:11-12 are based on the following syllogistic argument:

la. A true gospel is not of a human nature.

lb. A gospel that does not have a human origin cannot be of a humannature.

2. The origin of my gospel is not human but divine.3. Consequently, my gospel is true. 49

In the religious tradition of Paul, this reference to divine revelation inorder to legitimize a contentious message is an argument that is as commonas it is controversial. The argument is fully understandable without thehypothesis that Paul was responding to a charge of the opponents. 50

Thus, in summary, by means of an amplification of Gal 1:1 Paul provedthe truth of Gal 1:6-9 in that he showed that his behavior (Gal 1:10) wasin accordance with the character (Gal 1:11) and the origin (Gal 1:12) of hisgospel. First, from his practical behavior he proved that he was not a slave

4 7 0 n rhetors, see above, n. 37; on statesmen, see Philo Jos. 73-78; on friends, see CiceroDe amicitia 89-92; Plutarch Adult. 54d-55e, on prophets, see Jer 23:16-17; 1 Kgs 22: 13-18: Luke 6:26. See also Karl Olav Sandnes,Paul, One of the Prophets?: A Contribution tothe Apostle s Self-Understanding (WUNT 2d series 43; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991) 56-57.

48Compare John 3:6, 31; 1 Cor 15:47-49; Gal 6:8.49For the logic of the argumentation, see also Longenecker,Galatians, cxv-cxvi.50It is not necessary to understand in a polemical way as "7 as little as


13/17

JOHAN S VOS 13

of humans but a servant of God. Then, he proved that as matter of principle

he could not be a slave of humans because his gospel was not . Finally, he proved that his gospel is not because he had received it by a heavenly revelation. The proof exists in aseries of enthymemes, or statements with a supporting reason, behind whichstand logical syllogisms based on specific presuppositions. It is importantto bring into focus the relation between the statements about the gospel and what is said about the apostolate. When in Gal 1:6-9 Paul explicitly established the causa, he spoke only about the gospel; the statements about hisapostolate have their place within the proof of the truth of the gospel. Thesame is true for the rest of the letter: wherever Paul explicitly formulatedthe causa, he was talking only about the truth of the gospel (Gal 4:10; 5:2-4, 7; 6:12-13). In contrast to the letters to the Corinthians, for example,nowhere in the letter to the Galatians did Paul explicitly present the legitimacy of his apostolate as the controversial point. Insofar as he spoke abouthis apostolate, he did so in order to prove the truth of his gospel againstthat of the opponents, never to defend himself against an explicit charged 1

In Gal 1:6-9 Paul acted more as an accuser than as the accused. Corre

spondingly, the supporting statements about his ethos as an apostle and theheavenly origin of his apostolate have more an offensive than a defensivefunction.

Gal 1:13-2:14(21): Narrative Confirmatio: In Gal 1:13-2:14 Paul related the history of his vocation and his contacts with the authorities inJerusalem. With good reason this paragraph is often labeled a narrano.More important, however, than the term as such is the question of the

function of this narrano as part of the entire argument. The rhetoricalhandbooks distinguished various forms of narrano: the narrano can expound the facts of the case itself, or it can present facts that are related tothe case in a broader sense. This second type can be used, for example, asa means of winning belief or incriminating the adversaries. 52 An analysisof the narrano in Galatians will make clear that in this case it has morethan one function. 53 The argument can be divided into three parts.

5 1 For a similar position, see Lategan, "Is Paul Defending his Apostleship," 416-26. Seealso Jost Eckert, Die urchristliche Verkndigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern


14/17

14 H A RVA R D T H E O L O G I C A L R EV IE W

(1) The function of the first part, Gal 1:13-24, is obvious: it serves only as a confirmation of Paul's way of legitimizing himself in Gal 1:12. Pauladduced the historical evidence that he really had not received his gospelfrom any human being.

(2) The function of the second part, Gal 2:1-10, is threefold: (a) Pauldemonstrated that the Jerusalem authorities had endorsed the truth of hisspecific gospel; the reader learns that the freedom of gentile believers withregard to circumcision is at stake (Gal 2:3, 6, 9-10). With this point Paultouched directly upon the causa of the letter, (b) Paul demonstrated that theJerusalem authorities had confirmed his way of legitimizing his gospel:they had recognized its divine origin (Gal 2:7-10). As in Gal 1:10-12, heretoo the legitimization on the basis of the divine origin of the gospel has thefunction of supporting argument: the participles and inGal 2:7-10 have the same function as the particle in the causal chainin Gal 1:10-13. They have a causal connotation and give the reason why the Jerusalem leaders had accepted the mission and gospel of Paul andBarnabas, (c) Paul gave an example of the ethos he had described in Gal1:10. In the face of the false brethren in Jerusalem he had not tried to

please humans, but had shown himself to be a true servant of Christ by fighting unswervingly for the truth of the gospel.

(3) In the third part, Gal 2:11-14(21), two aspects of Gal 1:6-12 aretouched upon: (a) Paul gave a new example of his ethos as an apostle: notonly before the Galatians (Gal 1:6-9) or the false brethren in Jerusalem(Gal 2:4-5), but even before Peter Paul had demonstrated publicly that asan apostle he did not seek to please humans. Unlike Peter, Barnabas, andthe others who, for fear of the Jews, had played the hypocrite, 54 Paul

showed himself to be the embodiment of the principle that his gospel is not . (b) In this section Paul's ethos is also subservient to thetruth of the gospel. Concerning the content of this truth, the reader learnsthat not only circumcision is at stake, but also the halakhic rules governingpurity. The narrano results in a fundamental theological argument aboutthe relationship between the gospel and the law and thus about the fundamental aspect of the causa of the Galatian conflict.

To summarize, in the narrano Paul confirmed and illuminated the threepoints of Gal 1:6-12: he began with a confirmation of Gal 1:12 concerningthe divine origin of his gospel; he then gave two examples of his ethos thathe had described practically in Gal 1:10 and fundamentally in Gal 1:11


15/17

JO HA N S VOS 15

function of the narrano, we should say that Paul started with facts that arerelated to the causa in broad sense, but then to an increasing extent herelated the argumentation back to the causa itself.

We can term the narrano apologetic in the sense that Paul was defending the truth of his gospel. It is not apologetic, however, if by apologeticwe mean that Paul was arguing mainly from a defensive position and wasbeing urged to respond to charges concerning the legitimacy of his apostolateor his relationship to the Jerusalem apostles. Just as in Gal 1:6-9 thestarting point is a charge against the Galatians concerning the content of

the gospel, so in Gal 2:11-14(21) the narrano culminates in a charge concerning the truth of the gospel.

Recently, interpreters who share the opinion that in the narrano Paulwas not taking a defensive position have put forward an alternative thesisthat the key to the interpretation of Paul's autobiographical narrative is tobe found in Gal 4:12 and that its function is mainly paradigmatic. 55 Againstthis view speaks not only the fact that Gal 4:12 belongs to a differentcontext, but above all that only a few elements in Gal 1:13-2:14 really

have paradigmatic force; a great deal of the information in this pericopefor example, the details concerning the journeys of Paul and his relation tothe pillarswould be irrelevant from this perspective. 56

If one shares the view that Paul's argumentation in Galatians 1-2 is notdefensive, one must explain why Paul gave such a detailed account of hisrelationship with the Jerusalem authorities. In my opinion, it is possible toexplain the argumentation in Gal 1:13-2:21 without having to resort to thehypothesis of a response to concrete charges concerning his apostolate. Theargumentation here should be compared with that in 1 Cor 15:1-11. Therealso the true form of the gospel is at stake. Paul used the apostolic consensus as a fundamental argument to defend his gospel. This apostolic consensus in its turn is based on a uniform apostolic history: on the point of therevelation of the resurrected Christ, Paul demonstrated that he stood in thesame line as Peter, the Twelve, and James. In Galatians an equally fundamental question is at stake. This time, however, Paul realized that he couldnot refer to a uniform apostolic consensus and a continuous apostolic history. For this reason, he adapted his method of persuasion to the situation:he demonstrated that his authority as an apostle holds good (1) before theexistence of a consensus with the pillars, (2) according to an existing ap-


16/17

16 H A RVA R D T H E O L O G I C A L R E V IE W

ostolic consensus, and (3) in spite of a later dissension with the Jerusalem

authorities. As in 1 Corinthians 15, in Galatians 1-2 the relationship of thegospel of Paul to that of the pillars in Jerusalem is of the greatest importance because of its persuasive force.

The purpose of the narrano is primarily orthodidactic or orthopractical.For Paul, "acting in line with the truth of the gospel" (Gal 2:14) was atstake. I summarize the arguments for this thesis: First, the narrado is a partof the causal chain that has the function of supporting the thesis about thetruth of Paul's gospel in Gal 1:6-9. Second, twice within the narrado Paul

emphasized that his actions had only one purpose: the defense of "the truthof the gospel." Third, the narrado results in a theological argument concerning the content of the true gospel.

In Galatians 1-2 as a whole Paul defended the truth of his gospel in theface of a contrary gospel and gave instruction as to its nature. He did soin various ways: by rebuking, threatening, arguing, and narrating. Melanch-thon did not consider the letter as a whole as one of the well-known rhetorical genresforensic, deliberative, or epideicticbut used the category

genus didacticum ("didactic genre"). 57 As far as the first two chapters areconcerned, this category seems to me to be preferable to any of the threederived from the rhetorical handbooks.


17/17

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Pauls Argumentation in Gal 1-2

Documents

Transcript of Pauls Argumentation in Gal 1-2