This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
' ooov xpovov 6 KAJ]pov6f.10ptov, 4.2 aUa uno tnrrp6nouc; to-rlv Kal oiKoV6f.10UK etM-re~ Seov tllouAei>oa-re -roi~ <j>uoetf!~ oumv Seoi~· 4.9a wv lle JIV6v-re~ 9e6v, f!aAAov 1)£ JIVW09tv-re~ into 9eou, 4.9b nw~ emo-rpt<j>e-re miAtv tnl TU aoeev~ Kal mwxa o-rotxeia 4.9c oi~ 7taALV iivw6ev cSouAeUELV 6£Ae-re; 4.10 ~f!Epa~ napaUJpeioSe Kalf!~Va~ Kal Kal EvlQUTOU~, 4.11 <j>o~ouf!aL Ufld~ fl~ nw~ dKft KEKOJtlQKQ e[~ Ufld~. KatpoiJ~
4.8 But formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. 4.9a Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, 4.9b how can you turn back again to the weak and impotent elements of the world, 4.9c whose slaves you want to become once more? 4.10 You are observing days, and months, and seasons, and years. 4.11 I am afraid for you, that my work for you may have been in vain.
The style of the preceding sections, a series of assertives, continues with a section that includes several phrases, some of which are stylistically expressive, 4.9b, 4.9c, and 4.11 - all parts of a reproach of the Galatians. Once again we find expressives with a double function: expressives on the surface (the secondary speech act) but at the same time assertives in content (the primary speech act). The assertives contain information relevant for the argument so they need to be included in the analysis.
Detailed analysis This section connects to the beginning of the whole section, 3.1. The same method of questioning is used in 3.1-5 and in 4.9. Paul's preceding argumentation now reaches practical life. Paul claims that the Galatians are observing some cultic calendar (4.10) and that they thereby again subject themselves to the same elemental spirits from which they had been set free by Christ. Longenecker has the probatio section end with 4.11, 112 whereas Betz ends it with 4.31. m It is true that 112. Longenecker, Galatians, p. vii. 113. Betz, Galatians, p. viii.
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
144
Fig. 3.33: Slavery under the spirits, 4.8-9c 1 It is surprising that the Galatians want to turn back to slavery under the elemental spirits.
t 1.1 & 1.1' The Galatians were earlier en- [One usually does not want slaved by the elemental spirits. to turn back to slavery.]
Table 3.13: Standpoints and premisses in 4.8-11 EXPRESSED STANDPOINTS AND PREMISSES
U6 It is surprising that the Galatians want to turn back to slavery under the elemental spirits. (Fig. 3.33) U7 The Galatians were earlier enslaved by the elemental spirits. (Fig. 3.33) [US] The Galatians observe special days, months, seasons, and years. (4.10) 129 Paul is afraid that his work for the Galatians may have been wasted. (4.11) UNEXPRESSED PREMISS
[130'] One usually does not want to turn back to slavery. (Fig. 3.33)
the style from 4.8 onward is different from that of 3.1-4.7. However, the section which contains the allegory at the end of Galatians 4, again contains arguments concerning the main themes oflaw and promise which are prominent in 3.1-4.7. There are also parallels regarding birth 'of a woman' and 'under the law' and freedom between 4.1-7 and 4.21-31. Since the argument thus continues after 4.11, it does not seem helpful to consider the probatio section to end with 4.11. This does not change the fact that 4.8-11 is different in nature from the surrounding argumentative passages. In 4.9 Paul rebukes the Galatians for wanting to 'turn back: This is reminiscent of the rebukes in 1.6 and 3.1. Here the rebuke is not as strong and makes good sense: it is difficult to understand why someone would like to return to slavery (see Fig. 3.33). The unexpressed premiss stands in a symptomatic relation to the claim: a former slave typically does not want to return to slavery. Certainly this is a rhetorical move since it is clear that no one would want to be enslaved. Paul's presentation of the Galatians' situation is probably different from their understanding of it. Clearly the Galatians found it commendable to observe special days, among other things. However, here, as earlier in Galatians 3, Paul wants to show that law-observance is incompatible with a life in Christ. The standpoints and premisses in 4.8-11 are as illustrated in Table 3.13. Of these, the following are not important for the resolution of the dispute and can be deleted: 128 and 130'.
Strategic manoeuvring After a long, heavy argumentative section, 4.8-11 contains some pathos-elements, in vv. 9 and 11. The topic of enslavement under the elements of the world may be
Analysis
145
Paul's invention; by comparing the Galatians' practices (4.10) with slavery under false gods, Paul discredits these practices. The argument does not require that the Galatians considered themselves as formerly having been enslaved to 'beings that by nature are not gods: In the argument, a dear contrast is made between the former situation of the Galatians and their present one, which is a result of Paul's work. The accusation of being foolish (3.1) is echoed in the accusation of 4.9b. The presentation is clever since one usually does not want to return to a previous, lower, state of knowledge or development. By presenting the Galatians' present considerations as belonging to an earlier state, and by presenting this state as very unattractive, the argument strengthens the appeal of the alternative, Paul's gospel. The section ends with a statement of an ethos- and pathos-character, v. 11. If the Galatians turn back to observance of some kind of cultic calendar they will contradict Paul's work, i.e. his preaching, his gospel. Considering how the Galatians received Paul and valued his work, it would be sad had it all been in vain. Paul expresses great confidence in himself and expects that the Galatians will not question his authority. The statement may attract a sense of regret or alarm among the addressees: are they truly on the verge of losing all that they have gained through Paul's ministry?
Fallacies and violation of rules Rules 1-2 The section contains an important explanation of Paul's understanding of man's situation before and after Christ. Paul certainly does not feel prevented to present his side of the story even though some of Paul's opinions must have offended those holding to the importance of the law. In this section, Paul has them 'turn back to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits' (4.9). In a critical discussion, however, strong contrary opinions are normal. Even though Paul's argumentation here would have been offensive, it reflects his opinion and any opponents are free to respond. If the other party's standpoint had to do with the benefit or importance of observing 'days, and months, and seasons, and years: then Paul's argumentation does not allow for any true debate in this matter since he equates such observation with slavery under 'weak and impotent "elements of the world':' In line with this, Paul presents his 'work' as the exclusive option - if the Galatians do not follow Paul in this matter, his work has been 'in vaill. Again, we have the same tendency towards a violation against Rule 1 as in other sections of the letter. The section does not give reason to comment on Rule 2.
Rules 3-4 It seems that the other party has presented an observance of some cultic calender as important. Otherwise, Paul's argumentation here does not make sense. The kind of observance is not possible to determine, or how this has been presented by the other party. Paul's argumentation seems to be in accordance with Rule 3. It is also in accordance with Rule 4.
146
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
The expressive style at the end of the section, 4.9c-ll, does not really advance argumentation relating to Paul's standpoint apart from the indirect statement that Paul considers observing special days, etc. to be tantamount to slavery. From a rhetorical perspective, however, such pathos arguments may well be valuable in an effort to persuade.
Rules 5-6 There are no indications of any violation against Rule 5. It is not clear whether the Galatians considered their former existence as one of slavery under false gods or not. Nevertheless, Paul presents this as an accepted starting point. There may be a violation against Rule 6 here. The unexpressed premisses in Paul's arguments are well in line with his argumentation. In 4.9c-d Paul presents as premisses that to follow the path of law-observance (evidently the suggestion which the Galatians have been given) equals slavery and turning 'back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits: These premisses would not have been accepted by the other party. The logic of the passage is that turning to a law-abiding life is actually tantamount to turning to a life of slavery under the elemental spirits. Probably even Paul himself would deny this premiss, which seems more to be the result of an unhappy balancing of the argument than a reflection of Paul's theological opinion. With Paul, it seems, law-observance is not a problem per se, but only as a necessary requirement for Christians. This matter is obviously very important for Paul, which gives rise to hyperbolic argumentation. Rules 7-8 The symptomatic argument scheme (Fig. 3.33) is appropriate and correctly applied and the argumentation is coherent. Rule 9 Again, the section contains language suggesting that Paul would not retract his standpoints even if the other party were to present a conclusive defence (cf. 4.9c-ll). The section thus strengthens the earlier impression that Paul would not be prepared to retract his standpoint no matter what the defence of the other party. Rule 10 The section does not contain formulations which, because of their ambiguity, would make the argumentation difficult. For instance, it is not decisive for the argumentation to know what is meant by the 'weak and beggarly elemental spirits: It is sufficient that Paul clearly conveys that he considers the situation of the Galatians to be dangerous and that choosing another alternative to the one he is presenting would be tantamount to giving in to 'slavery: That modern commentators cannot identify the 'elements of the world' is not crucial for understanding the main point of the argumentation. These formulations were supposedly clear enough for their original addressees. Results Selecting only those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table 3.13), and after slight permutation, the argument in the section can be
Analysis
147
Table 3.14: Summary of the argument in 4.8-11 1 The Galatians were earlier enslaved by the elemental spirits. (127) 2 Paul is afraid that his work for the Galatians may have been wasted. (129) - It is surprising that the Galatians want to turn back to slavery under the elemental spirits. (126)
illustrated by Table 3.14. Of the standpoints in the section, 127 and 129 are the central ones. The section continues the theme of then versus now in 4.1-7. The rhetorical move in 4.9 makes use of the same approach as earlier: no one wants to turn back to an earlier stage of development. The basis for the claim that the Galatians want to become slaves of the 'elements of the world' once more is not entirely convincing. From the observance of 'days, and months, and years' there is a long step to enslavement by the elements. However, this kind of exaggeration may well work rhetorically along the lines of 'if you give them a finger they will take a hand:
3.11 Gal. 4.12-20, Paul's relationship with the Galatians Division and preliminary remarks 4.12a fivea6e cb~ eycb, 4.12b o·n Kaycb cb~ Uf!EL~, alleA.<j>o[, lleof!at ilf!&v. 4.12c milltv f!E ~lltKi)aaTe· 4.13 oillaTE I)£ 0-rtllt' aa6evetav Tfi~ aapKo~ Eli!]yyeA.tcraf!lJV Uf!TV TO npoTepov, 4.14 Kal Tov netpacrf!OV Uf!WV tv Tfi aapKi f!OU ouK £~ou6ev~aaTe oMt t~emaaTe, O:AA.a cb~ O.yyeA.ov 6eou £1l~aa6t f!E. cb~ Xptmov 1!]aoiiv. 4.15a nou ouv 6 f!aKaptO"f!O~ ilf!&V; 4.15b f!apwpw yap ilf!Lv oTt ei lluvaTov Tou~ 6<j>6aA.f!oU~ ilf!&v £~opu~avTe~
tllwKa-rt f!OL. 4.16 wa-re tx6po~ Uf!WV yeyova UA1]6EUWV Uf!LV; 4.17a ~!]A.oumv Uf!d~ ou KaA.w OTL oMtv ano cppoV~O'£-r£· 5.10b 6 8t -rapaoowv Ufliic; ~amaoet To Kpifla, oonc; tav fi. 5.11 'Ey 8£, MEA.cpoi, ei neptTOfL~V en Kf]plioow, T[ E-rt 8uiJKOfL«L; apa K«~PYTJT«L -ro oKav8aA.ov Tou maupou. 5.12 "OcpeA.ov Kal anoK61jlov-rat oi avao-ra-rouv-rec; ufLac;.
163
5.5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 5.6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything- only faith working through love. 5.7 You were running well; who got in your path toward obeying the truth? 5.8 Such persuasion does not come from him who calls you. 5.9 'A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough: 5.10a I am confident about you in the Lord that you will take no other view. 5.10b But whoever it is that is confusing you will bear his judgment. 5.11 But my brothers, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the 'stumbling block of the cross' has been removed. 5.12 As for those who unsettle you, they had better [go the whole way and] castrate themselves!
The section consists mostly of assertives, with one exhortation, a directive, at 5.1b and one expressive at 5.12. The word 'freedom' in 5.1 connects with the preceding section ('the free woman' in 4.22, 23, 30, 31), and some have understood 5.1a to be the conclusion of the Hagar-Sarah allegory. 149 However, 5.1 also clearly starts a new section. There is no transitional phrase or connecting particle. For this reason most commentators see it as the heading of a new section. Others understand it as both a summary of 4.21-31 and a preface to 5.2-12. I agree with Longenecker's theory that it seems best to understand 5.1a as a kind of summary of all that has been argued above, and to understand 5.1b-12 as a section in which Paul presents the concluding remarks of the whole argumentation in Galatians 3-4. 150 In addition, 5.1-12 functions as a bridge between the heavy argumentative section and the paraenetical section. For instance, 'freedom' and 'love' are found both in 5.1-12 and in 5.13-15. That the exhortatory section definitely begins with 5.13 is signalled by both epistolary and linguistic conventions, such as the reiteration of the statement about freedom in 5.1 and the vocative Me).<j>o[ ('brothers!'). 151 The section naturally falls into two parts, vv. 1-6 and 7-12. The latter part is very different from any earlier section in Gal. 3.1-5.12 as it consists of short phrases which are only loosely connected to each other. 149. For bibliographic references, see Longenecker, Galatians, p. 223. 150. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 224. 151. Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, pp. 235-36.
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
164
Fig. 3.38: No circumcision, 5.1-6 1 The Galatians should not become circumcised.
t
?
1.1 Circumcision nullifies the benefit of Christ.
& 1.1' [That which nullifies the benefit of Christ, should not be done.]
1.2 Circumcision leads to slavery.
& 1.1.1' [Works of law nullifythe benefit of Christ.]
1.2.1 Circumcision leads to an obligation to keep the whole law.
t 1.1.1 Circumcision is a work of the law.
& 1.2' [That which leads to slavery should be rejected.]
t
' 1.3 'In Christ: circumcision is not important, faith is.
& 1.3' [One should not do that which is not important 'in Christ:]
t & 1.2.1' [To be obliged to obey the whole law is tantamaount to slavery.]
1.3.1 We await righteousness through faith, not law.
& 1.3.1' [Only that through which one awaits righteousness is important 'in Christ:]
Detailed analysis In the Introduction I made the decision to include 5.1-12 in the analysis. This is in line with many commentators who undertake a traditional analysis. 152 Betz's decided to exclude 5.1-12 from the argumentative section and to include it in the paraenetical section, or exhortatio section of 5.1-6.10. 153 His decision is based on a rhetorical analysis of the composition of the letter. Betz's method is based on classical rhetorical practices which yields a different result than a traditional exegesis, 154 or an argumentation analysis. The first six verses focus on the main theme of the whole argumentative section: circumcision. Paul once again presents arguments against the need for circumcision among the Galatians. All arguments support the one claim, that the Galatians should not become circumcised (v. 2). Six arguments are given, and these can be presented as a multiple argument, as in Fig. 3.38. Most of the argument schemes are causal {1.1', 1.2', 1.3', 1.1.1', and 1.3.1'); one is analogous {1.2.1'). 5.2 is the key verse in the passage. Paul has earlier dealt with the topic of circumcision, but this is the clearest instance where Paul's intention surfaces: the Galatians should not introduce the practice of circumcision. The force of 152. e.g. MuBner, Galater; Oepke, Galater; Schlier, Galater; Zahn, Galater; Eckert, Paulus' Gegnern; and Merk, 'Der Beginn', who gives a clear account of the problem, with bibliographical references. See also Meeks, 'Review of Betz' Galatians' who against Betz also favours this division. 153. Betz, Galatians, pp. 253-55. 154. Cf. Schlier, Galater, p. 241.
Analysis
165
the verse is strengthened with the emphatic way in which Paul introduces the argument: "'~e ty IlaiiAoc; :\tyw u~v ('Look, I, Paul, tell you'). At this point we can finally confirm that a warning against circumcision is indeed Paul's message to the Galatians. In Fig. 3.38, the premisses {1.1, 1.2, 1.3) to the main claim (1) are in themselves strong claims, and these have to be seen in light of the preceding argumentation from 3.1 onward. Paul's view of circumcision is based on the substance of Christ's redemption: it is in itself enough for righteousness. Any deviation from this view is to deny the basis of redemption. Paul's ethics are not a question ofbettering oneself in relation to righteousness but a natural result of redemption and 'walking in the spirit' {5.16) as well as a safeguard against losing what has been gained; in Betis words, 'the ethical task is the prevention of the loss of salvation: 155 Contrastingly, the view that Paul opposes assigns the law a role in becoming a Christian and/or in living as one. 5.1-6 summarize Paul's argumentation so far in the letter. The arguments have been given earlier, some of them with lengthy explanations - especially the argument concerning the relationship between law and faith. Fig. 3.38 shows that the argumentation here is in accordance with Paul's earlier argumentation in the letter. Consequently, the same problems remain. Again, it is clear that, in Paul's view, circumcision is a work of the law that leads to an obligation to keep the whole law, which in turn leads to slavery and nullifies the benefit of Christ, since his grace cannot be based on any works of the law. Should we draw a clear line between an argumentative section and a paraenetical section at 4.31 and 5.1 ?156 The reason for making a division between an argumentative section and a paraenetic one at 4.31/5.1 is mainly that 5.1a seems abrupt: there is no transitional phrase or particle. This indicates the beginning of a larger new section, not just another argument as part of the argumentative section. However, another explanation has also been offered: 5.1a can be seen as the conclusion to the Hagar-Sarah allegory, and 5.1b as the beginning of a new paragraph. 5.1b contains the inferential particle ouv ('therefore'), which then can be seen as being drawn not only from 5.la, but from the section which contains the Hagar-Sarah allegory. 5.13 clearly starts a new section, connecting to 5.1-12 with the call to freedom and with the conjunction yap ('for'). Although the transition between 4.31 and 5.1 seems from a linguistic point of view rather strong for the beginning of just another subsection of the argumentative section, the contents of 5.1-6 support an inclusion of the section: The connections between 5.1-6 and the preceding argumentation are many, both in terminology and in the arguments themselves. Although it is true that 5.lb-2 contains two exhortatory phrases ('stand firm' and 'if you become circumcised'), 155. Betz, Galatians, p. 257. 156. I am referring to Betz's conclusion: 'The last part of the body of the Galatian letter (5:1-6:10) consists of exhortation, paraenesis. This much can be said in spite of the difficulties arising from_ a discussion of the matter: Betz, Galatians, p. 253.
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
166
Fig. 3.39: Not under God's influence, 5.7-8 1
The Galatians are not under God's influence.
t &
1.1
The Galatians are not on the path toward obeying the truth.
1.1' [Those who are not on the path toward obeying the truth are not under God's influence.]
Fig. 3.40: Not preaching circumcision, 5.11 1 Paul is not preaching circumcision.
t 1.1 & Paul is being persecuted.
1.1' [Those preaching circumcision are not being persecuted.]
other such phrases that relate to the Galatians' situation are also found earlier in the letter (e.g. 3.1-5, 4.9-21). That Paul is moving away from the logos-dominated section becomes clear with 5.7-12. After the condensed summary-like portion of vv. 1-6, the following section is not only different in relation to 5.1-6 but to the whole of 3.1-5.6. It is closest to 4.12-20 in that it does not exhibit the same argumentative style as the rest of3.1-5.6. Betz describes vv. 7-12 as 'freer, appearing like a rambling collection of pointed remarks, rhetorical questions, proverbial expressions, threats, irony, and, climaxing it all, a joke of stark sarcasn1. 157 To clarify how these two sections relate to the previous argumentation, and why the latter section should be seen as a part of the argumentative section at all is traditionally considered difficult. Verses 7-11 contain two arguments, one in vv. 7-8 and one in v. 11. Also v. 9 contains a claim and v. 10 contains two. These are, however, not argumentation proper since the former is a known proverb without any presented premisses and the latter is not of a logos character, but more of a pathos character ('I am confident about you' and'... will bear his judgment'). The argument in vv. 7-8 can be presented as in Fig. 3.39 and the argument in v. 11 as in Fig. 3.40. In both, the argument scheme is symptomatic. In 5.7 Paul turns directly towards the Galatians, reproaching them for deviating from the path toward obeying the truth. This brings 1.6 to mind: 'I am astonished that you are so quick to desert the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospef. Next, in vv. 8-9, lOb, Paul shifts the blarne onto someone who is trying to 'persuade' and 'confuse' the Galatians in a negative way. Paul clearly distances himself from this lot. 5.10b ('But whoever it is 157. Betz. Galatians, p. 264.
Analysis
167
that is confusing you will bear his judgment:) brings v. 1.7 to mind ('some who are confusing you') as well as the threat in v. 1.9 ('if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!'). In 5.11 Paul defends himself. The statement about Paul still preaching circumcision is odd. The whole letter makes it quite clear that Paul is not preaching circumcision. The only explanation that makes sense is that Paul himself has been accused of preaching circumcision. Perhaps the accusation highlights an inconsistency - that Paul still preached circumcision to Jewish Christians while he warned the Gentile Christians against it. 158 The letter is filled with arguments against such a practice, but in addition Paul points to the improbability of his being persecuted (by Jews) if he were still to preach circumcision. After having thus briefly defended himself, he makes a counter-attack, thereby indicating his disregard for those who 'unsettle' (and negatively 'persuade' and 'confuse') the Galatians: he would like to see the knife slip on them! 159 5.7-U contains two allusions to the beginning of the letter (5.7 & 1.6, 5.10b & 1. 9). Mainly based on this, Longenecker suggests that 1.6-10 and 5.1-12 form an inclusio for Paul's treatment of the 'judaizing threat'. 160 This categorizing is not very helpful since the connections between 5.1-12 and 5.13-24/26 are also plentiful as well as the connections between 5.13-6.18 and 1.1-5.U. The primary question from an argumentation analysis perspective is how 5.1-12 should best be understood in the structure of the argumentation in Galatians. The analysis above has already established the following: (a) 5.1b-6 connect closely with 3.1-5.1a, functioning as a summary, restating Paul's main message: the Galatians should not give in to circumcision; (b) although 5.7-U concerns the same topic, it connects more with 1.6-9 than with 3.1-5.6; (c) 5.13 starts a new section and 5.13-15 can be seen as an introduction to 5.16-6.10. The conclusions to draw from this are: (i) the structure of the argumentation is not very dear here; (ii) it is better to refer 5.1-12 to the argumentative section than to the paraenetic section, mainly because of 5.1-6, but also because of the references in 5.7-U to the main issues stated already in 1.6-9; (iii) 5.1-12 has a transitional function between the argumentative section proper and the paraenetical section proper, or, as I tentatively proposed 158. D. Hans Lietzmann,An Die Galater (HNT, 10; Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 4th edn, 1971), p. 38. 159. 'This interpretation catches the jest, cf. BetZ, Galatians, p. 270. Any reference to an influence of the cult of Cybele-Attis is improbable, see Hans von Campenhausen, 'Ein Witz des Apostels Paulus und die Anfiinge des christlichen Humors', in Neutestamentlichen Studien for Rudolf Bultmann zum 70. Geburtstag am 20. August 1954 (BZNW, 21; Berlin, 1954), pp.189-93 (191). See also Jakob Jonsson, Humour and Irony in The New Testament Illuminated by Parallels in Talmud and Midrash (Beihefte der Zeitschrift fiir Religions- und Geistesgeschihte, XXVIII; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985), pp. 230, 26768. Jonsson comments that '[h]ere Paul's irony turns into rough and brutal sarcasm and he seems to lose control ofhinlself~ Jonsson, Humour & Irony, p. 267. The key word here is 'seems~ As in previous instances, it is difficult to distinguish whether an expression conveys Paul's true emotions or the emotions he wishes to convey. In light of the many rhetorical moves in the letter, I generally find the latter to be more probable. 160. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 221.
168
Pauls Argumentation in Galatians
Table 3.19: Standpoints and premisses in 5.1-12 EXPRESSED STANDPOINTS AND PREMISSES
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 [170] [171]
[172] [173] [174] [175] 176
The Galatians should not become circumcised. (Fig. 3.38) Circumcision nullifies the benefit of Christ. (Fig. 3.38) Circumcision leads to slavery. (Fig. 3.38) 'In Christ: circumcision is not important, faith is. (Fig. 3.38) Circumcision is a work of the law. (Fig. 3.38) Circumcision leads to an obligation to keep the whole law. (Fig. 3.38)
To justify oneself by law leads to falling away from grace. We await righteousness through faith, not law. (Fig. 3.38) In Christ Jesus only faith working through love is important. The Galatians are not under God's influence. (Fig. 3.39) The Galatians are not on the path toward obeying the truth. (Fig. 3.39) Little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. Paul is confident that the Galatians will adopt his view. Whoever who is confusing the Galatians will bear his judgment. Paul is not preaching circumcision. (Fig. 3.40) Paul is being persecuted. (Fig. 3.40) UNEXPRESSED PREMISSES
That which nullifies the benefit of Christ, should not be done. (Fig. 3.38) That which leads to slavery should be rejected. (Fig. 3.38) One should not do that which is not important 'in Chrisf. (Fig. 3.38) Works of the law nullify the benefit of Christ. (Fig. 3.38) To be obliged to keep the whole law is tantamount to slavery. (Fig. 3.38) That through which one awaits righteousness is important 'in Christ: (Fig. 3.38) Those who are not on the path toward obeying the truth are not under God's influence. (Fig. 3.39) [184'] Those preaching circumcision are not being persecuted. (Fig. 3.40) [177'] [178'] [179'] 180' 181' [182'] [183']
in Table 1.2 (p. 12), it functions as a summary of the main logos section and a transition to the main pathos section. The standpoints and premisses in 5.1-12 are as in Table 3.19. Of these 170-75, 177'-79', and 182'-84' can be deleted as redundant or less important for the main argument. The most important are 161-62 and 166-68.
Strategic manoeuvring Section 5.1-12 connects with the main topics in 3.1ff.: slavery, circumcision, obeying the law, the Spirit, faith, righteousness, 'those' who have a negative influence on the Galatians, and Paul's correct view. A new topic, 'freedom: is introduced in 5.1a. The importance of freedom is then restated at 5.13. This gives the passage a transitional character: it restates the central topics of3.1-4.31 and atthe same time paves the way for the different section of 5.13 ff. Section 5.1-12 makes good use of the topical potential. Once again Paul uses warning as a presentational device in 5.2-4. Here. the warning is strong, as in the beginning of the letter.
Analysis
169
Why does Paul change his style in 5.7-12? From the argumentative style of the preceding section, he changes to a freer, more rapid pathos type of argumentation -these verses contain only one argument proper (the one at v. 11). The structure becomes considerably clearer if we omit vv. 7-12. Could these verses be some kind of a less-thought-out insertion between arguments? Concerning 4.12-20, which is the only other section in 3.1-5.12 that seems out of place, the different style could be explained by a consideration of the context: 4.12-20 functions as a 'relief' after the long and heavy argumentation that preceded it. With 5.7-12 this cannot be the case: both surrounding sections are easy enough to understand, albeit they are important and central for Paul's message. An explanation from the realm of rhetoric would be the practice of alternating different types of arguments and segments of speech with each other. Certainly vv. 7-12 enhance the effect of what follows. The argumentation is again concise and well structured from 5.13 onward, and this is enhanced by the impromptu character of 5.1-12. This interpretation is very favourable; vv. 7-12 do not function well as a presentational device and are unstructured as to the topical potential. Even if these verses may or may not contain issues which need to be addressed (e.g. is Paul preaching circumcision?), this is not a good place to address such an auditorial demand since it confuses the flow of the argument. The contents of vv. 7-12 are mainly a vilification of Paul's antagonists - a popular topic for Paul. As Paul moves towards the paraenesis of 5.13 ff., he shifts from logos towards ethos and pathos. This shift occurs in 5.7-12. Paul once again questions the Galatians' choices and sets himself up as an example. Furthermore, he once again criticizes the doings of those who teach or think unlike himself. The section ends with a joke. The effect of a joke at the end of a section is that it creates a pause - a presentational device - after which it is easy to begin a new thread of thought, which is the case here. Following this, the best that can be said about 5.7-12 from the perspective of strategic manoeuvring is that it is (1) a transition from the logos section to the pathos section; (2) a conclusion of the logos section with a reminder of the seriousness of the matter, echoing the exordium of1.6-9; and that (3) it rhetorically opens the next section by creating relief and a pause with the final joke.
Fallacies and violations of rules Rule 1 What has already been said earlier about Paul's mode of argumentation being anything but inviting open discussion can also be said for 5.1-12. The allusions to the curse and the only true gospel in 1.6-9 makes 5.1-12 a communicatively closed argumentation: Paul is correct; the other party is only negatively persuading and confusing in wait for God's judgment. The ridiculing effect of the joke hinders an open discussion.
Rules 2-3 In v. 11, Paul defends himself against the accusation that he himself i~ preaching circumcision. Paul answers with an argument (Fig. 3.40, p. 166). As
170
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
mentioned in the analysis above, there is no reason to suppose that Paul does not respond to an accusation here from the other party.
Rule 4 The argumentation in the first part, vv. 1-6, conforms with the relevance rule. The second part is a bit difficult to assess from the perspective of the rule: how do these arguments relate to any standpoint? From a dialectical perspective, vv. 7-10 and 12 are superfluous as support for the claim that the Galatians should not become circumcised. From a pragmatic perspective, these verses continue Paul's aim to vilify the other party and to win (back) the Galatians to his side.
Rules 5-6 The unexpressed premisses in 5.1-12 are well in line with Paul's argumentation generally and he would certainly not deny them, should he be confronted with them. The section contains one argument which is probably based on a premiss expressed by the other party: v. 11 requires that the other party has accused Paul of preaching circumcision. This must have been an expressed premiss in the other party's argumentation so there is no conflict with Rule 6 (unless, of course, Paul had not been accused of preaching circumcision, in which case the argument in v. 11 falsely presents the accusation as a premiss).
Rule 7 5.1-6 (Fig. 3.38, p. 164) contain five causal and one analogous argument. Three of the causal argument schemes, 1.1', 1.2', and 1.3', are of the subtype pragmatic argumentation, where a certain course of action is recommended or advised against. They all lead to the claim (1) that the Galatians should not circumcise themselves. The causal argument scheme 1.1.1' --.. 1.1 is correctly applied: the consequence (nullification of the benefit of Christ) is indeed unfavourable. But since the supposition that 'works of the law nullify the benefit of Christ' can be questioned, the argument as a whole becomes unsound. This point would have needed more arguing. The same problem is present in 1.2.1' --.. 1.2. Although the argument scheme is correct the premiss can be seen as distorting what it means to obey the law, rendering the argument problematic. Concerning 1.3.1' --.. 1.3, the argument scheme is correctly applied, but to juxtapose faith against circumcision (premiss 1.3) is problematic. The problem is that although the unexpressed premiss 1.3.1' is probably quite acceptable from the point of view that Paul is antagonizing, together with the expressed premiss 1.3.1 the result would not have been accepted by Paul's antagonists. Thus the argument scheme is correctly applied, but the argument is problematic. 5.7-12 (Figs 3.39 & 3.40, p. 166) contain two symptomatic argument schemes. The argument scheme in Fig. 3.39 is correctly applied: the Galatians are not under God's influence if they are not on the path of obeying the truth. The question is whether they can be seen to be on the path of obeying the truth or not. Again, the argument scheme is correctly applied but the argument problematic since one of the premisses is disputable from the point of view of the discussants. In Fig. 3.40, the critical question is: Are there also others who are being persecuted who are not preaching circumcision? In the context the answer would be negative. The argument scheme is correctly applied and the argument is sound.
Analysis
171
Table 3.20: Summary of the argument in 5.1-12 1 The Galatians should not become circumcised. (161) - Circumcision nullifies the benefit of Christ. (162) - Circumcision leads to slavery. (163) - 'In Christ: circumcision is not important, faith is. (164) - Circumcision is a work of the law. (165) - Circumcision leads to an obligation to keep the whole law. (166) - To be obliged to keep the whole law is tantamount to slavery. (181') - To justify oneself by law leads to falling away from grace. (167) -We await righteousness through faith, not law. (168) - In Christ Jesus only faith working through love is important. (169) - Paul is being persecuted. (176) - Works of the law nullify the benefit of Christ. (180')
Rule 8 Paul's arguments can be validated by explicating unexpressed premisses. That some of the premisses can be questioned does not, of course, reduce the validity of the arguments, but renders the argumentation problematic and insufficient. Rule 9 After this section it seems utterly unlikely that Paul would ever regard any defence of the other party as conclusive, or that he would retract his own standpoint.
Rule 10 The section does not seem to violate against the usage rule. Results Selecting those standpoints and premisses that were not deleted earlier (Table 3.19), and after slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated by Table 3.20. Of the standpoints in the section, 161 is the central one. The section poses two difficult, interrelated questions: what is its place in the letter, and what is its function in the argumentation? The analysis shows that the arguments for a division at 4.31/5.1 for the argumentative section and the paraenetical section are not conclusive. There are many connections between 5.1-12 and 1.6-4.31. The section should be seen as a conclusion to the main logos section and at the same time as a transition to the paraenetical portion of the letter. The former is supported most of all by the fact that here Paul makes his dearest statement against circumcision, expressis verbis, stating what the aim of the whole portion of 3.1-5.1 was. The latter is attested to by the theme of freedom, which continues at 5.13. The section contains strong claims, and so it resembles 1.6-9. Having put forth a host of arguments in support of his view, Paul confidently states his main claim. It is either/or. The Galatians cannot enjoy the grace of Christ and cling to the law at the same time.
172
Paul~
Argumentation in Galatians
The analysis challenges the view that 3.1-4.31 should be considered 'the argumentative section in Galatians', a view supported by most analyses based on one type or another of classical rhetoric. The analysis supports many traditional exegeses, which conclude that the main argumentative section should be seen as ending at 5.12. Throughout the present analysis, Paul's style has not fulfilled the ideal of the freedom or closure rules. This section makes these indications perfectly clear: Paul holds those with different opinions in the lowest regard, and this is illustrated by his sarcastic joke.
Chapter4
OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION
4.1 An analytic overview Argumentative situation and participant roles A general sketch of the Galatian situation, the participant roles, and the stages of the argumentation were made before the analysis in Chapter 3 (in Sections 3.2, p. 78 and 3.3, p. 80). I shall now add to this general sketch the results from and conclusions based on the analysis. When it comes to the situation in the Galatian churches, there are several suggestions to choose from. It is difficult to agree with statements such as: 'It is not difficult to outline the situation in the Galatian Christian community, 1 or with some of the seemingly sophisticated attempts at mirror-reading Galatians. 2 However, some attempt at a 'socialization' of the argumentative situation must be made. If one avoids making too detailed a reconstruction and keeps several possibilities open, such an outline can be helpful. A proper understanding of an argument requires an understanding of the different roles carried out by the discussants. 3 Paul carries the role of the apostle, the one who founded the Galatian churches. However, his authority is not self-evident. In Galatians 1-2, Paul has gone through much trouble to establish his ethos anew and restore his credibility. The analysis supports the view that Paul had indeed been accused - why would he otherwise need to defend himself? At the same time he needs to blame the Galatians for giving in to thoughts and actions that are inconsistent with his message. The precise argumentative situation is unknown, but some sort of sketch can be attempted. Basically, there are four alternatives: (a) Paul's antagonists were outsiders vis-a-vis the Galatians. (b) Paul's antagonists were a subgroup among the Galatians. 1. Hill, 'Salvation', p.l96. 2. See especially Brinsmead, Opponents. 3. Regarding Galatians James D. G. Dunn states that 'this letter of all letters is so much the voice of one man addressing a particular situation with urgency and passion that the task of setting it in context has an inescapable imperative: James D. G. Dunn, The Theology ofPaul's Letter to the Galatians (New Testament Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 3. As noted on several occasions above, the 'urgency' and 'passion' are not at all a given, however.
173
174
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
(c) Paul's antagonists were partly outsiders, partly made up of the Galatians. (d) Paul's antagonists are projected in the discourse, a presentational device. Alternative (a) represents the older, widely accepted theory, that Paul's antagonists came from outside the Galatian congregations. These have been identified as, among others, Judaizing Christians from Jerusalem,4 Gnostics, 5 or both. 6 Alternative (b) represents the idea that the antagonists were members of the Galatians' community/ and alternative (c) is a combination of (a) and (b). If the antagonists were outsiders, at the time of writing, Paul obviously had to address a situation in which some of the Galatians had already chosen to side with the outsiders. This situation is reflected in alternative (c). In addition to the many speculations about the identity of Paul's antagonists, it has been suggested that it is impossible to paint a dear picture because Paul was misinformed (Marxen); because he had misunderstood them (Schmithals) or because his description of them is intentionally incisive (Eckert).8 Eckert's suggestion is later taken up in many a rhetorical analysis, where it is noted that the rhetoric of the text can indeed be misleading. 9 Alternative (d) highlights the difficulty of distinguishing between historical and narrative reality. Due to the prominent role some sort of opponents play in Paul's argument, alternative (d) is implausible: in order for the dichotomy between Paul and opponents to work, the addressees must be able to project Paul's presentation into their reality. Nevertheless, Paul's description of his antagonists and their role in his argument is probably exaggerated in line with his argumentative strategy. It seems clear that Galatians is a response to a development among the Galatian congregations that occurred after Paul's last visit. Although 'troublemakers' in Paul's view, it is probable that these preachers did not present their ideas as fundamentally opposed to Paul's message, but instead as complementary to it. This would explain why they seem to have been welcomed by some Galatians. Simplified, the argument can be thought to have the dialogic flow illustrated in Table 4.1. 4. See Brinsmead, Opponents, p. 9. This theory dates back to the second century and was later shared by many Protestant theologians, including Martin Luther. The weakness of this theory is the difficulty of explaining the reasons for a Judaizing mission from Jerusalem; see Brinsmead, Opponents, p.IS; Gerd Ludemann, Paulus: der Heidenapostel (FRLANT, ISO; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), p. 59. The theory has been modernized by Werner Georg Kiimmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 21st edn, 1983), p. 262. 5. This theory goes back to the fifteenth century, Brinsmead, Opponents, p.IO. For a bibliography, see MuBner, Galater, pp.l9-22. 6. W. Liittgert, Gesetz und Geist: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbrief es (Beitriige zur Forderung christlicher Theologie, 22(6); Giitersloh: Wolfgang Schrage & Rudolf Smend, 1919), pp.llff. Liittgert's thesis about two fronts no longer applies; for criticism, see Eckert, Paulus' Gegnern, p.l36; and Barclay, Obeying, pp. 81-82, 93. 7. For a discussion with arguments in favour of this position, see Thun!n, 'Paul Angry?', pp. 31314. 8. See Marxsen, Einleitung, pp.49-50, 54; Walter Schmithals, 'Die Haretiker in Galatien', ZNW 47 (1956), pp. 25-67 (48); Eckert, Paulus' Gegnern, pp. 229-38, respectively. · 9. See especially Thuren, 'Paul Angry?', and Thuren, Derhetorizing.
Overview and Conclusion
175
Table 4.1: The dialogic flow of the argument in Galatians Paul teaches the Galatians: Paul +/01 Gal. [The antagonists question Paul's teaching: Prot ?!(+/01) Gal.] The antagonists put forward their own teaching: Prot
+/02
Gal.
Some Galatians accept the new teaching: Gal. +/(+/02) Prot Some Galatians question the new teaching: Gal. ?!(+02) Prot Some Galatians reject the new teaching: Gal. -/(+/02) Prot Paul rejects the antagonists' teaching: Paul -/(+/02) Gal. Paul repeats his original teaching: Paul +/01 Gal. Some Galatians re-accept Paul's original teaching: +/(+/01) Paul Some Galatians still question Paul's original teaching: Gal. ?!(+/01) Paul Some Galatians reject Paul's original teaching and accept the teaching of the antagonists: Gal -/(+/01) Paul Gal. +/(+/02) Prot Gal.
0 proposition, +/ put forward a proposition, -I reject a proposition, ?/ question a proposition
It is difficult to know to what degree Paul's argumentation is a response to another party's accusations and arguments. Some of the references to Scripture can best be explained as answers to arguments made on the basis of the quoted passages. Some of the issues are likewise most easily explained as an argumentative reaction to issues that were first raised among the Galatians. It is equally probable that some passages of Scripture and some issues are introduced only by Paul. Fortunately, the contents of Paul's argumentation are not changed by a knowledge of who started the argument. Even though opposite views on behalf of antagonists are assumed in the argumentation, the historical facts regarding who, what group, how many, etc. that held to such opposite views is not important. Antagonists occur in the text, in the argument, and even apart from the historical reality. Since argumentation by letter in antiquity was a slow process it is probable that . Paul tries to make his case on a wide front, even answering questions and refuting
176
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
objections that are only anticipated Kennedy encapsulates the argumentative situation as follows: The whole labored argument [in Galatians 3] essentially rests not on the scriptural passages cited nor on the logical acceptance of Paul's premises by his opponents - a necessary condition in true dialectic - but on the Galatians' acceptance of his authority in making these proclamations and their experience of Paul's teachings. His anticipation of objections involves difficult philosophical or theological concepts which are very succinctly stated, and though they may have been dear to him, their rhetorical function in the letter is perhaps more to seem to recognize the possibility of objections and to be prepared to answer them confidently than to provide a developed response. 10
However, as noted on several occasions above in the analysis, Paul himself presents a 'case' which does not rest solely on his authority, but also on the arguments he presents. In summary, the argumentative situation is one of some level of conflict between Paul's gospel and a variation of it. Whether this variation has been introduced by outsiders or insiders is impossible to determine. This 'other gospel' has been received by at least some of the Galatians. 11 Paul wants to correct the situation, but it is uncertain whether his objections will be well received. Therefore he needs to present the most persuasive response he can muster. In doing this, Paul draws heavily on his role as apostle to the Gentiles, and on his divine message - argued as convincingly as possible, as well as on his ministry among the Galatians. The roles are not equal; Paul is the tutor, the Galatians the tutees or Paul's 'children.
Standpoints, arguments, and argumentation structure Since assertives advance argumentation they should be dominant in the argumentation stage. This is in fact the case in Gal. 3.1-5.12, demonstrating that the argumentation as far as speech acts are concerned is typical in the sense that Paul does try to convince his addressees rationally. This does not exclude the use of other devices. The section also contains some expressives, one usage declarative, and one commissive, but no directives. The commissive is from an Old Testament quotation and is not used by Paul as a commissive, but as part of an assertive. The usage declarative is used for precisation. Regarding the distribution of speech acts, the analysis shows that different types of speech acts are evenly distributed with two exceptions. In 4.12-20 and
10. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, pp.l49-50. 11. The role of the antagonists' gospel in Paul's argument is only in part dependent on historical facts. It is useful as a presentational device in making a clear distinction between Paul's message and any other message. It is helpful for Paul to associate any other 'gospef with a negative influence from suspicious characters.
Overview and Conclusion
177
5.1-12 there are more expressives than in the other sections. From an argumentation point of view, this is problematic since expressives do not contribute to a sound argumentation and should not be used at all. The presence of a number of expressives indicates that Paul's style of argumentation includes an element of affect. Are the expressives included purposefully or by mistake as a by-product of Paul's agitation? As noted in the analysis, the expressives have a function in Paul's rhetorical manoeuvring. They provoke interaction, they underline the importance of the matter, they underline the urgency of the matter, they give variety to the argumentation, and they help the addressees keep alert during the reading of the letter. These functions all relate to auditorial demand The expressives do not forward the resolution of the dispute, in fact they often violate the rules for good argumentation. Concerning the distribution of speech acts over the four stages 12 we are at a disadvantage as we know little of the preceding events and nothing of the succeeding events to the letter. In Chapter 3, after the analysis of each of the text-units, all standpoints and expressed and unexpressed premisses were gathered in tables. The most important ones were set in italics. In the results sections, the most important ones, and all those not deleted, were permutated and presented in a form in which the central premisses in each section and the other premisses and claims were supporting elements. As I now gather all the elements from these tables of summary in one single table, some further deletions and permutations are in order. In the analysis it became clear that many of the arguments are sub-arguments of the same main argument. Before attempting a structure of the whole argumentation one must distinguish the main arguments and the subordinate ones. In Table 4.2 I have gathered all the main claims from the tables of summary from the ten results sections in the analysis, and in the same order. As earlier, the unexpressed premisses are indicated with a prime('). The numbers in parentheses refer to the number each standpoint had in the tables in Chapter 3. 13 The argument in Galatians appears to be a mixed, multiple difference of opinion. It is carried through as a complex argument with many subordinative arguments with single, multiple, and coordinative compound structures. When reaching for the main issue in the letter, we note that three themes are recurring and central: Paul tries to regain his authority, to suppress the law, and to discourage circumcision. On several instances Paul refers to his authority, to his message, and to his person. Paul begins the letter with emphasis on his ethos, and also ends the letter on the same note. However, to make the interpretation that this is his main message does not do justice to the laboured effort Paul makes for his claims 12. The four stages were presented in Section 2.5, p. 56. 13. Table 3.2 (p. 99), 3.4 (p. 120), 3.6 (p. 127), 3.8 (p. 134), 3.10 (p.138), 3.12 (p.143), 3.14 (p. 147), 3.16 (p. 152), 3.18 (p. 162), and 3.20 (p. 171).
178
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
Table 4.2: Recollection of the principal arguments -It is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. (18) - The Galatians' spiritual experiences are nullified if they circumcise themselves. (11) -The Gentiles' faith is reckoned to them as righteousness. (32) -Christian Gentiles are sons of Abraham, spiritually. (33) -To live by faith excludes being justified before God by the law. (62) -The covenant with Abraham is superior to the law of Moses. (71) - The inheritance comes either from the law or from the promise. (75) - The law is inferior to the gospel. (79) - A law that could make one alive has not been given and righteousness cannot come through the law. (86) - All Christians are Abraham's offspring and his heirs. (106) - Gentiles are freed because God sent his Son. (119) - Gentile Christians are heirs according to the promise. (121) - The Galatians were earlier enslaved by the elemental spirits. (127) - Paul is afraid that his work for the Galatians may have been wasted. (129) - Paul has told the Galatians the truth. (138) - The Galatians are persecuted by those 'according to the flesli. (152) - Those of the old covenant lived in slavery. (157') - The Galatians are children of the promise. (151) - The Galatians should not become circumcised. (161)
regarding the law and the gospel; 3.1-5.13 indicates that Paul wants to convey a message other than that of his authority. The letter is not mainly about Paul. Considering the many different arguments about the law, and considering the unfavourable light in which it is presented, one can arrive at the conclusion that to disparage the law is the main message. But, how would such a message have benefited Paul or the Galatians? Adding the arguments about the experiences of the Galatians and Paul's practical admonitions, warnings, blames, and requests, a picture emerges whereby all arguments point in one direction: the Galatians should not circumcise themselves. If this is considered the main thesis, all other arguments fall naturally into place as subordinative - which is not the case with other options for a main thesis. The argument can then be illustrated as a multiple argumentation with five main sub-arguments and many subordinative arguments (Table 4.3}. Regarding what should be the main sub-arguments, different choices can be made. For example, one could consider the argument that the Galatians are sons of Abraham to be a sub-argument. However, since the main point of that particular argument is that it is faith that is reckoned to the Galatians as righteousness, not works of the law; and since this argument in turn supports the claim that circumcision is not required (1.1 in the table}, I decided not to do so. The exact configuration of the argument is, however, not important as long as all the main points are included.
Overview and Conclusion
179
Table 4.3: Result: principal argument and sub-arguments 1 The Galatians should not become circumcised. (161) 1.1 It is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. (18) - God does not require any works of the law from the Galatians. (21) - Circumcision is a work of the law. (22', 165) - God has promised to bless the Gentiles as he blessed Abraham, by faith. (38, 33, 34, 59, 106, 109', 121) -Abraham's faith in God was reckoned to him as righteousness. (30, 60) -The Gentiles' faith is reckoned to them as righteousness. (32) - God initially gave and also now supplies the Galatians with the Spirit and works miracles among them by their believing what they heard and not by their doing the works of the law. (17, 19) -We await righteousness through faith, not law. (164, 168, 96, 55, 30, 60) - In Christ Jesus only faith working through love is important. (169) -The law was added only until Christ's arrival. (81, 100') 1.2 The Galatians' spiritual experiences and the benefit of Christ are nullified if they circumcise themselves. (11, 180') -To live by faith excludes being justified before God by the law. (62) -To live by the works of the law excludes living by faith. (65, 63) - The inheritance comes either from the law or from the promise. (75) - A work of the law nullifies spiritual experiences and the benefit of Christ. (13, 180') - If the Galatians now circumcise themselves, they are ending with the flesh. (12) - The old covenant was 'according to the flesli. (156') - To justify oneself by law leads to falling away from grace. (167) - A law that could make one alive has not been given and righteousness cannot come through the law. (86, 79) -Circumcision leads to slavery. (163, 166, 181', 89) - The Scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (88) 1.3 All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. (40) - Those of the old covenant lived in slavery. (157') - The Galatians were earlier enslaved by the elemental spirits. (127) - It is surprising that the Galatians want to turn back to slavery under the elemental spirits. (126) 1.4 Gentiles are freed because God sent his Son. (119) - God sent his Son in order to redeem those who were under the law. (116) - God sent his Son so that 'we' might receive adoption as children. (117) - Those of the new covenant live in freedom. (159') - The new covenant is made 'through the promise. (158') 1.5 Paul has told the Galatians the truth. (138) - The Galatians should follow Paul's example. (131) - Paul's antagonists have selfish motives for their ministry among the Galatians. (139) -Paul is concerned with the Galatians spiritual well-being. (140) - Paul is afraid that his work for the Galatians may have been wasted. (129) -The Galatians are persecuted by those 'according to the flesli. (152) - Paul is being persecuted. (176)
180
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
In Table 4.3 I made a few deletions and permutations in comparison with Table 4.2 as follows: out of the 19 principal arguments, three are deleted (33, 121, 151) since they are included in other standpoints; one (161) is chosen as the main claim, and five (18, 11, 40, 119, 138) are considered the main sub-arguments. 14 The remaining ten are considered as supporting the main sub-arguments. The overview is complemented by the rest of the premisses and claims from the tables of summary. Many of these concern the same thing or support the same claim, however, and can be deleted. Regarding the structures of the subordinate arguments, in the analysis in Chapter 3, I clarified the arguments on the lowest level and was in most cases able present single arguments (c.60%). In several cases the structure was coordinate (c.23%), in some cases multiple (c.12%) and in a few cases subordinate (c.S%). On a higher level, the structure is predominantly multiple: Paul puts forth different types of arguments hoping to convince if not by one argument, then by another (1.1-1.5 in Table 4.3). Multiple argumentation is in fact a safe choice if the addressees consist of a large group of possibly diverse people whose opinions are not precisely known. 15 These main multiple arguments are in turn supported by many coordinatively compound and multiple arguments, where Paul cumulates arguments in favour of his standpoints in the hope that the totality of the arguments combined are convincing. How do these arguments relate to 2.15-21, which has been suggested by many to be Paul's main message in Galatians, its propositio? 16 First, my analysis shows that 3.1-5.12 fully supports Paul's statements in 2.15-21; the main points are repeated in a different form. Secondly, there is a difference of perspective earlier and later in the letter as it moves from theory to practice. My analysis suggests that Paul's main message is not a theoretical but a practical one. In this light, 2.15-21 is not Paul's main message, but an argument for it, namely that the Galatians should not circumcise themselves. 2.15-21 is a good presentation of Paul's theological standpoint - preparing for the explicating argumentation in 3.1-5.12, but its contents were hardly news for the Galatians. The later elaboration on the relationship between works of the law, especially circumcision, and Christian life may not have been dear to them, however. Since my analysis does not rest on classical rhetorical theory it does not require an identification of a propositio. Regardless of terminology, to consider 2.15-21 to be the main message of Galatians does in my opinion not do justice to the practical aim of the letter. 14. Argument 40 was earlier presented as a sub-argument to 61. Now, a permutation is required which places argument 61 as a sub-argument to 40. This permutation is warranted by the dominating place the argument of curse has at the beginning of the letter and of which the later sub-argument is an echo. 15. Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. 68. 16. Schlier, Galater, pp. 87-88 (without the rhetorical terminology); Betz, Galatians, pp.ll3-14; Longenecker, Galatians, pp. 80-81 (with bibliographical references).
Overview and Conclusion
181
A comparison between my findings and earlier suggestions regarding Paul's argumentation shows several differences. Both Betz and Longenecker see the arguments in 3.lff. as supporting the propositio of 2.15-21. According to Betz the arguments in Galatians are six in number as follows: 17 3.1-5: the Galatians' experience of the Spirit; 3.6-14: God's promise to Abraham; 3.15-18: common human practice oflaw; 3.26-4.11: Christian tradition; 4.U-20: friendship; and 4.21-31: the allegory of Sarah and Hagar.
Longenecker finds three arguments in support;l8 3.1-18: righteousness apart from the law: against legalism; 3.19-4.7: the believer's life not 'under Law' but 'in Chrisf: against nomism; 4.8-11: Paul's concern for the Galatians.
Schlier represents a traditional exegesis, and consequently does not identify argumentative elements in the same way as Betz and Longenecker. Schlier does, however, identify a few crucial arguments as follows: 19 3.1-5: the origin of the Spirit in the Galatian churches; 3.6-14: the Blessing of Abraham comes to those who believe; 3.15-29: Abraham's inheritance is connected to Christ; 4.8-11: a lapse is impossible; and 5.1-ll: there is only one either/or.
MuBner finds the following arguments in Galatians: 20 3.6-14: a statement of Scripture; 3.19-4.7: the true righteousness-function of the law; and 4.21-4.31: a statement of Scripture.
My structure below is based on the contents of the argumentation (as presented in Table 4.3): 1 The Galatians should not become circumcised. (5.2-6) 1.1 It is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. (3.2-5) 1.2 The Galatians' spiritual experiences and the benefit of Christ are nullified if they circumcise themselves. (3.4 & 5.2) 1.3 All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. (3.10a) 1.4 Gentiles are freed because God sent his Son. (4.4-5) 1.5 Paul has told the Galatians the truth. ( 4.16)
17. 18. 19. 20.
Betz, Galatians, p. viii. Longenecker, Galatians, p. vii. Schlier, Galater, p. 8. MuBner, Galater, p. viii.
182
Pauls Argumentation in Galatians
This table is a structure of the argument, not of the text, and is therefore not directly comparable with the structures presented above. It does, however, illustrate the difference in approach. Many analyses are to a large extent bound by an understanding of the structure of the text and are not accompanied by a structure of the argument. To present the argument in this manner focuses on the message, not the composition, and is therefore more useful when describing the contents of the argument. The structure of the argument shows that the main message in Galatians is found in 5.2-6. The rest of the letter supports this statement. In a recent study D. Francois Tolmie has undertaken a 'text-centred' rhetorical analysis of Galatians with the aim of using neither an ancient nor a modern specific method, but to 'reconstruct Paul's rhetorical strategy from the text itself:21 His analysis indicates six objectives in Paul's persuasive strategy:22 1.1-2.10: 2.11-3.14: 3.15-25: 3.26-5.1:
First objective: Convince the audience of his divine authorization. Second objective: Convince the audience that his gospel is the true gospel. Third objective: Convince the audience of the inferiority of the law. Fourth objective: Convince the audience that the 'gospel' of the opponents
represents spiritual slavery and, instead, urge them to remain spiritually free by adhering to his gospel. 5.2-6.10: Fifth objective: Convince the audience to act as he wishes them to: not to succumb to the pressure to be circumcised; to avoid the opponents, and to live according to the Spirit. 6.11-18: Sixth objective: Final refutation of the opponents.
This outline shows the result of a specifically rhetorical analysis: all elements are seen as objectives in Paul's persuasive effort. There are clear parallels to my results but also differences. In light of my presentation above, Tolmie's results present the following question: should we see Paul as having many objectives with his argumentation? Here we have an illustration of how different approaches lead to different emphases. A rhetorical objective is not equivalent to an argumentative standpoint. My overview presents Paul's main standpoint and the main arguments in support. Rhetorical aims cannot support a standpoint but behind a standpoint there may very well lie a rhetorical objective. In my analysis Tolmies' first, second, and sixth objectives are considered to be parts of Paul's strengthening of his ethos. Instead of seeing this as a separate objective, I have considered Paul's ethos to be a necessary foundation for the logoselements of his argumentation. As regards the other objectives (third, fourth, and fifth}, they are included in my specific analysis. Since I have dealt with both the make-up of the arguments and the strategic manoeuvring, I have been able to scrutinize the quality of the argumentation. That both aspects - the dialectical and the rhetorical - work together in forming the argument was noted at the outset of this study. 21. Tolmie, Persuading, p. 233. 22. Tolmie, Persuading, pp. 242-43.
Overview and Conclusion
183
Consequently, it needs to be said that we should not focus on the main claim about circumcision as such, but to view it in context. Paul wishes the Galatians to stay true to his gospel, which is the true gospel, and this requires them not to give in to circumcision. This also entails that the opponents are in the wrong, that the Galatians should live according to the Spirit, and that the law is suppressed. Tolmies' analysis seems to confirm my analysis in that it highlights the same features of Paul's argumentation, although in a different way. To avoid repetition I deal with argument schemes (the third point in the analytic overview) under the evaluation of violations against Rule 7 below. Next I present the fourth and last point in the analytic overview, the argumentative strategy, which was already touched upon above.
Argumentative strategy Is there an argumentative strategy in Galatians, and, if so, of what kind is it? First, it is dear that the letter contains a lot of rhetorical moves. From the outset Paul uses expressions of surprise, cursing, authority, and confidence in relation to the confrontation and opening stages. The beginning of the letter, after the introduction, is an interesting use of all three aspects of strategic manoeuvring. The topics of gospel, grace, those who are confusing the Galatians, pleasing people, and the curse, cast a wide net that touches upon important and interesting themes from the audience's point of view. By starting with his astonishment at the situation of the Galatians, his own authority, and a curse against others, Paul makes a bold presentational device, thereby indicating the presence of an argumentative strategy. By taking a closer look at the rhetorical manoeuvring and summarizing the analysis in Chapter 3, I shall now focus on a few main features in each of the ten sections: 3.1-5: a strong challenging style, leading questions, the use of experiences as proofs; 3.6-14: appeals to authority and to tradition, argumentation by association and by dissociation, the use of a respected historical role-model as warrant for Paul's own claims; 3.15-18: display of (misplaced) expertise, the use of a variety of topics with supporting claims of diverse types; 3.19-25: the use of overarching historical perspectives and the simplification of models of explanation, the eclectic use of Old Testament texts, the use of either/or dualisms; 3.26-29: the use of important symbols and experiences as arguments, the use of well-known phrases to recall important or emotional experiences; 4.1-7: the use of analogy and the use of style to create a sense of personal relevance and of intimacy, the use of association and dissociation; 4.8-11: intimidation by painting a bleak picture; . 4.12-20: the use of ethos and pathos elements, reference to personal relations, the use of style to create a sense of emotion, a variation of styles;
184
Pauls Argumentation in Galatians
4.21-31: the creation of compelling images, the use of Old Testament texts as illustrations and the development of them to suit the current need further, the use of typology; 5.1-12: the use of warning as a presentational device, the use of vilification, the use of humour/irony, the good use of composition with variation of styles. The authoritative style continues throughout the letter, repeatedly violating the freedom rule. Relying heavily on his own ethos is clearly part ofPauls argumentative
strategy. It is worth noting that the list has much in common with Siegert's characterization of Paul's argumentation (see Section 1.2, p. 5).23 In the following, I make a few general remarks on Paul's argumentation that are drawn from the analysis. In the argumentation stage, Paul makes many references to the Scriptures so as to add authority to his message. Paul often presents his interpretations of the Scriptures as self-evident (although they are not), which is in violation of the unexpressed premiss rule and the argument scheme rule. Appeals to tradition and
to authority are part ofPauls argumentative strategy. Is Galatians 'red-hot rhetoric'?24 Did the situation in Galatia engage Paul emotionally to such a degree that he 'makes an alarmed and passionate response in his letter'?25 Although the text gives the impression of having been written by Paul in an agitated state, those phrases which are usually interpreted as evidence of this can also be interpreted as deliberate rhetorical moves intended to give the impression of an urgent matter, thereby giving cause to agitation. 26 Be that as it may, a sense of urgency and an affected style are recurring features among Pauls
presentational devices and thus part ofPauls argumentative strategy. The aim of the letter is deliberative: the Galatians must not give in to circumcision. Paul's strategy is threefold First, he must re-establish his authority. This aim is especially evident in Galatians 1-2. Secondly, he needs to explain the basis for his views regarding the law and the new covenant as it pertains to the life of the believer. This is done in the section analysed in Chapter 3, Gal. 3.1-5.12, and to some extent in what follows. Thirdly, Paul must state what he wants from the Galatians and convince them accordingly. To this end Galatians 5-6 contains the main exhortation {5.2-6), crucial paraenesis, and comments and advice leading once more up to the main exhortation not to give in to circumcision (Gal. 6.12-15). 23. See also Tolmie, Persuading, pp. 243-55. 24. A$ suggested in Michael R. Cosby, 'Galatians: Red-Hot Rhetoric', in Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht and Walter Ubelacker (eds), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), pp. 296-309. 25. Hill, 'Salvation', p.l96. 26. Thun!n, Derhetorizing, p. 63 states accordingly that '[t]here is, however, reason to doubt, whether the author himself is overwhelmed by emotions. He presents himself in the text as perplexed, uncalculating, straightforward, and impassioned; the Letter seems to be an instant response, a natural primitive reaction, to alarming news from the congregations. Yet a closer look reveals that this purposeful impression is consciously produced by utilizing effective contemporary rhetorical means. One would expect less orthodox ways of expressing perplexity, if the apostle actually was infuriated:
Overview and Conclusion
185
Because of the difficult situation and the different standpoints, Paul needs to lead his addressees to this conclusion step by step. He cannot simply forbid the Galatians to circumcise themselves and hope that they will obey. First he needs to explain why they should listen to him, then he needs to give as many arguments as possible in support of his view, and only then can he hope to persuade the Galatians to follow his exhortation.
4.2
Violation of rules and quality of argumentation
After the analytic overview we can turn to a critical examination of violations of rules and evaluate the quality of the argumentation. 1. The freedom rule: Parties must not prevent each otherfrom advancing standpoints
or casting doubt on standpoints. Several portions of the letter are problematic with regards to Rule 1. The tone in the beginning of the letter is excluding; this is seen dearly in the remarks about the Galatians deserting 'the one who called you' (1.6), turning to a different gospel (1.6), and to those proclaiming a different gospel being accursed (1.8-9). This division into a right and a wrong way is echoed several times later in the letter. In combination with other arguments which can be seen as monological, authoritarian, or simply just arrogant, I conclude that these are not brought up on the spur of the moment but are in fact characteristic of Paul's argumentation. Paul presents his standpoints forcefully and often as self-evident conclusions or as well-known facts, even when this is not the case. His style does not promote an open dialogue characterized by mutual respect. Some of Paul's opinions would probably have offended those who held to the importance of the law (according to Paul, they 'turn back to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits: 4.9). In several places Paul's ethos is strongly to the fore. As is natural in persuasive argumentation, not only the facts, but also the conveyors of the facts play a role in the process of persuading. That Paul uses so much of the letter to defend himself suggests that he was personally under attack. On occasion, Paul defends himself (4.13-16) and then turns to attack the other party (4.17-18). Paul's standard of argumentation is, in this respect, no higher than the standard he attributes to his opponents (4.17). Paul's mode of argumentation is anything but an invitation to open discussion. This is quite clear in a passage such as 5.1-12. The allusions to the curse and the only true gospel in 1.6-9 creates a communicatively closed argumentation; Paul is correct, the other party is only negatively persuading and confusing and awaits God's judgment. The ridiculing effect of the joke is apt to hinder an open discussion. Paul presents his 'work' as the exclusive option - if the Galatians do not follow Paul in this matter, his work has been 'in vain'. This must not happen and
186
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
the Galatians should understand that Paul's antagonists only have their selfish interests at heart (6.12-13), whereas Paul would never boast about himself (6.14). The Galatians should come to their senses and not bother Paul again about this matter (6.17). 2. The burden-of-proof rule: A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend
it if the other party asks him to do so. We do not know if someone has asked Paul to defend his standpoints or if he does this on his own initiative. However, the way in which Paul advances and defends standpoints suggests that this is done at least partly in anticipation of objections he would expect - or has already encountered - from another party. The amount of argumentation concerning the law indicates that the theme was important for the Galatians' situation. Otherwise it would not have been useful to set aside a large portion of the argument for this theme. Paul wants to lessen the importance of the law which indicates that the Galatians had a tendency to hold the law in high regard. Paul's gospel of righteousness without works of the law is at issue. Paul defends his gospel against any position which would include the law as part of the reception of the Spirit, as part of righteousness, or as part of one's status as a child of God. Paul's defence of his standpoint about the inferiority of the law in relation to 'the promise' suggests that, in addition to the Spirit, the law was a theme which had been a topic of debate among the Galatians, and that this had been communicated to Paul, which in turn demanded a response in the form of the letter to the Galatians. I find the theory that Paul's opponents wanted to supplement Paul's message by incorporating the necessity oflaw-observance probable. This would explain Paul's efforts to suppress the law's importance in relation to the importance of 'the promise: 3. The standpoint rule: A party's attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint
that has indeed been advanced by the other party. We have no certainty as to what possible arguments preceded Paul's letter to the Galatians. However, in some places there is a strong sense that some of the subjects under discussion have a prehistory in the relationship between Paul and the Galatians. In 3.1-5, the Spirit is one such theme; it indicates that some among the Galatians held the view that 'doing the works of the law' was the reason why God supplied the Spirit and worked miracles, whereas, according to Paul's teaching, the Galatians' faith is the reason. However, it may be that the whole problem, especially in 3.6-14, could be considered from a Galatian perspective a faUacy offalse dilemma: it is not certain that the Galatians perceived their situation as problematic before they received Paul's letter. In that case, we have a violation against the standpoint rule. Even if the Galatians experienced some internal theological conflict, it is not certain that they conceived such problems in the same way as Paul did. The dichotomy between law and faith may not have been a relevant formulation of the problem
Overview and Conclusion
187
from a Galatian perspective; it could be regarded as a fallacy offalse dichotomy: law and faith need not be as mutually exclusive as Paul asserts. In 3.11 Paul defends himself against the accusation that he himself is preaching circumcision. As mentioned in the analysis, there is no reason to suppose that Paul here does not respond to an accusation by the other party. It seems that the other party has presented the importance of an observance of some cultic calender. Otherwise, Paul's argumentation does not make sense on this point What kind of observance is the issue here is not possible to determine, or how this has been presented by the other party. Concerning the Hagar-Sarah allegory, there are some hints that Paul responds to an argument about Abraham's 'true children: This argument could have been presented by opponents in Galatia who used the Hagar-Sarah allegory to demonstrate the primacy oflsaac over Ishmael in a way that underlined the importance of the law. Paul answers with a different interpretation of the same allegory, showing that Isaac represented the promise and not the law. If this is the reason for Paul's use of the allegory in his argumentation, it would partly explain our difficulty in interpreting it; we do not have access to the arguments of the other party. 4. The relevance rule: A party may defend his standpoint only by advancing argu-
mentation relating to that standpoint. E:xpressives and rhetorical questions are not good ways of advancing argumentation. Accordingly, in pragma-dialectics e:xpressives have no place in the argumentation stage. However, from a rhetorical perspective they are a common element of persuasion. The accusations that the Galatians are 'foolish' and 'bewitched' do not advance Paul's argumentation with arguments that relate to his standpoints. By beginning the argumentative section in this manner, Paul shows that his style of argumentation is a mixture of facts, emotions, and opinions. This situation is far from the ideal of an orderly and neutral exchange of standpoints with premisses. The example 'from everyday life' in 3.15-18 seems to be a fallacy of relevance. The praxis referred to does not exist and consequently the argument does not hold up against critical examination. The use of 3.16c-e as a premiss is relevant only if Paul's interpretation of -rep <Titep~a-rL is accepted. However, if this unusual interpretation is not accepted, the argument is of no relevance to the argument about the law's inferiority in comparison with the gospel. The argument would have been clearer without 3.16c-e. The expressive style is dominant in 4.9c-11 where it does not really advance argumentation relating to Paul's standpoint apart from the indirect statement that Paul considers observing special days etc. to be tantamount to slavery. Passage 4.12-20a presents a similar conflict with the relevance rule as 3.1-5. Here Paul's ethos and pathos appeals play a role in his argumentative strategy, but they do not advance the substance of his argumentation. The connection Paul creates to Abraham can be seen as more of a rhetorical construct than a factual connection and can be taken as a fallacy offalse analogy.
188
Pauls Argumentation in Galatians
Even if some of the Old Testament quotations which Paul makes use of were suggested by some earlier stage in the argumentation, either between Paul and his addressees or within the Galatian congregations, the problem of relevance is not resolved. For instance, Paul uses a passage about Abraham to defend his standpoint about faith. As we have seen in the analysis, it can be argued that the passage about Abraham is not really relevant to the argument. The second part of 5.1-12, vv. 7-12, is difficult to assess from the perspective of the rule: how do these arguments relate to any standpoint? From a dialectical perspective, vv. 7-10 and 12 are superfluous as support for the claim that the Galatians should not become circumcised Again, the section contains expressives aimed at vilifying the other party and at winning back the Galatians. 5. The unexpressed premiss rule: A party may not falsely present something as a
premiss that has been left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premiss that he himself has left implicit. Paul's argumentation is at times exceedingly compact, and the practice of recovering unexpressed premisses clarifies the argument as with the case of the double argument in 3.6-7, which turned out not to be an enthymeme as has been suggested earlier. A rhetorical use of unexpressed premisses is not to state a premiss explicitly, because the hearers or addressees would not easily accept the unexpressed premiss if it were clearly stated. This would be a violation of Rule 5. For instance, in 3.6-14, if one does not accept the premisses of the dichotomy between law and faith, one will not be able to accept the conclusions. However, the explicit elements (premisses and conclusions) already state Paul's position pretty clearly. In 4.9c-d, Paul presents the following as a premiss: following the path of abiding by the law equals slavery because turning to a law-abiding life is tantamount to turning to a life under the 'elemental spirits'. Probably even Paul himself would deny this premiss, which seems to be more the result of an unhappy balancing of the argument, as indicated in the analysis. It may be that someone had suggested that Paul had unclear motives for evangelizing the Galatians. This would explain Paul's (counter-)attack in 6.U-13. It may then be that the premiss in 4.13, that 'it was because of a physical infirmity' that Paul first announced the gospel to the Galatians, had been disputed. Paul holds to his recollection of the situation and affirms that the premiss is undisputed on his part. Since the unexpressed premisses are generally in harmony with the expressed ones, the choice of an enthymemic argumentation seems primarily to be a stylistic feature of Paul's argumentation, not a rhetorical means to lead the addressees to accept implicit, difficult or disputed premisses. 6. The starting point rule: A party may not falsely present a premiss as an accepted starting point nor deny a premiss representing an accepted starting point.
As noted above, the main argument in 3.1-5 can be disputed, but Paul presents his interpretation of the Galatians' experiences as an undeniable fact. It may be
Overview and Conclusion
189
that Paul's interpretation of the Galatians' experience is not an accepted starting point and that some of the Galatians would have considered it a false presentation of their own experiences. Also, in 3.6a-b, Paul indicates as a fact that it was Abraham's faith - and his faith only - that was reckoned to him as righteousness. 1his statement is then used as a premiss for the arguments that follow. There is reason to believe that this premiss was not an accepted starting point between Paul and the other party. Similarly, the statement 3.10a may not have been agreed on. An indication of this is the space Paul allocates in the passage for defending these two ideas. As noted in the analysis above, several crucial premisses may also have been under dispute. Still, Paul presents them as facts. One could raise the question of whether the analogy of Abraham is false, and Paul is consequently guilty of a fallacy offalse analogy here: (1) Abraham's faith was not in Christ; (2) the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is not identical with the righteousness reckoned to those who believe in Christ; and - most importantly -that {3) in Genesis 15 the intention is not to contrast Abraham's faith with his deeds. As shown in the analysis, Abraham does not represent such a division between faith and deeds as he seems to in Paul's argumentation. It is not clear whether the Galatians considered their former existence as one of slavery under false gods or not. Nevertheless Paul presents this as an accepted starting point. Many of the premisses in 4.21-31 are problematic as starting points for argumentation: Abraham had more than two sons, so why would the two women allegorically be two covenants? Why would they represent mountains and cities? Does Paul use the quotation in 4.30 in a correct way? The allegory of Hagar and Sarah is problematic on several points from the perspective of the starting point rule.
7. The argument scheme rule: A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively
defended ifthe defence does not take place by means ofan appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied. The argument schemes identified in the analysis are presented in Table 4.4 the table should be seen as giving a general idea and is thus an aid only. In the analysis in Chapter 3, each argument scheme was analysed for appropriateness and application and then evaluated as sound, problematic or unsound. Again, I stress that when assessing argument schemes, soundness is analysed, not validity. Validity only refers to the logical form of the argument and does not alone guarantee that the argument is conclusive as a defence or a refutation; the way in which the standpoints and the premisses are linked together is also important (as discussed in Section 2.6, pp. 64f.). The evaluation of the quality marked in the table is of the argument as a whole, not just the argument scheme. I mark the soundness of the argumentation as it has been indicated in the analysis - based upon the following three criteria: all the statements must be acceptable, the reasoning must _ be valid, and the argument scheme must be employed appropriately.
190
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
It is impossible to classify the quality precisely, but I find that an evaluation with three degrees of soundness captures the quality with enough precision to be informative but without aspiring to be too precise. After all, an evaluation of the acceptability of the premisses requires us to put ourselves in the position of the other party, which is difficult. Consequently, I have preferred the designation 'problematic' over 'unsound' in unclear cases where I could not decide how the other party would have reacted. Thus, if I have been overly cautious, the only consequence is that Paul's argumentation appears to be of somewhat higher quality than it actually is. It would be hazardous to draw any rigid conclusions based on these overviews. I note that the heavier argumentative sections are somewhat more problematic than the lighter ones. 3.1-29 contains a higher degree of problematic and unsound arguments (15 outof30 =50%) than4.1-5.12 (6 outo£16 = 37.5%). This is not due to the use of different argument schemes since the quality of different schemes does not differ significantly; in comparison with causal argument schemes, analogous schemes do have a lower degree of soundness and symptomatic ones a higher, but the number of schemes is too low to allow for any conclusions to be drawn from this (see Table 4.5). The table shows that more than half of the arguments are causal. Perhaps this scheme is especially useful when the argumentation is based on the Scriptures directly or indirectly- as in the many causal argument schemes about Abraham, faith, and the law in Gal. 3.6-14.
8. The validity rule: In his argumentation a party may only use arguments that
are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premisses. Checking logical validity is an important step in evaluating the overall nature of an argumentation; does the conclusion follow from the premisses and are the premisses consistent? As the analysis above has shown, most of Paul's arguments can be presented in a way that makes sense even if the logic employed is sometimes quite strained 27 However, we should assume that some of the difficulty in interpretation is due to the fact that the original situation is mostly lost to us, and we should therefore try to find a plausible explanation for even the most difficult of Paul's arguments. Nevertheless, we should not overestimate the ability of Paul's addressees: if an argument is exceedingly difficult for us to understand, then in most cases it probably was for the original addressees as well. Some of the figures with explications of the argumentation rest on premisses which are in themselves interpretations that can easily be contested or which are insufficient. This means that, although the argument is in itself valid, it is not convincing on its own. In 3.1-5, Paul argues that the Galatians received and still receive the Spirit (and experience miracles) because of their faith, and not because of their 'doing the 27. Becker expresses this diplomatically: 'Streng logisch aufgebaute Gedankenketten treten zuriick. Dieser Stil ist besonders Gal3,1-5,12 anzutreffen: Becker, Galater, p. 9.
Overview and Conclusion Table 4.4: Summary of all analysed arguments PASSAGE
3.1-5:
FIG. (PAGE)
ARG.SCHEME
QUALITY OF ARG.
3.1 (88) 3.1 (88) 3.2 (89) 3.3 (90)
causal symptomatic analogous causal causal causal symptomatic causal causal analogous symptomatic causal causal causal causal causal causal causal causal causal symptomatic analogous symptomatic symptomatic symptomatic symptomatic causal causal causal causal analogous symptomatic symptomatic causal causal causal causal symptomatic causal causal causal causal causal analogous symptomatic symptomatic
sound problematic problematic sound sound sound sound problematic sound problematic problematic problematic problematic problematic sound sound problematic problematic problematic sound sound unsound sound sound sound problematic unsound sound sound problematic problematic sound sound unsound unsound sound sound problematic unsound problematic problematic problematic problematic sound problematic sound
n n
3.6-14:
3.4 (91) 3.5 (91) 3.8 (103) 3.9 (104) 3.10 (105) 3.11 (106) n
3.15-18: 3.19-25:
3.12 (107) 3.14 (109) 3.15 (109) 3.17 (110) 3.18 (ill) 3.19 (112) 3.20 (112) 3.21 (113) 3.22 (123) 3.23 (123) 3.24 (130) n
3.26-29:
4.1-7: 4.8-11: 4.12-20: 4.21-31:
3.25 (130) 3.26 (131) 3.27 (136) 3.28 (136) 3.29 (136) 3.30 (140) 3.33 (144) 3.34 (149) 3.35 (155) "
3.36 (156) "
5.1-12:
3.37 (156) 3.38 (164) " " " " "
3.39 (166) 3.40 (166)
191
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
192
Table 4.5: Statistics of arguments SCHEME
SOUND
PROBLEMATIC
UNSOUND
TOTAL
causal analogous symptomatic
U(43%) 1(20%) 8 (62%) 21(46%)
u (43%)
4(14%) 1 (20%)
28 (61%) 5 (11%) 13 (28%) 46(100%)
TOTAL
3 (60%) 5 (38%) 20 (43%)
5 (11%)
works of the law: The problem in the argument is that even though the presence of faith would certainly be a necessary condition for the reception of the Spirit and for the works of the Spirit, it may not have been considered a sufficient condition for the continuing reception and works of the Spirit by the antagonists. Even though Paul would have wished it, it does not logically follow from the premisses he supplies that faith is the only condition for the continuing reception of the Spirit and experiences of miracles. The passage 3.6-14 contains a clear violation against Rule 8: 3.10, which I consider to be an example of the fallacy of incorrect transfer ofproperties between
parts and wholes. The argumentation in 3.26-29 is consistent, although some of the claims are based on premisses which are not conclusively demonstrated Why does 'belonging to Christ' make one an 'offspring and heir of Abraham's'? Similarly, in 4.1-7, some of the claims are based on premisses which are not conclusively demonstrated Why are those who 'belong to Chrisf, 'heirs according to the promise'? Again, in 4.21-31, any form of validity is not important: allegory is difficult to analyse in such terms. But Paul does draw several conclusions from the allegorical interpretation, which he uses in his argumentation. The argumentation cannot be said to be logical in the analytical sense - here Paul relies heavily on a few premisses which are not defended. That Isaac was born 'according to the Spirit' and Ishmael 'according to the flesh' is stated but not supported. 9. The closure rule: A failed defence of a standpoint must result in the party that
put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defence in the other party retracting his doubt about the standpoint. The analysis confirms Paul's authoritarian style of argumentation. This creates an interesting tension in the text. On the one hand, Paul states that his claims are conclusively defended He has made an interpretation that should be accepted by all. On the other hand, Paul really seems to try to make good arguments that are convincing from a logos perspective as well. The style of Paul's argumentation does not give the appearance of flexibility. On the contrary, Paul seems quite determined to argue his standpoints. For instance, 3.1-5 and 4.8-11 contain language which suggests that Paul would not retract his standpoints even if the other party presented a conclusive defence. This strengthens the impression that Paul would not be prepared to retract his standpoint no matter what the defence of the other party might have been.
Overview and Conclusion
193
Paul draws heavily upon his ethos in several passages, such as Galatians 1-2, 4.12-20, and 6.14-17. In 1.11-12 Paul states that his standpoint is the only correct one. At the same time he depreciates his opponents by the use of vituperatio: 1.7, 4.17, 5.7-12, and 6.12-13. Because of the dear inequality which Paul sees between himself and his antagonists, it seems improbable that he would have ever been convinced of the correctness of their argumentation. Paul uses the technique of creating a divide between his standpoint and that of his antagonists, for example the language in 4.30-31, which is strongly deprecatory against both Jews and 'Judaizers' (although only the latter are probably meant). After the last section of the analysis, 5.1-12, it seems utterly unlikely that Paul would ever regard any defence by the other party as conclusive, or that he would retract his own standpoint. 10. The usage rule: A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear
or confusingly ambiguous and he must interpret the other party's formulations as carefully and accurately as possible. The word 'bewitched' in 3.lb has caused difficulties for commentators. It may also have been unclear for the original recipients of the letter. The unclarity of the use of the word may therefore be a rhetorical feature. Paul conveys that he knows that the influence the Galatians are under is bad for them - it is like being bewitched The premiss 3.6a-b is not clear in the sense in which Paul presents it. How are Abraham's faith and his righteousness comparable with those of the Galatians? The same ambiguity is a problem with 3.1lb, 3.12b, and 3.13c. However, precisely this ambiguity with the Old Testament quotations makes it possible for Paul to use them in a sense that fits his argumentation. In some cases the quotations fit his arguments better; in others, they are easy to contest. The use of ambiguous te~ seems deliberate on Paul's part - an ambiguous text is more easy to incorporate as a premiss than an exact and precise one. It is important that the text contains key-words of Paul's argumentation. The exact logical value or clarity of the texts is in most cases secondary. Paul's usage declarative is somewhat confusing since the traditional understanding of 'seed' included the Jews and, to a certain degree, the proselytes. There may well have been precedence for this kind of interpretation, but, still, it is not as dear as it seems to be for Paul in his argumentation. The 'elements of the world' in 4.3b is difficult for modern commentators, but may have been dear to Paul's addressees. It is not decisive for the argumentation to know what is meant by the 'weak and beggarly elemental spirits: It is sufficient that Paul dearly conveys that he considers the situation of the Galatians to be dangerous and that choosing another alternative than the one he is presenting would be tantamount to giving in to 'slavery'. Supposing that these formulations were dear enough for the original addressees, they do not violate the usage rule. The Hagar and Sarah allegory is also difficult from the point of view of the usage rule. It contains difficult formulations, especially in 4.24a-26.
194
Pauls Argumentation in Galatians 4.3 Conclusion: Pauls argumentation in Galatians
In closing, I return to the questions I posed at the conclusion of Chapter 1.
1. The substance of Paul's argumentation: Are the arguments convincingfrom a logos perspective? Are the arguments theologically consistent viewed as a whole?
What are the contents of the arguments concerning the main themes ofgospet law, Spirit, circumcision, and freedom? Paul makes a good effort to present a convincing argumentation. The logoselement is clearly not indifferent - otherwise Paul would not dedicate such a large part of the letter to arguments in favour of his position, arguments which at points are very difficult and which must have required careful consideration during composition. Paul approaches his theme from many angles. The gospel is based only on faith, as it was promised to Abraham. Righteousness does not require works of the law initially nor subsequently. In this sense, the law is inferior to the gospel, and this can be concluded also from the way the law was given, that it is posterior to the gospel, that it had a limited time of function as a pathway to righteousness. The Spirit is a proof for Paul's theology since the Spirit was initially gained, and subsequently works, without the need for any works of the law. Circumcision is an act oflaw with dire consequences: it leads back to a slavery under the law and thus nullifies the benefit of Christ. The gospel of faith leads to freedom, the gospel oflaw leads to slavery. The results of this thesis do not as such place themselves anywhere in particular within the debate about the 'new perspective on Paul', regardless of whether we understand 'works of the law' as 'badges' for God's people (James D. G. Dunn},28 for example, or as references to the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race (N. T. Wright), 29 or as something else. As noted above, the question for the Galatians is how to continue their lives as Christians and here Paul makes it clear that 'works of the law' play no part in their justification or righteousness. In Galatians this question crystallizes into the question about circumcision. Is Paul's argumentation coherent from a theological point of view? (cf. the presentation in Section 1.2, p. 6). In Galatians, Paul's argumentation creates a coherent whole. A problematic issue brought forth in the discussion about Paul and the law concerns the differences in theology between Galatians and Romans. The impression on the basis of an analysis of Galatians is that Paul adapts his approach to the situation. As I see it, this is the main reason for tensions between argumentation in different contexts. Was Paul's argumentation consistent on a deeper level? (cf. Sanders' suggestion, Section 1.2, p. 6}. Judging from Paul's clear purpose in Galatians it is safe to say that the main points of Paul's mission are clear, but his use of the topical potential and his reactions to the auditorial demand in 28. James D. G. Dunn, jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, ICY: Westminster /John Knox Press, 1990), p.l94. 29. N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real FoutJder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), p.l22.
Overview and Conclusion
195
different situations present some tensions. An analysis of Galatians alone is not enough to evaluate on what level Paul's theology was structured and coherent. 2. The function of Paul's argumentation: Does Paul's argumentation function in the sense that the different arguments together convincingly support a main standpoint? What is the relationship between logos, ethos, and pathos in the argument? Is there a clear use of strategic manoeuvring? How is the argument convincing? When considering the argumentation from an overall perspective, it is compelling. It offers a wide variety of topical potential, including arguments from Scripture, from tradition, from experience, and from common practice. It also includes a variety of presentational devices, including intimidation, teaching, irony, personal appeal, allegory, and vilification. There is indeed a clear use of strategic manoeuvring that is carried out in a fairly good manner. The effect is achieved by a good combination of topical potential, presentational devices and auditorial demand Of these, the auditorial demand seems to be the weakest since it contains more blame and rebuke than supportive exhortation, but it is difficult to evaluate the effect of this - perhaps Paul appears exactly as the Galatians would expect him to appear in a grave situation, and he clearly wants to signal that the situation indeed is grave. The argumentation is mainly convincing because of the underlying tone of authority. Paul draws upon the authority of Scripture, tradition, experience, and his own calling and instruction. 3. The quality of Paul's argumentation: Is the argumentation sound from an argumentation analysis perspective? Is the argumentation in Galatians coherent, a set of loosely connected arguments, or something else? There is a clear imbalance in the higher-order conditions. Paul does not approach the situation as if there were a symmetry of status between Paul and the Galatians. This imbalance permeates the whole argumentation, and this is clear from the overview below with regard to the rules of a critical discussion. The coherence of Paul's argument also leaves room for improvement. At times it is ill-structured and gives the impression of being less thought-out in relation to structure. However, on a higher level, the argument advances in good order, from establishing Paul's credibility and explaining the role of the law and of faith respectively, to a warning against circumcision. The argumentation structure is not always easy to determine, and several arguments do not hold up to the scrutiny of the soundness criterion. Several expressives also diminish the quality of the argumentation. Paul puts forth his argumentation by using the full range of logos-, ethos-, and pathos-elements. All of these are present throughout the letter, but in the section under close analysis, logos-elements dominate. Paul is able to use an argumentative strategy where the three support each other, presenting an argumentation unfolding in a good manner. Mirroring Paul's argumentation against the ten rules of argumentation clarified several problems. The following is a summary of the results with regard to each of the ten rules:
196
Paul's Argumentation in Galatians
1. Paul presents his standpoints forcefully and often as evident conclusions or well-known facts, even when this is not the case. 2. Paul is willing and able to defend his standpoints, rigorously if necessary. 3. Paul's argumentation does not seem to relate to the standpoints of the other party in all points; Paul makes his own interpretation of what the important standpoints are. 4. Some of Paul's arguments are difficult to relate to his standpoints. 1his may be due to Paul's rhetorical manner of introducing arguments which due to their origin (e.g. the Scriptures), some key-words, or appealing imagery seem to back up Paul's argumentation. In some cases the problem may lie in our lack of knowledge of possible previous stages of the argumentation between Paul and the Galatians or among the Galatians. 5. Paul does not make full use of the rhetorical enthymeme, but states his arguments dearly and openly. 6. He does, however, tend to present arguments under dispute as accepted starting points and to build argumentation upon them without further reflection. Although bad from an argumentation analysis perspective, it is often effective from a rhetorical perspective. 7. Paul favours causal argument schemes over symptomatic and, especially, analogous ones. More than half of all the arguments are problematic or unsound. 1his partly explains why Paul's argumentation is described again and again by commentators as 'erratic' or 'extremely difficult to follow: Paul does not always manage to defend his standpoints conclusively, although he often presents them as conclusive. 8. The logical validity is difficult to assess. The difficulty lies not only with Paul's argumentation but with religious and ethical argumentation in general. This is especially difficult with arguments put forth in a historical text where the exact meaning of some of the premisses are unclear. Although I have made dear choices in the many figures in the analysis with regards to what the premisses are, the choices were, in some cases, difficult. (What is the standpoint, what is the expressed premiss, and what is the unexpressed premiss?) 9. During the analysis it was noted several times that Paul's argumentation is not flexible - it is in fact authoritarian. Especially after the last section, it seemed unlikely that Paul would ever regard any defence by the other party as conclusive, nor that he would retract his own standpoint. 10. Paul's argumentation is at points unclear and confusingly ambiguous. This seems at times to be unintentional, but sometimes it may be intentional as a presentational device. Some of the unclarity is due to our limited knowledge of the historical context. Do the violations against the rules spelled out within PD theory also constitute violations against those general. unwritten rules of communication which Paul was expected to respect in the original context? Basically, I find that the general way in which the rules are formulated have made them useful even in the \Ulalysis
Overview and Conclusion
197
of such a text as Galatians. On the other hand, it would not do justice to Paul to make too rigid a judgement based on these rules. Therefore, my comments are more general than would have been the case in an analysis of a modem critical argumentation where the context and the arguments of both parties would be clearly known. This is not to say that the defects in Paul's argumentation should be ignored; after a thorough argumentation analysis we cannot ignore them. Rather, they are part of Paul's argumentative style. 4. The benefits of an argumentation analysis: Does a specific argumentation analysis
aid the exegete in understanding a Pauline text? Is a PD analysis suitable for the task? First of all, a specific argumentation analysis forces the analyst to isolate the argument properly. Thus the exegesis can be based on a clear understanding of the argument and one can distinguish between the claims and premisses, including unexpressed ones. An evaluation of the argumentation structure and of the argument schemes also help the exegete to give a more specific evaluation of the argument. The PD method approaches a text from a specific standpoint, that of an argumentation between two parties. In the case of Galatians, the method has proven useful in spite of the problem of not having the expressed statements of the other party. The set of ideal rules for the resolution of a dispute provide the analyst with a tool for pinpointing problems in the argumentation. Again, this allows the exegete to be more exact in his analysis. Finally, the concept of argumentative strategy allows for a comprehensive picture of the argumentation, including ethos and pathos aspects in the whole letter. In the case of an analysis of Paul's argumentation this element of the method is necessary. The old view of Paul's argumentation as passionate and incoherent does not do justice to Paul and does not lead to a balanced analysis of his argumentation. 30 The discipline of argumentation analysis has undeservedly been neglected among exegetes. It provides new tools for those who wish to make a full and more precise analysis of argumentative texts. In the case of Paul and other New Testament texts the PD method is a useful addition to those methods currently in use. 30. Cf. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 201: 'Ganz aus der Leidenschaft ist dagegen der Galaterbrief geboren, ein flammendes Straf- und Verteidigungswort, wirklich keine Abhandlung "De lege et evangelio", sondern Widerschein wetterleuchtender Genialitat: This pregnant quote illustrates the two pitfalls: to consider Galatians to be too little or too much in the sense of how well thought out it is.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Abasciano, Brian J., Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (London: T & T Clark, 2005). Aland, Kurt (ed.), Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: Die Paulinischen Briefe, Bd. 3: Galaterbriefbis Philipperbrief (Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991). - et al. (eds), Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 27th edn, 1993). Anderson Jr, R. D., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 18; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996). Aristotle, Aristotle on Fallacies !1he Sophistic Elenchi (with a trans. and commentary by Edward Poste; London: Macmillan, 1866). -, 1he 1\rt' of Rhetoric: with an English Translation by John Henry Freese (G. P. Gould (ed); LCL, 193; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994). Aune, David E., 'Galatians: A Commentary ... , by Hans Dieter Betz; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979', RSR 7( 4) (1981), pp. 322-29, book review.
-, 1he Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003). Austin, J. L., 'Performative Utterances', in Philosophical Papers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 220-39. -,How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 1976). Bachmann, Michael, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief?: Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur 1heologie des Apostels Paulus (NTOA, 40; Freiburg, Schweitz & Gottingen: Universitatsverlag Freiburg & Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999). Barclay, John M.G., 'Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case', JSNT 31 (1987), pp. 73-93. -,Obeying the Truth: Paul's Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). Barrett, C. K., 'The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians', in Fridrich, J. and W. Pohlmann and P. Stuhlmacher (eds), Rechtfertigung: Festschrift for Ernst Kiisemann (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 197