Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS
Additional services for New
Testament Studies:
BERNARD LATEGAN
IS PAUL DEFENDING HIS APOSTLESHIP IN GALATlANSr
THE FUNCTION OF GALATIANS 1.11-12 AND 2.1&-20
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PAUL'S ARGUMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent research, the claim has been made that Paul's statements
about the law in Galatians are often misread from the perspective
of the post-reformation law/gospel debate.1 The thesis of this article
is that Galatians has also suffered from a different kind of misreading, that is a reading from a specific perspective of the Corinthian
correspondence and which mistakenly assumes that the main
issue in Galatians is a defense of Paul's apostolic authority. It will be
argued that the main focus is on the nature of Paul's gospel and,
therefore, on the theological basis on which it rests. For this purpose, a number of arguments will be presented relating to the
function of Gal 1. 1011 and 2. 20, both critical transitions in the
structure of the letter. These arguments are based on a pragmatic
analysis of the letter as a whole, which cannot be discussed here in
any detail. It should be stressed, however, that for the determining
of the rhetorical function of any subsection of the letter, an analysis
of the entire text as a communicative unity is essential. Therefore it
is necessary to explain certain methodological implications of the
approach which will be followed here.
2. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
412
BERNARD LATEGAN
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
413
Betz, Galatians, 24. It is well-known that in several of his letter openings, Paul explicitly
addresses a wider audience, e.g. 1 Cor 1. 2; 2 Cor 1. 1; Rom 1. 7.
2
L. Hartman, 'On Reading Others' Letters', Christians among Jews and Gentiles. Essays
in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. G. W. E. Nicklesburg and
G. W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 137-46.
3
Hartman, 'On Reading', 141. Cf. also B. C. Lategan, 'Current issues in the hermeneutical debate', Neotestamentica 18 (1984) 4.
4
On the relationship between written and oral communication, see notes 4 and 5 on page
415 below.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
414
BERNARD LATEGAN
those whom the author wishes to influence.1 In the first place the
reader, or audience, is a construction of the author and must be
recognized as such. That is why a writer can communicate with
readers whom he or she has never met or does not know personally, provided that the writer has a general idea of their situation,
their attitudes and their expectations. For the interpretation of
Galatians this is of particular significance, because in the intense
discussion of Paul's 'opponents' the tendency is always to identify
them directly with specific historical persons or groups.2 This does
not deny that they were persons of flesh and blood, but the exegete
should always be aware that such an historical identification depends on an intermediate step, that is, on a reconstruction of Paul's
construct of his audience. From Paul's statements, his arguments,
admonitions, curses and blessings we infer what would be convincing to his audience, what would sway them, what Paul supposed
would be reasonable to them, what common ground existed between them. In this way we are able to delineate the features of this
presupposed audience as a literary construct, which we then, as a
second step, can compare with what we know of the historical
persons involved and can attempt an historical identification, as far
as the evidence allows us to do so.
2.4 Signals to the reader operate on various levels of the text. For
the purpose of analysis, text linguistics usually distinguishes between the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels.3 The competent writer (and this certainly applies to the author of Galatians)
makes full use of the syntacto-semantic possibilities of language to
achieve the desired rhetorical effect. These rhetorical features may
be studied from different perspectives and for different purposes: to
identify the figures of speech employed in the text, to compare these
with what we know of first century rhetorical traditions, to determine the background and training of a specific author and so forth.
In the case of Galatians, the pragmatic intent of the text is undeniable, that is the way in which Paul is presupposing a reaction
Cf. W. Wuellner, 'Reading Romans in Context1 (Paper read in the SNTS Seminar on the
Role of the Reader, Gottingen 1987) 3; C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame, 1969) 19.
2
For an overview of the different methodological approaches used to identify Paul's
opponents, cf. K. Berger, 'Die Implizieten Gegner. Zur Methode des Erschliessens von
Gegnern in neutestamentlichen Texten', Kirche. Festschrift filr Gunther Bornkamm
zum 75. Geburtstag (Hrsg. D. Luhrmann und G. Strecker; Tubingen: Mohr, 1980) 373-400.
3
Cf. D. Hellholm, Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse I (CB 13:1; Lund:
Gleerup, 1980) 27-62.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
415
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
416
BERNARD LATEGAN
Cf. Hartman, 'On Reading', 139; Hester, 'Rhetoric1, 387; R. W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God (New York: Harper and Row, 1966) 245.
2
In the introduction to the German edition of this commentary, Betz clarifies his position
on various of the issues raised in the subsequent discussion of his work, but concludes that
his basic approach and the necessity of a rhetorical analysis of the letter remains unchallenged. The choice between Galatians as an apologetic or a deliberative letter represents a
false alternative as the former does not exclude elements with a deliberative function. At
the same time, paraenesis can form part of an apologetic letter. Betz also discusses issues in
need of further investigation, e.g. the use of the example of Paul as an argumentative
device and the theological development of his thought- cf. Betz, Galaterbrief, 14.
3 I am indebted to Professor Carl Holladay for drawing my attention to other statements in
the Corinthian correspondence (quite apart from the apostleship issue) which might support
the thesis presented in this article and which will be the subject of a further investigation.
4
Cf. B. R. Gaventa, 'Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm', NT 28 (1986) 310 note
2 for bibliographical details.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
417
J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865) 92-101.
J. H. Schiitz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975) 3. For another good statement of the apostleship position, cf. K. Kertelge, 'Apokalypsis Jesou Christou (Gal 1, 12), Neues Testament und Kirche. Fur Rudolf Schnackenburg. (Hrsg. J. Gnilka; Freiburg: Herder 1974) 266-81, who nonetheless stresses the close
relationship between gospel and apostleship.
3
Schutz,Pau/,127.
4
Schtitz, PauZ, 118.
5
Schiitz, Paul, 123.
6
Schutz,/ > au/,121.
7
For a further critique of Schutz's position, cf. Hester, 'Rhetoric', 393 note 25.
8
anoazoXoc, and derivatives: 1. 1; 1. 17; 1. 19; 2. 8. eixxyyeXiov and derivatives: 1. 6; 1. 7; 1. 8
(2x); 1. 9; 1. 11 (2x); 1.16; 1. 23; 2. 2; 2. 5; 2. 7; 2.14; 4.13.
2
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
418
BERNARD LATEGAN
Cf. Funk, Language, 248; B. C. Lategan, 'Het motief van de dienst in Galaten 1 en 2', De
knechtsgestalte van Christus. Studies aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. H. N. Ridderbos (red.
H. H. Grosheide et al.\ Kampen: Kok, 1978) 76-80.
2 Cf. J. Jeremias, Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgesehichte
(Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1966) 285-6; N. R. Petersen, 'Prolegomena', 23-5; W. Stengel,
'Biographisches und Idealbiographisches in Gal 1,11-2,14, Kontinuitdt und Einheit', Festschrift fur F. Mussner (Hrsg. P. G. Muller und W. Stengel; Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 128-9;
J. L. Martyn, 'Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians', NTS 31 (1985)
410-24; D. Aune, Review of Betz, Galatians, RelStudRev 7 (1981) 325; G. Bergnyi, 'Gal 2,20:
a Pre-Pauline or a Pauline Text?', Biblica 65 (1984) 525-28; Smit, 'Paulus', 341. Cf.
especially H. Boers, 'The foundations of Paul's Thought: A Methodological Investigation',
paper read at the SBL Annual Meeting, November 24,1986 in Atlanta.
3
R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (9. Aufl.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1984) 192.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
419
neglected by exegetes. An actantial analysis confirms the importance of this contrast, which creates an element of tension right
through these chapters and which is only relieved in 2. 20.l In
his study of Pauline autobiography, Lyons is one of the few who
pays attention to this phenomenon. He discusses various forms of
Pauline antitheses, including the 'man-God1 contrast,2 and correctly stresses the relationship between 1.1 and 1.1112, but fails
to see the link with 2. 20 (which we shall discuss later).
4.2 The pivotal function of 1. 11-12 and the
significance of ov Kara avOpatnov
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
420
BERNARD LATEGAN
1
Cf. W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971) 805: Korea often has adverbial force, describing the 'Art und
Weise, Beschaffenheit oder Eigentiimlichkeit einer Sache.'
2 In the introduction of his Galatian commentary, Betz has called attention to Paul's
frequent use of what he describes as theological 'abbreviations' - formula-like prepositional phrases which refer to theological doctrines. This phenomenon merits further
investigation and Betz's list (Galatians, 27-8) can be expanded to include the following:
uTtep tow auap-ricov (1. 4); -uno Kaxdpav (3. 10); Korea tcov enayyeXifiv (3. 21); UJIO auapxiav (3.
22); 81* ocaGeveiav xfj<; oapKOi; (4.13).
As the most likely origin of these phrases, Betz sees the oral transmission of Paul's theology {Galatians, 27). This abbreviated way of writing fits Paul's antithetical style of argumentation so well and is so compatible with the binary structure of his theology that, had
these phrases existed in the pre-pauline tradition, it is reasonable to assume that Paul
amplified and expanded their scope to the extent that they now characterize his letters. 2 Cor
3 provides a vivid example of how Paul uses these theological abbreviations to build up a
complex antithetical structure which describes the existence of man before faith and in faith
(cf. Bultmann, Theologie, 192).
oii Kata avGpconov in Gal 1. 11 is the theological equivalent of Kara odpKa which, in the
famous passage of 2 Cor 5. 16, forms the antipole of Kaxa jweuua and refers to the perspective
of the non-believer in contrast to the faith perspective. Cf. also Stengel, 'Idealbiographisches', 128-31.
3 Cf. Lyons, Autobiography, 155-6.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
421
In his analysis of this section, Baarda argues that the two negative
clauses introduced by ot>8e and oine should be taken as a parenthesis and that the real contrast is to be found in l l a and 12c, that
is, between ot> Kara avOpomov and aXka 8i' a7ioKaA,-6\|/co<; Tr|aov
Xpiatou - providing us with a further example of the God(Christ)man contrast in these chapters.
We should be careful not to conclude too quickly from 1. 12 that
Paul is referring to the origin of his gospel in order to demonstrate
his independence from Jerusalem. The parenthesis finds its setting
in the contrast between man and Christ and describes the way in
which the gospel was received not in a normal human way, but
in accordance with its true nature, in a way which shuns customary procedures and expectations. When we try to interpret these
verses exclusively as referring to the origin of Paul's preaching and
consequently as a playing-down of his contacts with the Jerusalem
church and its leaders, we encounter problems with Paul's undeniable positive attitude towards their approval of his preaching.
Baarda 2 conclusively shows that neither Galatians, nor the other
pauline letters yield any evidence of a negative evaluation of the
(human) transmission and teaching of the gospel tradition.
4.2.1 Galatians 1. 1: But let us test this result against other statements in these chapters. First, we must consider 1. 1. It is significant that the formal reference to Paul's position as apostle in the
prescript is immediately qualified by the double contrast between
man and Christ/God (cf. 4.1 above). His apostleship and the way he
received it is an illustration of the unusual and unexpected way
God works - in accordance with the ot> mice avGpomov nature of
the gospel itself.3
4.2.2 Gal 1. 6-7: As far as these verses are concerned, we have
already referred to Schiitz's acknowledgement that, contrary to
what one would expect if apostleship was the main issue, the person
of Paul comes into the picture only at this stage of the introduction.4
But when he is mentioned, it is in a very brief and cursory fashion.
1
Baarda, 'Openbaring', 156. For this reason alone, the suggestion by Jeremias, Abba, 286
that Ttctpa avGpamou and Korea avGpconov provide the basis for dividing the letter in two
sections (1.13-2. 21 and 3.1-6.10), is doubtful.
2
Baarda, 'Openbaring1, 159-61. Cf. also J. D. G. Dunn, "The Relationship between Paul
and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2', NTS 28 (1982) 461, 465, 467-8, 470-^1; Smit,
'Paulus', 341.
3
Cf. Stengel, 'Idealbiographisches', 127-9. Cf. also Kertelge, 'Apokalypsis', 268 who
correctly points out the parallel between 1.1 and 1.11.
4
Schutz, Pau/, 117.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
422
BERNARD LATEGAN
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
423
J. Smit, "'Hoe kun je de heidenen verplichten als joden te leven?" Paulus en de torah
in Galatan 2,11-21', Bijdragen 46 (1985) 118-40; 'Redactie'; 'Paulus' (see note 1, page 412
above).
2
Smit, 'Paulus', 340-1.
3
Smit, 'Paulus', 340.
4
Baarda, 'Openbaring', 1612. In a remarkable procedure, Baarda adds emphasis to the
apostleship issue in the Galatian situation by following the suggestion of Rodrigues to use
fragments from the Pseudo-Clementine homilies as a co-text for the letter, where the
apostleship theme is prominent (162-3). Is it the absence of any strong emphasis on the
apostleship issue in Galatians which necesitates such a procedure?
5
Lyons, Autobiography, 171.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
424
BERNARD LATEGAN
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
425
very suitable for this purpose. What Paul is talking about is not only
theory, but can be illustrated in real life. And the examples he
chooses do not come from his experience alone he draws them
from all possible sources. In fact, only the first has to do with Paul
exclusively the second actually is an illustration from Peter's life.
In the same way, he uses examples from the lives of Abraham,
Sarah, Moses and others in the rest of the letter.1
Betz prefers to describe Paul's defence of the gospel as a 'defense
of the Spirit'. He correctly observes that, although Paul's vocation
and apostolic office are intimately connected with his defence of the
gospel, this is not the main focus of the letter.2 Passages like 3. 2
provide good arguments for making the Spirit the all-encompassing term for the content and nature of the gospel. But what Betz
understands as the content of this gospel of the Spirit, correlates
exactly with the power of the phrase ox> KCITCC avGpcorcov. The Spirit
is, by definition, outside human control.3 The experience of salvation by Paul and the Galatians is a vivid illustration of this truth:
'what happened to the Galatians should never have happened'. By
'human' or 'normal standards' Paul's own conversion and his call
to apostleship, the official approval of his preaching by the authorities in Jerusalem, and the table-fellowship between Jewish
and gentile Christians are unthinkable. The unexpected, unusual
nature of the gospel does not only concern Paul's apostleship, but
the whole Christian community. The Christian experience was
consistent with God's ways, it was 'granted against human expectation, in disregard of human standards, without human merits by grace alone, as "new creation" (KOUVTI KXIOIC, 6. 15c)'.4 This description by Betz tallies exactly with what we have explained as the
real intent and content of ov KOCTOC avGpcorcov in 1.11.
4.2.7 To sum up: the misreading of Galatians from an apostleship
perspective obscures the communicative thrust of the letter. In the
1
For this reason, Hester is both right and wrong in understanding this section as an
egressus (J. D. Hester, 'The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11-2:14', JBL 103 [1984]
232). He is right in so far as Peter is the main figure in this section, not Paul. But he is
wrong in understanding the Peter-episode as a deviation or interruption of Paul's thought.
This episode forms an integral part of Paul's argument. In a further study entitled
'Placing the Blame: the Presence of the Epideictic in Galatians One and Two' (of which
Professor Hester kindly made a pre-publication draft available to me), he now understands
2. 11-14 as an expanded chreia which has the same function as the Jerusalem incident,
namely to illustrate Paul's character in defence of his gospel and the value system derived
from it.
2
Betz, Galatians, 28. Cf. also his essay 'In Defense' (cf. note 2, page 411 above).
3 For the following exposition, see Betz, Galatians, 29-30.
4
Betz, Galatians, 31.
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
426
BERNARD LATEGAN
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
1.112:
1.132.10:
2.11-16:
2. 17-21:
Introduction
Paul and the leaders
Paul and Peter
Conclusion
427
argument
narrative
narrative
argument
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
428
BERNARD LATEGAN
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
429
In the I'va-clause of the first statement (woe 0eo> f|aa>) Betz sees a
'telos formula1, being the quintessence of Paul's personal credo: "To
live for God" sums up Paul's concept of Christian existence, soteriology as well as ethics.'2 This very intriguing formulation of Betz is
in need of further clarification. It is our contention that the link
with the preceding and following sections of the letter is to be found
in Betz's fourth statement (20b).
We have already referred to Paul's extensive use of theological
'abbreviations1.3 These code-like formulations are important linking devices in his argument. He uses them to anticipate themes
which he is to elaborate later in the letter by dropping a hint in
shorthand style at an earlier stage. Then again, he refers back to
preceding discussions in the same abbreviated way. In order to
understand the cohesion of the letter and to follow the train of
Paul's argument, it is very important not to miss these hints
dropped at strategic points and to be aware of the references to both
preceding and subsequent discussions. Gal 2. 20 provides a good
example of this technique. The attributes used here to describe
Christ (xov oVyoutTiaavTOi; |ie ical 7tapa86vxoq eoruxov ujtep e\iov) not
only link 2. 20 with 1. 11-12 and 1. 4, but also anticipate the theological and ethical sections which follow in 34 and 56:
tou dyanricavTo^ ue is an abbreviated description of the ethical
1
2
3
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54
430
BERNARD LATEGAN
http://journals.cambridge.org
IP address: 147.142.186.54