Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:25:29.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arguing Like an Apocalypse: Galatians and an Ancient Topos Outside The Greco-Roman Rhetorical Tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Robert G. Hall
Robert G. Hall
Affiliation:
(Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943, USA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

George Kennedy affirms that Galatians rests on ethos, that Paul maintains the appearance of logical argument ‘perhaps more to seem to recognize the possibility of objections and to be prepared to answer them confidently than to provide a developed response’. Kraftchick concurs: ‘Since Paul's case is no more logical than his opponents’ the argument depends on non-logical factors: ethos and pathos.’ Rhetorical interpreters have difficulty tracing a logical argument throughout the letter: most bracket off the hortatory section of Galatians; Joop Smit has argued on rhetorical grounds that Galatians 5.13–6.10 is a later addition. That rhetorical interpreters dispute the species of rhetoric to which Galatians belongs also implies confusion over logical progression in the letter. Of course, the place of the hortatory material in Paul's argument has long been hotly debated; Paul's highly compressed arguments have long challenged interpreters. Yet because rhetorical critics claim to clarify the flow of argument in a text, their failure is especially striking. Does this difficulty in delineating a logical argument imply that Galatians contains irreconcilable contradictions as Smit argues, or that Paul offers an ethical rather than a logical argument as Kennedy and Kraftchick indicate, or that rhetoric is irrelevant to parenesis as Barclay concludes, or does it imply that rhetorical interpreters have yet to grasp the logical proof in the letter?

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 434 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1984) 149–50.Google Scholar

2 Kraftchick, S. J., Ethos and Pathos Appeals in Galatians Five and Six: A Rhetorical Analysis (1985 dissertation for Emory University; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1985) 215.Google Scholar

3 Betz, H. D., A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 254Google Scholar; Aune, D. E., ‘Review of H. D. Betz, A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia’, RSR 7 (1981) 326Google Scholar; Hübner, H., ‘Der Galaterbrief und das Verhältnis von antiker Rhetorik und Epistolographie’, TLZ 109 (1984) 241–50Google Scholar; Hester, J. D., ‘The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1.11–2.14’, JBL 103 (1984) 224Google Scholar; Vouga, F., ‘Zur rhetorischen Gattung des Galaterbriefes’, ZNW 79 (1988) 291–2Google Scholar; Melanchthon, P., ‘Exegesis in Epistolam Pauli pros tous Galatas’, Texte zur Geschichte der evangelischen Theologie, Heft 2, Texte aus der Anfangszeit Melanchthons (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1966) 36–7Google Scholar; Hansen, G. W., Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTSS 29; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 60Google Scholar; Harnish, W., ‘Einübung des neuen Seins: Paulinische Paränese am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes’, ZTK 84 (1987) 287.Google Scholar

4 Smit, J., ‘The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech’, NTS 35 (1989) 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Deliberative: Kennedy, Smit, Vouga, Standaert, Lyons, Jegher-Bucher, Hall; Judicial: Betz, Hübner, Hester (later epideictic); Begins judicial, ends deliberative: Hansen, Harnish; Epideictic or demonstrative: Pitta. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 145; Smit, ‘Galatians: A Deliberative Speech’, 1–26; Vouga, ‘Rhetorischen Gattung’, 291–2; Standaert, B., ‘La rhétorique antique et l'épître aux Galates’, Foi et Vie 84 (5, 1985) 33–40Google Scholar; Lyons, G., Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 174Google Scholar; Jegher-Bucher, V., Der Galaterbrief auf dem Hintergrund antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik: ein anderes Paulusbild (ATANT 78; Zürich: Theologischer, 1991) 79Google Scholar; Hall, R. G., ‘The Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration’, JBL 106 (1987) 277–87Google Scholar; Betz, Galatians, 14–15; Hübner, ‘Der Galaterbrief’, 243–4; J. D. Hester, ‘Rhetorical Structure’, 224 and ‘Placing the Blame: The Presence of Epideictic in Galatians 1 and 2’, Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (ed. D. F. Watson; JSNTSS 50; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 281–307Google Scholar; Hansen, Abraham in Galatians, 57–60; Harnish, ‘Einubung des neuen Seins’, 279, 287; Pitta, A, Disposizione e messaggio della lettera ai Galati: Analisi retorico-letteraria (Analecta Biblica 131; Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1992) 212.Google Scholar

6 Jewett, R., ‘The Agitators and the Gaiatian Congregation’, NTS 17 (1971) 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dibelius, M. and Greeven, H., A Commentary on the Epistle of James (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 1–11Google Scholar; O'Neill, J. C., The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians (London: SPCK, 1972)Google Scholar; Ropes, J. H., The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians (Harvard Theological Studies 14; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1929)Google Scholar; Schmithals, W., ‘The Heretics in Galatia’, Paul and the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, New York) 13–64Google Scholar; Drane, W., Paul, Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975) 52–3Google Scholar; W. Harnisch, ‘Einübung des neuen Sein’, 279–96; Barclay, J., Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988).Google Scholar

7 Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 25.

8 See Classen, C. J., ‘Paulus und die antike Rhetorik’, ZNW 82/1/2 (1991) 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 See Beckwith, R. T., ‘The earliest Enoch Literature and its Calendar: Marks of their Origin, Date, and Motivation’, RQ 10 (1981) 365–403Google Scholar; VanderKam, J. C., ‘The Origin, Character and Early History of the 364 Day Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert's Hypothesis’, CBQ 41 (1979) 390–411.Google Scholar

10 Quoted from ‘1 Enoch’, trans. Knibb, M. A. in The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. Sparks, H. F. D.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) 272.Google Scholar

11 See Collins, J. J., The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 48.Google Scholar

12 Charles, R. H., The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912) 181, 200Google Scholar; Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 1.187.Google Scholar

13 See Hall, R. G., Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Historiography (JSPSS 6; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 62–8.Google Scholar

14 Martin, F., Le Livre d'Hénoch (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1906) xxix.Google Scholar

15 Following the dating in VanderKam, J. C., Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977) 283–4.Google Scholar

16 Jubilees regularly establishes Laws by revealing heavenly origin and earthly institution. See Hall, Revealed Histories, 31–6; compare Wintermute, O. S., ‘Jubilees’, OTP 2.38Google Scholar; Charles, R. H., The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: A. and C. Black, 1902) 37 n. 18.Google Scholar

17 For debate over opponents, see Lütgert, W., Gesetz und Geist. Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1919)Google Scholar; Ropes, Singular Problem; Jewett, ‘Agitators’, 198–212. Schmithals, ‘Heretics in Galatia’, 13–64; Lyons, Pauline Autobiography, 75–121.

18 Hadrian outlawed circumcision and castration. See Smallwood, E. M., The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 429Google Scholar. For Jewish attempts to counter Greco-Roman repugnance toward circumcision, see Hall, R. G., ‘Epispasm and the Dating of Ancient Jewish Writings’, JSP 2 (1988) 71–86Google Scholar; Collins, J. J., ‘A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century’, ‘To See Ourselves As Others See Us': Christians, Jews, and ‘Others’ in Late Antiquity (ed. Neusner, J. and Frerichs, I. S.; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985) 163–86.Google Scholar

19 Called epispasm. Celsus De Medicina 7.25.1; Soranus, Gynecology 2.34; Dioscorides De Materia Medica 4.153. Paul forbids the operation (1 Cor 7.18).

20 Celsus De Medicina 7.25.2. Because some used a pin or fibula to secure the foreskin, the practice was called ‘infibulation’. Infibulated nudes turn up with some frequency on Greek vases; see Kreuls, Eva C., The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens (New York: Harper and Row, 1985) 68–70.Google Scholar

21 Circumcision aids fertility and protects against disease; since circumcision increases cleanliness, it befits a priestly nation; the heart begets thought and circumcised penises resemble the godly heart; circumcision represents the excision of the bewitching pleasures of sex (Philo Special Laws 1.2–11).

22 Martial ridicules a Jew whose fibula falls out while exercising in the bath (Epigrams 7.82). Josephus (Ant. 12.241) refers most naturally to infibulation, but may refer to epispasm.

23 Jubilees 15.33. The Mishnah stipulates how much of the foreskin must be removed (Shabbat 30.6).

24 1 Mace 1.15; Testament of Moses 8.3; 1 Cor 7.18; Pirke Aboth 3.16; t. Shabb. 15.9; b. Yebam. 72a; b. Yoma 85b; Lev. R. 191.6; b. Sanh. 38b; b. Menah. 53b; Epiphanius of Salamis De Mensuris et Ponderibus 16.

25 Philo, who repudiates those who allegorized the Law to abrogate circumcision (Migration of Abraham 89–93), himself allegorizes circumcision: ‘The real proselyte circumcises not his foreskin but his passions’ (Questions in Exodus 2.2). Ananias, who had convinced Izates to become a Jew, argues unsuccessfully that he should not be circumcised (Josephus Ant. 20.38–40).

26 Gen 17; Exod 6.24–6; Josh 5.2–9; Ezek 28.10; 31.28; 32.19–32; T. Levi 6.3; Jub 15. Flusser and Safrai so interpret an ancient Jewish blessing: Flusser, D. and Safrai, S., ‘Who Sanctified the Beloved in the Womb?’, Immanuel 11 (1980) 46–55.Google Scholar

27 Notice that I do not define what Paul's opponents are arguing. Instead I describe an argument constituent to the rhetorical situation of Paul and his opponents. That Paul responds to some such argument seems clear; that his opponents adduced such an argument is less clear.

28 The narration is rich in non-logical arguments as well: it develops Paul's ethos. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 148; Hall, ‘Rhetorical Outline’, 284–5.

29 Gaventa, B. R., ‘Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm’, NovT 28 (1986) 309–26Google Scholar; Lyons, Autobiography, 71; R. G. Hall, ‘Historical Inference or Rhetorical Effect: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2’, Persuasive Artistry, 318; Cosgrove, C. H., The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1988) 145.Google Scholar

30 Stendahl, K., Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 7–23Google Scholar; Dubuis, E., ‘Paul et la narration de soi en Galates 1 et 2’, La narration. Quand le récit devient communication (ed. Bühler, P. and Habermacher, J.-F.; Lieux théologiques 12; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988) 170.Google Scholar

31 Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Atlanta: John Knox, 1977) 94.Google Scholar

32 I allot ἰστορ⋯σαι its ordinary force, for I do not think Paul stresses his independence from other apostles. See Cosgrove, Cross and Spirit, 127; Hall, ‘Historical Inference’, 316–17.

33 Dunn, J. D. G., ‘The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2’, NTS 28 (1982) 468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 See Hall, ‘Historical Inference’, 318.

35 With Aune, D. E. (Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983] 248–61)Google Scholar; against Hill, D. (New Testament Prophecy [Atlanta: John Knox, 1979] 110–40Google Scholar). Kraftchick notes the rhetorical effect of Paul's prophetic claim: S. J. Kraftchick, Ethos and Pathos Appeals, 135 n. 5.

36 While my interpretation of Galatians has closest affinities with the ‘Apocalyptic Antinomies’ of J. L. Martin, many recognize Paul's use of two spheres or realms. Martyn, J. L., ‘Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 31 (1985) 410–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Westerholm, S., ‘Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics’, NTS 30 (1984) 238CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snodgrass, K., ‘Spheres of Influence. A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law’, JSNT 32 (1983) 93–113Google Scholar; Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 206, 213; Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 553–4Google Scholar; Harnish, ‘Einübung des neuen Seins’, 285; Lull, D. J., The Spirit in Galatia: Paul's Interpretation of Pneuma as Divine Power (SBLDS 49; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980) 157, 170.Google Scholar

37 See Collins, J. J., ed. Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979) 28.Google Scholar

38 E.g. Daniel 9 and lQpHab. See J. C. Vanderkam, Enoch, 142, 165–7, 190; Ellis, E. E., Prophecy and Hemeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 129–44.Google Scholar

39 Howard, G., Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian Theology (SNTSMS 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) 62–4.Google Scholar

40 This verse is far from clear. Paul probably thinks of angels establishing the Law and ruling the world to enforce it. As God ordains the rule of the wicked angelic shepherds for a specific period in history in the Animal Apocalypse, so God ordains the rule of angels and the Law they administer for a limited period in Galatians. My point stands, however, even if angels ordain the Law independently of God as Schlier allows or if wicked angels ordain the Law as Hübner argues. See Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (Meyers Kommentar 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 155–6Google Scholar; Hübner, H., Das Gesetz bei Paulus: ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 27–34Google Scholar. For a balanced summary see Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 175–81Google Scholar; for a positive association of Law and angels see Longenecker, R. N., Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990) 139–40.Google Scholar

41 Πίστις Χριστο⋯ refers to Christ's own faith. By entering Christ Christians obtain Christ's faith and so believe. See Williams, S. K., ‘Once Again Pistis Christou’, CBQ 49 (1987) 431–47Google Scholar; Hooker, Morna D., ‘ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ’, NTS 35 (1989) 331.Google Scholar

42 Williams, ‘Again Pistis Christou’, 443–4, 446.

43 Notice the parallel mechanism discussed by Hays: Gal 3.13 and 4.4. See Hays, R. B., The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3.1–4.11 (SBLDS 56; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983) 116–18.Google Scholar

44 Winston, D., The Wisdom of Solomon (AB; Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1979) 300.Google Scholar

45 As the building blocks of bodies, στοιχεα hinder the ascent of the soul to its natural happy state (e.g. Josephus, War 6.47). Paul probably counts on this connotation as well when urging people not to return to slavery under the elements. Schweizer, E., ‘“Die Elemente der Welt”, Gal 4.3–9; Kol 2.8–20’, Beiträge zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Zürich: Zwingli, 1970) 156.Google Scholar

46 Reicke thinks of ‘elemental spirits’ above the Law; I think of angels ruling the elements according to the Law. See Reicke, B., ‘The Law and This World according to Paul: Some Thought concerning Gal 4.1–11’, JBL 70 (1951) 262–3Google Scholar; see Cosgrove, Cross and Spirit, 182–3.

47 Many interpret ‘flesh’ and ‘Spirit’ as two spheres: Käsemann, E., ‘On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic’, New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 136Google Scholar; Martyn, ‘Apocalyptic Antinomies’, 417; Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 207–15; Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 170; Westerholm, ‘Letter and Spirit’, 229–48. Burton and Betz see flesh and Spirit as metaphors for evil and good impulses within a human personality: Burton, E. de W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977) 300Google Scholar; Betz, Galatians, 279–80.

48 Probably ‘hearing which is faith’. See Williams, S. K., ‘The Hearing of Faith: AKOH ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ in Galatians 3’, NTS 35 (1989) 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Betz, Galatians, 243; Martyn, ‘Apocalyptic Antinomies’, 418–20; Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 223–4.

50 F. F. Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 265; Schlier, Die Brief an die Galater, 277.

51 Hall, ‘Rhetorical Outline’, 283–4.

52 Pitta, Disposizione e messaggio, 127–8. See Quintilian 4.3.12–14.

53 Most interpreters identify Gal 6.11–17 as the epilogue: Betz, Commentary, 312–13; Standaert, ‘Rhétorique antique’, 34; Hester, ‘Rhetorical Structure’, 224; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 151; Hall, ‘Rhetorical Outline’, 286; Vouga, ‘Rhetorischen Gattung’, 292. Smit (Gal 4.12–5.12; 6.11–18; excising Gal 5.13–6.10) and Melanchthon (5.1–6.18) find a broader conclusio: Smit ‘Galatians: A Deliberative Speech’, 1–8; Melanchthon, ‘Exegesis’, 37.

54 Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 103, 110.

55 With Gaventa and Martyn, I think these verses state Paul's central concern in the letter. Gaventa, B. R., ‘The Singularity of the Gospel: A Reading of Galatians’, Bassler, J. M., ed., Pauline Theology 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 147–59Google Scholar; J. L. Martyn, ‘Events in Galatia: Modified Covenantal Nomism versus God's Invasion of the Cosmos in the Singular Gospel: A Response to J. D. G. Dunn and B. R. Gaventa’, also in Pauline Theology 1.160–79.

56 Betz, Galatians, 325; Hall, ‘Rhetorical Outline’, 286.

57 Quintilian 6.6.1–2. Cf. Hall, ‘Rhetorical Outline’, 286; Betz, Galatians, 321.

58 In the Animal Apocalypse the sheep open their eyes when they keep the Law and are blinded when they depart from it (cf. 1 Enoch 89.28–32); joining the Maccabees entails joining sheep with opened eyes (1 Enoch 90.6–7). In the Astronomical Book, judgment on those who fail to keep the solar calendar falls as part of the judgment on all the unrighteous, especially idolaters (1 Enoch 80–2). The circumcision argument in Jubilees is part of a larger juridical argument establishing the superiority of Jewish Law over Greek culture; see R. G. Hall, Prophetic Histories, 33–6.

59 I do not find it necessary to posit ‘moral confusion’ among the Galatians to explain the presence of the hortatory material, contra Betz, Galatians, 8–9, 273–4, 295–6 and Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 19–22, 218. I am closer to Drane: ‘If Paul was to abolish the Torah for Christians, he had to show that this would not have disastrous ethical consequences’ and Kraftchick. See Drane, Paul, Libertine or Legalist, 8; Kraftchick, Ethos and Pathos Appeals, 270.