Paul's Argumentation in Galatians 1-2*

Johan S. Vos
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

The Gospel of the Rival Missionaries

n the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul directly addresses only the Galatian churches; through them, however, he is engaged in a polemic against rival 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 their gospel. In the history of research, many different pictures of the opponents and their gospel have been drawn.1 These reconstructions result partly from the 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 Oecumenicum Paulinum 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, "The Opponents of Paul in Galatia" (Ph.D. diss.. Yale University, 1971) 5-85, 279-309: Birger Hungerford 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 LawObservant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians," Michigan Quarterly Review 22 (1983) 221-36, reprinted in SJT 38 (1985) 307-24; George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1985) 96-105; Alfred Suhl, "Der GalaterbriefSituation and Argumentation." ANRW 2. 25/4 (1987) 3067-

H T R 8 7 1 (1994) 1-16

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

In my analysis I confine myself to what can be said with certainty about the opponents: First, the opponents shared with Paul the belief in Jesus as the 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 full membership among the people of God (Gal 5:3-4; 6:12-13). Although Paul himself did not mention it, we can safely assume that on this point the opponents referred to scripture. Gen 17:10-11, for example, states clearly that without circumcision no one can be a member of the covenant. We cannot say more about the opponents with any certainty. In the history of research, however, scholars have often tried to reconstruct from Paul's argumentation the accusations made by the opponents with regard either to the relation of Paul to the authorities in Jerusalem or to his credentials as an apostle. To some extent, these reconstructions are mutually contradictory. On the one hand, from Gal 1:1, 11-12 some scholars have reconstructed the charge that Paul was dependent on humans: the apostles in 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 to combine 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 charge of dependence, it is not clear what the point of such a charge could be within the framework of the opponents' argument about circumcision.4 In both casesthe charge of dependence and that of independencePaul's

134. esp. 3089: John M. G. Barclay. '"Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case." 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: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A Kennedy (JSNTSup 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1991) 308-20, esp. 319. 3 For the history of research, see Hawkins, 'Opponents,"' 279-342; Lyons, Autobiography, 79-82; J. Schoon-Janssen, Umstrittene "Apologien" in den Paulusbriefen (GThA 45; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 94-96. 4 See Anton Fridrichsen, "Die Apologie des Paulus Gal. 1," in Lyder Brun and Anton Fridrichsen. eds.. Paulus und die Urgemeinde: Zwei Abhandlungen (Giessen: Topelmann, 1921) 56: Gnther Bornkamm, Paulus (Urban-Taschenbucher 119; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969) 41-42; Dieter Georgi, Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus fur Jerusalem (ThF 38; Hamburg-Bergstedt: Reich, 1965) 36 n. 113: Alfred Suhl, Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulimsche Chronologie (StNT 11; Gtersloh: Mohn, 1975) 20-21; idem, "Der Galaterbrief," 3094.

JOHAN S VOS

argument as a whole would be inappropriate because he repeatedly laid himself open to attack.5 Apart from the contention that the gospel of Paul concerning circumci 6 sion was not according to scripture, we do not know what the opponents may have said about Paul. In this article, I wish to demonstrate that it is possible to understand the argumentation in the first two chapters of the Epistle 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 Argumentation

Gal 1:1-5: Epistolary Prescript: The direction of the subsequent argu ment is indicated in the epistolary prescript. Here as in the other prescripts Paul called himself an apostle sent by God. Through this phrase he estab lished his authority: he was not speaking as a private person, but as an envoy 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 often Paul used this rhetorical figure,7 it appears unadvisable to interpret it as a refutation of a specific charge made by the opponents.8 This special accent

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 in Galatians?: 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, "Historical Inference," 316-17; Hawkins, "Opponents," 287-89. 6 The problematic aspect of the word "opponents" in this context has been pointed out in recent literature with good reason: it may carry the unproven connotation that the rival missionaries 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 this context: 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 his gospel. 7 See Norbert Schneider, Die rhetorische Eigenart der paulinischen Antithese (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 11; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1970) 47-52. 8 Anton Fridrichsen, The Apostle and his Message (UU 3; Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln and Leipzig: Harrassowitz. 1947) 21 n. 20; Betz, Galatians, 38; Lyons, Autobiography, 80-82, 97.

HARVARD 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 the apostle is the decisive argument against the other gospel. Paul's self-presen tation in Gal 1:1 is the starting point not of a defensive but of an offensive sort 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 rebuked9 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 the Galatians, make use of the classical rhetorical pattern of the parts of a discourse 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
is hereas often in Greek lettersless an expression of real astonishment than of irritation and rebuke; the word is equivalent to . See Heikki Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian 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, 46-47; George Michael Smiga, Language, Experience, and Theol ogy: 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 to Nils A. Dahl, "Paul's Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure," a paper 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; Phila delphia: Fortress, 1986) 87; G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhe torical Contexts (JSNTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 33-44. 10 This was noted already by Heinrich Bullinger, In omnes apostlicas epstolas, divi videlicet Pauli XI. et VII. cannicas, commentarli (Zurich: Froschouer, 1539) 342-46. In recent times, see Hans Dieter Betz, "The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to 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 Galatians 1:11-2:14," JBL 103 (1984) 223-33, esp. 233: Tjitze Baarda, "OpenbaringTraditie en Didach," in F. H. Kuiper, J. J. van Nijen, J. C. Schreuder, eds.. Zelfstandig geloven: Studies voor Jaap Firet (Kampen: Kok, 1987) 152-67, esp. 15557: Joop Smit, Brief aan de Galaten (Belichting van het bijbelboek; Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting, 1989) 35-37; Hansen, Abraham, 67; Verena Jegher-Bucher, Der Galaterbrief auf dem Hintergrund antiker Epistolo graphie und Rhetorik: Ein anderes Paulusbild (AThANT 78; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991) 203; A. Pitta, Disposizione e messagio della lettera ai Galati: analisi retorico-letteraria (AnBib 131: Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1992) 85-88; Michael Bachmann. Sunder oder bertreter: Studien zur Argumentation in Gal
9

JOHAN S VOS

used in such a broad sense as to be almost meaningless. If one adheres to the standard description of the proem in the rhetorical handbooks, the term is hardly applicable to these verses. Quintilian warned his readers not to label the beginning of every discourse a proem.11 Only if the beginning has specific characteristics should the term be used. According to the rhetorical handbooks, 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 to dispose the hearts of his readers is familiar from his other letters, in which the introductory thanksgiving serves as a captado benevolentiae and thus has the function of the proem of a discourse. This strategy, however, is quite absent from Galatians. Hans Dieter Betz13 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. Although most 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 an exordium, but normally only as part of the whole psychological strategy of making the audience well-disposed.14 Such a strategy, however, is absent from this pericope.15 As is obvious from Galatians itself, discrediting the
2,15ff (WUNT 59: Tubingen Mohr/Siebeck, 1992) 157-58. n Quintilian 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 exordium is to prepare our audience in such a way that they will be disposed to lend a ready ear to the rest 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 the proem not in a fierce, but in a gentle way corresponds to a law of nature. That rhetorical theory 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. 14 See Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 29 (1436a-38a); Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.6-11; Cicero De inventwne 1.20-26; Quintilian Inst. orat. 3.8.6-9; 4.1.1-79. Only Aristotle (Rhet. 3.14 [1414b-16a]) would minimize the psychological preparation. For him, the specific function of the prooemium is to make clear for what "end" () the speech is being made. 15 See David E. Aune, review of Galatians: A Commentary on Paul s Letter to the Churches of Galana, by Hans Dieter Betz, RelStRev 7 (1981) 323-28. Aune writes, "Since the ordinary function of forensic exordia is threefold (securing the good will of the audience, securing their attentiveness, and disposing them to receive instruction), it is difficult to find anything characteristic of a normal forensic exordium in Gal 1:6-11" (p. 326).

HARVARD T H E O L O G I C A L 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 gaining the goodwill of the audience than as a means of rebuking it. 1 6 Concerning the last elementfrightening the judgeswe must simply deny that Paul was here doing something comparable to what is meant by this in the rhetorical handbooks. 17 In order to term Gal 1:6-9 an exordium as it was understood 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 to this point he prepared the minds of his audience through the exordium. . . , now, however, he comes to the point." 1 8 Whereas for Bullinger verse 11 is the 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 the principal proposition of the whole letter. 19 Betz, on the other hand, pre sented a different model, according to which the essential element follows in the propositio (Gal 2:15-21), after the exordium (Gal 1:6-9) and the narrano (Gal 1:132:14).20 This model has considerable influence at present. A third variant of this structure is that proposed by Melanchthon, who regarded Gal 3:1 as the propositio of the letter. 21 The question, however,

See also the criticism of Carl Joachim Classen. "Paulus und die antike Rhetorik," ZNW 82 (1991) 1-33, esp. 10 . 23 17 See Kennedy, Interpretation, 148. 18 Bulhnger, In omnes apostlicas epstolas, 346: "Hactenus para\it auditorum nimos exordio. . . , nunc vero aggreditur psum negotium." 19 Pitta, 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," BiblicalEcumenical Section 12; Rome: St. Paul's Abbey, 1993) 45. 47-48, 50-51, 53-56. 20 Betz, "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. 21 Philipp Melanchthon, " Methodica in Epistolam Pauli , " in Ernst Bizer, ed.. Texte aus der Anfangszeit Melanchthons (Texte zur Geschichte der evangelischen Theologie 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1966) 34-37. esp. 3435; for an analysis of this commentary, see Classen, "Paulus und die antike Rhetorik," 8. A more recent example of this approach is that of Benot Standaert. '*La rhtorique ancienne dans saint Paul," in A. Vanhoye. ed.. L aptre Paul. Personalit, style et conception du ministre (BETL 73; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986) 78-92. esp. 84-85.

16

JOHAN S VOS

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 I agree with George A. Kennedy 22 and Robert G. Hall 2 3 that Gal 1:6-9 re lates to what followsat least to Gal 1:10-5:12as the main thesis to the explication or, in rhetorical categories, as the propositio to the confirmation In Gal 1:6-9 Paul directly formulated the main thesis of the letter in the form of a rebuke and a conditional curse: the true gospel is not the gospel of the opponents, but only that of Paul. 2 5 He used the next part of the letter to undergird his thesis with various proofs and to draw conclusions from it. The thesis that for the Galatians there is no other gospel than the one proclaimed 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 what the 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 no other gospel, is a general statement of the proposition of the letter, which will be taken up and given specific meaning in the headings which follow." Kennedy regards Gal 1:11-5:1 as the "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). 24 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 praxis, see Carl Joachim Classen, "Cicero *Pro Cluentio' 1-11 im Licht der rhetorischen Theorie und Praxis," Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 108 (1965) 104-42. esp. 126-37. For various forms of a propositio in the letters of Paul, see Jean-Noel Aletti, "La 'disposino' rhtorique dans les pitres pauhniennes: propositions de mthode," NTS 38 (1992) 385-401, esp. 397-98. 25 For the various forms a proposition can take, see Quintilian Inst. orat. 4.4.8. 26 Smiga, Language, 455-59.

H A R V A R D T H E O L O G I C A L 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 true gospel (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 recurs in another form in Gal 5:10 (see also Gal 5:4). Together with the blessing at 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 1:11-12 and 3:1-5 are to be understood as subpropositiones, that is, theses of the separate proofs, Gal 1:13-2:14(21) and 3:6-4:7 respectively. Because of its mainly 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 the letter, 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 usual in the rhetorical handbooks, I would prefer to avoid it here. Gal 1:10-12: Enthymematic Confirmatio: The question about the rhe torical 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 pro posed 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 kind of emotional outburst. 28 According to Betz, Gal 1:10-11 constitutes, in keeping with the rhetorical handbooks, the transitus or transgressio be tween the exordium and the narrano.29 To make this interpretation accept able, however, he must state that "the two rhetorical questions and the assertion in v. 10 put a clear end to the exordium," which I fail to see. I find more evidence of John Calvin's interpretation of Gal 1:10: after he had so 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,
Kennedy, Interpretation, 148-49. For a partial history of research, see Richard N. Longenecker. Galatians (Word Biblical Commentary 41; Dallas: Word, 1990) 18: see also the survey of the history of research regarding the structure of the letter as a whole in Pitta. Disposizione, 13-41. 29 Betz. "Literary Composition," 361-62; idem, Galatians, 46. 30 Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam ad Galatas (Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, Eduardus Reuss. eds., Ioanms Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia [Corpus Reformatorum 29-87; 59 vols, in 49; Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1863-1900] 50. 175) on Gal 1:10.
28 27

JOHAN S VOS

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 had not the disposition to adapt himself to people to flatter them (Gal 1:10). The second argument is much stronger: he had handed over the gospel exactly 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 each time occurs in these sentences it has a causal meaning. 31 These sen tences build a causal chain. That has a causal meaning here four times has often been challenged.32 It should be taken into account, however, that in sentences introduced by the phrase that has to be supported is not always fully expressed and should be supplied from the context. 33 In this case, following Calvin, the sentence "I am entitled to do so" should be inserted. 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 Gal 1:6935 that he really was not a slave of humans, but a servant of God and Christ. 36 This argument in its turn functions as a confirmation of his au31 See also Bernhard Weiss. Die pauhnischen Briefe im berichtigten Text (Leipzig: Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung. 1896) 320-21. 32 is often taken to be a confirmative ad\erb with the force of making the question more 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 Verlagsanstalt, 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 much to 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) 25; Ernest 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 approach is 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 tone of 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." 33 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. 34 For a similar interpretation in later commentaries, see Leopold Immanuel Ruckert, Commentar ber den Brief Pauli an die Galater (Leipzig: Khler, 1833) 27-28. 35 With in Gal 1:10, Paul resumes the same word from the preceding verse. 36 Like most interpreters, I assume and to be synonymous and the answer to the question of Gal 1:10a to be "God." Since, even with the meaning '"through the art of persuasion to make well disposed," does not in this context really fit the object , the sentence is to be considered a zeugma. See Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 26; Mussner, Der Galaterbrief, 63; Baarda, "Openbaring,"

10

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

thority as the author of Gal 1:6-9. Behind these short sentences lies the following syllogism: la. The gospel is true if it is proclaimed by a true servant of God and Christ. lb. The gospel is false if it is proclaimed by a flatterer and a servant of humans. 2. The content and the tone of Gal 1:6-9 demonstrate that I am not a flatterer 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 his gospel with his ethos as an apostle. He derived this ethos, however, from the character of the gospel. To understand Gal 1:10 it is not necessary to assume that Paul was responding to a charge of being a flatterer.37 In rhetorical praxis it was common 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 distinction occur: (a) Opposed to the rhetor who only flatters and tries to please humans is 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 to convince his audience is the rhetorically incompetent one, who is con cerned 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 honorable motives acts only for the sake of the truth. 40 In employing such antitheses, rhetors sometimes had concrete rivals in mind. 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 Hans Dieter Betz, see Lyons, Autobiography, 141-43. 37 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, Auto biography, 143-44; David E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminister, 1987) 189-90. 38 For example, Plato Gorg. 462b-66a; 500e-503d; 521a-b; Demosthenes Exordia 1.3; 9.2; 19; 26.2; 28.1; 41; 44.1; Dio Chrysostom Or. 32.11; 33.1-16; see also Otto Ribbeck, Kolax: Eine ethologische Studie (Abhandlungen der [.] Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 9; Leipzig: Hirzel. 1883) 11-12, 16-18. 39 For example, Plato . 17a-18a; Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.1-20; 35.1. 40 Demosthenes Exordia 32.1-2; 36; 53; idem, Contra Philippum 4.75-76.

J O H A N S VOS

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 when Paul was defending himself against concrete charges, but texts such as 1 Thess 2:4-5 and Gal 1:10 can be understood well without such an assump tion. 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 occurred three times in verse 10. 44 He thus proved his contention that he is not a flatterer and a slave of humans with the fundamental thesis that his gospel is not , in other words, not meeting human norms and expectations and thus by no means serving to please humans. In underpin ning Gal 1:10, verse 11 at the same time supports Gal l:6-9. 4 5 Interpreters have 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 chain this formula has a clear function, namely, to accentuate the fundamental character of his argument. Here in Galatians Paul used the first variant of the above-mentioned criterionthe true rhetor does not spare his audi encein order to distinguish between true and false. This criterion was familiar not only in the Greco-Roman world, where it could be applied to public figures such as rhetors and statesmen, as well as to private contacts such as friends, but also in the biblical world, where it was used to distin guish true and false prophets. In contrast to false prophecy, weak leaderBetz, Galatians, 54-56. 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. 43 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 text mechanically from the context' (Meyer); rather it is the original text andwith a view to avoiding 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. . . omitted." See also Zahn. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 55 n. 55. 44 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 the reading with the argument that there is no intrinsic connection between Gal 1:10 and 1:11. 45 See also Sieffert, Der Brief an die Galater, 52; and Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 55. 46 O n this formula, see White, The Body of the Greek Letter, 2-5, 50-51; Franz Schmder and Werner Stenger, Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular (NTTS 11; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1987) 171-72.
42 41

12

H A R V A 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 what people normally like to hear. In the words of Paul, it is not 47 . With the fundamental thesis that the gospel is not Paul legitimized his ethos as described in Gal 1:10 and demon strated in Gal 1:6-9. That Paul formulated such a fundamental thesis here only in a negative form has to do with the fact that here and in Gal 1:10 he did no more than support the polemical proposition of Gal 1:6-9. In Gal 1:12 Paul undergirded this fundamental thesis with a statement about 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 presup position of this argument is the thesis that the origin of a matter determines its 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 human nature. 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 in order to legitimize a contentious message is an argument that is as common as it is controversial. The argument is fully understandable without the hypothesis that Paul was responding to a charge of the opponents. 50 Thus, in summary, by means of an amplification of Gal 1:1 Paul proved the truth of Gal 1:6-9 in that he showed that his behavior (Gal 1:10) was in accordance with the character (Gal 1:11) and the origin (Gal 1:12) of his gospel. First, from his practical behavior he proved that he was not a slave
0 n rhetors, see above, n. 37; on statesmen, see Philo Jos. 73-78; on friends, see Cicero De amicitia 89-92; Plutarch Adult. 54d-55e, on prophets, see Jer 23:16-17; 1 Kgs 22:1318: Luke 6:26. See also Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul, One of the Prophets?: A Contribution to the Apostle s Self-Understanding (WUNT 2d series 43; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991) 5 6 57. 48 Compare John 3:6, 31; 1 Cor 15:47-49; Gal 6:8. 49 For the logic of the argumentation, see also Longenecker, Galatians, cxv-cxvi. 50 It is not necessary to understand in a polemical way as "7 as little as the twelve." Such an antithesis is not reflected in the context. With Paul picks up ' from Gal 1:11, where the implied antithesis is with the rival missionaries in Galatia. accentuates not so much in Gal 1:12 as the denial in Gal 1:11. See J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Pauls Epistle to the Galatians (8th ed.; London: Macmilan, 1884) 80; Ruckert, Commentar, 32; Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 56 n. 57; Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 28-29; Baarda, "Openbanng," 157-58; Joachim Rohde, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (ThHKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989) 51.
47

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 a series of enthymemes, or statements with a supporting reason, behind which stand logical syllogisms based on specific presuppositions. It is important to 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 estab lished the causa, he spoke only about the gospel; the statements about his apostolate have their place within the proof of the truth of the gospel. The same is true for the rest of the letter: wherever Paul explicitly formulated the causa, he was talking only about the truth of the gospel (Gal 4:10; 5:24, 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 legiti macy of his apostolate as the controversial point. Insofar as he spoke about his apostolate, he did so in order to prove the truth of his gospel against that 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 the heavenly origin of his apostolate have more an offensive than a defensive function. Gal 1:13-2:14(21): Narrative Confirmatio: In Gal 1:13-2:14 Paul re lated the history of his vocation and his contacts with the authorities in Jerusalem. 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 rhetorical handbooks distinguished various forms of narrano: the narrano can ex pound the facts of the case itself, or it can present facts that are related to the case in a broader sense. This second type can be used, for example, as a means of winning belief or incriminating the adversaries.52 An analysis of the narrano in Galatians will make clear that in this case it has more than one function.53 The argument can be divided into three parts.

51 For a similar position, see Lategan, "Is Paul Defending his Apostleship," 416-26. See also Jost Eckert, Die urchristliche Verkndigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief (Biblische Untersuchungen 6; Regensburg: Pustet, 1971) 201; J. Smit, Opbouw en gedachtengang van de brief aan de Galaten (Nijmegen: n.p., 1986) 66-92. 52 Cicero De inventwne 1.19.27; Rhetorica ad Herennium. 1.8.12; Quintilian Inst. orat. 4.2.11. 53 According to Betz ("Literary Composition," 363-64; and Galatians, 58-59), the narratw in Galatians 1-2 belongs to the first type; Kennedy (Interpretation, 145, 148), however, regards this text as belonging to the second type.

14

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

(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. Paul adduced the historical evidence that he really had not received his gospel from any human being. (2) The function of the second part, Gal 2:1-10, is threefold: (a) Paul demonstrated that the Jerusalem authorities had endorsed the truth of his specific gospel; the reader learns that the freedom of gentile believers with regard to circumcision is at stake (Gal 2:3, 6, 9-10). With this point Paul touched directly upon the causa of the letter, (b) Paul demonstrated that the Jerusalem 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, here too the legitimization on the basis of the divine origin of the gospel has the function of supporting argument: the participles and in Gal 2:7-10 have the same function as the particle in the causal chain in 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 and Barnabas, (c) Paul gave an example of the ethos he had described in Gal 1:10. 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 are touched upon: (a) Paul gave a new example of his ethos as an apostle: not only 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 as an apostle he did not seek to please humans. Unlike Peter, Barnabas, and the 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 the truth of the gospel. Concerning the content of this truth, the reader learns that not only circumcision is at stake, but also the halakhic rules governing purity. The narrano results in a fundamental theological argument about the relationship between the gospel and the law and thus about the funda mental aspect of the causa of the Galatian conflict. To summarize, in the narrano Paul confirmed and illuminated the three points of Gal 1:6-12: he began with a confirmation of Gal 1:12 concerning the divine origin of his gospel; he then gave two examples of his ethos that he had described practically in Gal 1:10 and fundamentally in Gal 1:11. These two elements are subservient to a third, the "truth of the gospel" and thus to the causa of the letter described in Gal 1:6-9. With regard to the
54 Hypocrisy is a conventional characteristic of the flatterer; see Plutarch Adult. Philo Omn. prob. lib. 99; Leg. Gaj 162; Jos 67-68.

53e;

J O H A N S VOS

15

function of the narrano, we should say that Paul started with facts that are related to the causa in broad sense, but then to an increasing extent he related 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 apologetic we mean that Paul was arguing mainly from a defensive position and was being urged to respond to charges concerning the legitimacy of his apostolate or his relationship to the Jerusalem apostles. Just as in Gal 1:6-9 the starting 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 Paul was not taking a defensive position have put forward an alternative thesis that the key to the interpretation of Paul's autobiographical narrative is to be found in Gal 4:12 and that its function is mainly paradigmatic.55 Against this view speaks not only the fact that Gal 4:12 belongs to a different context, 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 pericope for example, the details concerning the journeys of Paul and his relation to the pillarswould be irrelevant from this perspective.56 If one shares the view that Paul's argumentation in Galatians 1-2 is not defensive, one must explain why Paul gave such a detailed account of his relationship with the Jerusalem authorities. In my opinion, it is possible to explain the argumentation in Gal 1:13-2:21 without having to resort to the hypothesis of a response to concrete charges concerning his apostolate. The argumentation here should be compared with that in 1 Cor 15:1-11. There also 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 the revelation of the resurrected Christ, Paul demonstrated that he stood in the same line as Peter, the Twelve, and James. In Galatians an equally fundamental question is at stake. This time, however, Paul realized that he could not 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 the existence of a consensus with the pillars, (2) according to an existing apLyons, Autobiography; Beverly Roberts Gaventa, "Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm," NovT 28 (1986) 309-26; Stowers, Letter Writing, 100-102, 109; Gaventa does not rule out an apologetic function alongside the paradigmatic one. 56 For a criticism of Lyon's thesis, see Barclay, "Mirror-Reading," 93 n. 44; Lategan, "Is Paul Defending his Apostleship," 423-24; Sandnes, Paul, 49-50 n. 4; Schoon-Janssen, Apologien, 110-11.
55

16

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

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 the gospel of Paul to that of the pillars in Jerusalem is of the greatest impor tance 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 at stake. I summarize the arguments for this thesis: First, the narrado is a part of the causal chain that has the function of supporting the thesis about the truth 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 truth of the gospel." Third, the narrado results in a theological argument con cerning the content of the true gospel. In Galatians 1-2 as a whole Paul defended the truth of his gospel in the face of a contrary gospel and gave instruction as to its nature. He did so in various ways: by rebuking, threatening, arguing, and narrating. Melanchthon did not consider the letter as a whole as one of the well-known rhe torical genresforensic, deliberative, or epideicticbut used the category genus didacticum ("didactic genre"). 5 7 As far as the first two chapters are concerned, this category seems to me to be preferable to any of the three derived from the rhetorical handbooks.

57 Melanchthon, " Methodica," 34; compare Classen, "Paulus und die antike Rhetorik," 16.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically 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 specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright 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 previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection 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 American Theological Library Association.