Crucifixion and New Creation: The Strategic Purpose of Galatians 6.11-17 9780567659361, 9780567655868, 9780567655875

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

508 Formerly Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

CRUCIFIXION AND NEW CREATION

The Strategic Purpose of Galatians 6.11-17

Jeff Hubing

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 Paperback edition first published 2016 © Jeff Hubing, 2015 Jeff Hubing has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi¿ed as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: PB: ePDF:

978-0-56765-586-8 978-0-567-67206-3 978-0-56765-587-5

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hubing, Jeff, 1972Cruci¿xion and new creation: the strategic purpose of Galatians 6.11-17 / by Jeff Hubing. pages cm. -- (Library of New Testament studies ; 508) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-567-65586-8 (hbk : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-0-567-65587-5 (epdf : alk. paper) 1. Bible. Galatians, VI,11-17--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. Galatians, VI, 11-17-Criticism, Form. 3. Persecution--Biblical teaching. I. Title. BS2685.52.H83 2015 227'.406--dc23 2014035764 Series: Library of New Testament Studies, volume 508 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com) Printed and bound in Great Britain

CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 ON THE INTERPRETIVE TRAIL – GALATIANS 6.11-17 THROUGH THE LENS OF ITS INTERPRETERS 1. Understanding the Body-closing and Its Distinction from the Letter Closing of Galatians a. John White b. Nils Dahl c. G. Walter Hansen and Richard N. Longenecker 2. Understanding Galatians 6.11-17 in Light of Letter Closing Conventions a. Gordon Bahr b. Hans Dieter Betz c. G. Walter Hansen and Richard N. Longenecker d. Jeffrey A. D. Weima 3. Chapter Summary Chapter 3 THE STRATEGIC FORM AND FUNCTION OF GALATIANS 6.11-17 1. The Epistolary Genre and Structure of Galatians 2. Challenging the Identi¿cation of Galatians 6.11-17 as a Letter Closing a. The Letter Closing in the Common Letter Tradition b. Letter Closing Conventions in Galatians 6.11-18? 3. Identifying Galatians 6.11-17 as the Closing to the Letter Body a. Body-closing Conventions in the Common Letter Tradition b. Body-closing Conventions in Galatians 6.11-17 1

ix xiii

1

11 13 13 16 21 22 22 26 29 35 42

43 43 46 47 56 72 72 76

vi

4. 5.

Contents

Chapter Summary The Exceptional Character of Galatians 6.11-17

82 83

Chapter 4 HAS PAUL’S SUFFERING BEEN COMMUNICATED IN VAIN? 1. Ernst Baasland 2. A. J. Goddard and S. A. Cummins 3. John Muddiman 4. Troy W. Martin 5. Chapter Summary

85 85 91 104 111 117

Chapter 5 LISTENING TO PAUL’S PERSPECTIVE ON PERSECUTION 1. Galatians 1.13-14 2. Galatians 1.21-24 3. Galatians 4.28–5.1 4. Galatians 5.7-12 5. Chapter Summary

118 119 135 140 148 157

Chapter 6 FINDING OTHER CLUES – READING BETWEEN PAUL’S LINES 1. Galatians 2.11-14 2. Galatians 3.1-5 3. Galatians 4.12-18 4. Galatians 2.1-5 5. Galatians 1.7 and 5.4 6. Chapter Summary

159 160 169 173 181 184 185

Chapter 7 PAUL’S DRAMATIC FINAL WORD – THE MESSAGE OF GALATIANS 6.11-17 1. The Structure of Paul’s Argument in Galatians 6.11-17 2. The Interpretation of the Message of Galatians 6.11-17 a. Galatians 6.11 b. Galatians 6.12-13 c. Galatians 6.14-15 d. Galatians 6.16 e. Galatians 6.17 3. Chapter Summary

188 189 194 194 207 229 245 252 257

1

Contents

vii

Chapter 8 CONCLUSION

259

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

265 271 281

1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful for the support of so many family members, friends, and congregations whose prayers and ¿nancial contributions made this project possible. In the ¿rst place, I want to thank God for the gracious demand of discipleship through scholarship that He presented to me over twenty years ago. Father, You are truly a wondrous and wise King, and I praise you for granting me this privilege of studying and teaching Your Word. May Jesus be magni¿ed by the Spirit’s power through the people You’ve made for yourself! Thanks go to my mom and step-dad Maggie & Wayne Graff, and to Carol’s parents, Sam & Pansy Kantayya. Their support, encouragement, prayers, ¿nancial gifts, and loving care for us and our children have been crucial throughout this process. Frequent needs for babysitters and regular opportunities to enjoy South Indian cuisine have made our time with Achi and Thatha especially memorable and delicious. And, the fantastic vacations and holidays spent with Nana and Papa have brought joy and refreshment throughout the long process of research and writing. I am grateful for my Dad, Joe Hubing. Through his brief battle with cancer and death, he continually pointed us to Christ. His courage and love are in part responsible for my own pursuit of God and determination to understand and teach the Scriptures. I want to thank my siblings and their families and loved ones for their prayers and encouragement along the way: Amy & Mike Carver (Anthony, Victoria and Hailey), Nick and Olivia Hubing (Ariana, Callie, Aiden and Kellen), Mark Hubing, and Ben & Kristina Hubing (Georgia). I want to thank those who have contributed ¿nancially to my family throughout the period of the sabbatical in which the majority of this book was written, including Pastor George Thomas and All Nations Community Church, Pastor Bryan Dwyer and Alpine Community Church, Leonard and JoMarie Cooper, Greg and Tomi Fay Forbes, Johnnie Funches-Tucker, Uzziel & Mirza Gonzalez, Vineet & Rekha Kantayya, Vake & Vanu Kantayya, Gerry & Jane Knoeck, Les & Ruth Kruis, Elena Ortiz, Christopher & Kate Paquette, Gino & Elba Pesce,

x

Acknowledgments

Ozzie & Caroline Santiago, Marcus & Cynthia Swan, and Sonny & Jessie Werghis. I thank others who gave one-time gifts, which were also crucial to the creation of this sabbatical. They include Mary Bovre, Robby & Tracy Bradford, Paul & Emily Chellappa, Terrence & Vimala Christadoss, Pastor J. L. Rivera and Christian Hills Church, Doug & Mary DeGroot, Mark & Jen Dwyer, Ashok & Shalini Emmanuel, Mark & Liz Fischer, Pastor Gary & Bonnie Grogan, Mike & Debbie Hornacek, Dave & Kim Kasinskas, Rick & Cat Meister, Pastor Paul Hanson and Portview Christian Center, Ernie & Sandhya Prabhakar, John & Kamali Prabhakar, Dr. Leo & Sharon Reyes, Benjamin and Jaci Rivera, Miguel & Miriam Rivera, Jeff & Marissa Royal, Thaddeus & Joena Searcy, Mike Sosa, LaVonne Starks, John & Char Tuttle, Shane & Wendy Waltmire, and Andy & Sarah Woodward. I want to thank Pastor Steve Andres, Pastor Keith Boucher, Pastor Randall Ross and Calvary Church, who generously contributed a new laptop computer with which this book was composed. I want to thank Pastor George Thomas and the board of directors at All Nations Community Church for allowing me time every week to do research as a part of my pastoral duties in the early stages of this project. I am also so grateful for the hospitality shown to my family by Pastor John Sprecher and Rock Church in Rockford, Illinois. The church’s willingness to provide us with a home and a community of loving support made the completion of this book possible. I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee at Loyola University Chicago: my director, Fr. Thomas Tobin, and readers Dr. Wendy Cotter Dr. James Keenan, for their careful interaction with my research. Their insights and contributions mark numerous pages of this book. I am particularly grateful for Fr. Tobin’s guidance and encouragement throughout the project. I want to thank my friend, Bob Gladstone, whose example of zeal for Christ and devotion to the message of the biblical text was crucial to the determination of my own sense of calling and mission. I thank the faculty, staff, students and alumni of FIRE School of Ministry Chicago, for always being a source of joy, inspiration and courage as we respond to the call of Christ together. May the Kingdom’s culture continue to be welcome, cultivated and demonstrated in our midst. I thank Cross Culture Church for the gracious ways in which you have blessed my life, and welcomed the Lord’s leadership among us as we pursue the Kingdom dream together. May we continue to bear fruit that remains as we abide in the Vine together. 1

Acknowledgments

xi

I thank the love of my life, Carol, for her love, patience, encouragement and many sacri¿ces on the road we have traveled thus far. Her prayers for me and con¿dence in me were essential to the completion of this book. I’m so happy to be by your side in this Kingdom adventure, baby! I also thank my children – Cadence, Isaac, Acacia and Alina – for their love, life, energy and joy. They constantly remind me that there is a real world out there full of intrigue and wonder. Their prayers, too, have been answered through the completion of this project.

1

ABBREVIATIONS BDF BDAG

EDNT LSJ LXX

PL SBL TDNT

Blass, F., A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Cambridge, 1961 Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999 Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz, G. Schneider. ET. Grand Rapids, 1990–93 Liddell, H. G., Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, Greek–English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford, 1968 Septuagint Patrologia latina [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–64 Society of Biblical Literature Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–76

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

A wise man once wrote that ‘the end of a matter is better than its beginning’ (Eccl. 7.8). The interpreter of Galatians does well to heed this advice, especially when attempting to explain the situation on the ground in the Galatian ëÁÁ¾Êţ¸À and the central message of Paul’s letter to them. The ¿nal lines of this letter contain critical information, written with his own hand, about Paul’s convictions regarding the crisis in which these communities are embroiled. And, while Paul does make his ¿rst reference to the source of this crisis by referring to ‘the ones troubling you’ in Gal. 1.6-7, it is not until 6.11-17 that he articulates his view of the ultimate motivation for the failure of these individuals to believe and act in a manner consistent with his gospel. In this closing paragraph, Paul argues that those who are troubling his congregations in Galatia are doing so because they are unwilling ‘to be persecuted for the cross of Christ’ (6.12). In order to avoid this persecution, they have determined to ‘make a good showing’ by persuading Paul’s readers to accept circumcision ‘so that they may boast’ in their surgically altered ‘Àesh’ (6.12-13). By contrast, Paul claims that instead of dissociating himself from the cross in order to avoid persecution, he ‘boasts’ in it as the source of a ‘new creation’ that seals his death to the world (ÁŦÊÄÇË), and its death to him. This new creation relegates the notion of ‘circumcision or uncircumcision’ to a place of insigni¿cance and has radically altered Paul’s own convictions about the nature of righteousness and how one gains access to it. Not only does Paul boast in the cross, he is convinced that the experience of suffering persecution for the sake of the cross is a ‘brand mark’ of authenticity that quali¿es him to speak truthfully and authoritatively about the gospel and its practical outworking (6.17). Those who oppose this view are in danger of forfeiting the ‘peace and mercy’ of God and are warned not to cause him more ‘troubles’ (6.16, 17). All of this is preceded by an unusual reference to

2

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

the physical composition of the letter, which suggests that at Gal. 6.11 Paul takes the stylus from his amanuensis and concludes his argument by writing with his own hand, ‘with such large letters’. This combination of stinging polemic and tightly packed theological argument is not surprising coming from Paul. The proximity of this material to the letter closing, however, combined with the curious reference to writing such large letters with his own hand indicates that something unusual is taking place. In fact, several scholars have already pointed to the value of this passage for the interpreter of Galatians. For example, in his inÀuential commentary on the letter Hans Dieter Betz writes that this passage ‘contains the interpretive clues to the understanding of Paul’s major concerns in the letter as a whole and should be employed as the hermeneutical key to the intentions of the Apostle’.1 Richard Longenecker concurs, noting that it functions as a ‘paradigm set at the end of the letter that gives guidance in understanding what has been said before’.2 Other comparable citations could be added to illustrate a common contention among scholars that in Gal. 6.11-17 Paul discloses information that is crucial to an accurate understanding of both the situation in Galatia as he sees it and the message of his letter to the Galatian ëÁÁ¾Êţ¸À. I agree with this conviction. I am convinced that what Paul writes in Gal. 6.11-17 is meant to encapsulate his entire approach to the crisis in Galatia, and to illumine a way forward for his readers. Yet, as I survey the work done by Betz, Longenecker and others, I do not ¿nd a commentary or monograph that truly analyzes Paul’s letter as if Gal. 6.11-17 were a ‘hermeneutical key’ or ‘paradigm’ through which the entire letter must be understood. Neither do I ¿nd myself in complete agreement with the way this paragraph is approached by many scholars in order to de¿ne the nature of this ‘hermeneutical key’. That is the reason for this monograph: to present an interpretation of Gal. 6.11-17 that explains its content and function as an interpretive lens for understanding the situation and message of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In this book, I argue that an accurate interpretation of Gal. 6.11-17 depends especially on two things: (1) correctly identifying the epistolary form and function of the passage, and (2) correctly understanding the key role of the theme of persecution in the letter as a whole. With respect to epistolary form and function, I will argue that the common view that

1. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), p. 13. 2. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990), pp. 288–9.

1

1. Introduction

3

Gal. 6.11-17, together with 6.18, should be identi¿ed as the letter closing is wrong. Instead, I will explain why and how 6.11-17 must be distinguished from 6.18 and identi¿ed as the closing to the letter body. With respect to the theme of persecution, I will argue that the way Paul highlights this idea throughout the letter, and particularly in Gal. 6.11-17, reveals the centrality of the issue for his understanding of the Galatian crisis and his response to it. For Paul, the crisis in Galatia is not simply a theological or philosophical one as it pertains to the content of his message about the cross of Jesus. Rather, it is just as much an issue of right praxis as it pertains to the call to participate in the way of life associated with Jesus and the cross. In the second chapter of this monograph, I will argue that the common view of the epistolary form and function of Gal. 6.11-17 (18) is in need of revision for several reasons.3 First, there is often a lack of precision in de¿ning this letter segment. Various authors have referred to Gal. 6.1118 as one or more of the following, all seemingly with the same notion of its function in mind: ‘postscript’,4 ‘subscription’,5 ‘autobiographic epilogue’,6 and ‘epistolary closing’.7 In fact, epistolary analysis reveals that in the common letter tradition these terms are not equivalent and refer to distinct letter segments. This shows that it is necessary to look more closely at the nature of the paragraph. Second, I will show that the lack of precision in terminology is accompanied by a misapplication of already-known epistolary conventions. Instead of arguing for the identi¿cation of Gal. 6.11-17 as a letter closing because of its consistency with phraseology located in parallel letter segments in Paul and the papyri, most scholars have made this identi¿cation solely on the basis of Paul’s 3. My focus is on Gal. 6.11-17. Since 6.18 will be shown to be the actual ‘letter closing’, it should be distinguished from 6.11-17 in an epistolary analysis. But, the nature of the question necessitates, at times, referring to 6.11-18. That is, most scholars have simply considered these verses as one unit, rather than as two distinct sections as I am proposing here. 4. Betz, Galatians, p. 312. 5. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 285. 6. Nils Dahl, ‘Galatians: Genre, Content, and Structure’, in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (ed. Mark Nanos; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), pp. 117–42 (139). Dahl refers to 6.11-16 only as the autobiographic epilogue. This is a revised and edited version of an unpublished paper by the same name presented by Dahl at the 1973 SBL Paul Seminar, a copy of which I was pleased to receive from one of the participants. 7. Jeffrey Weima, Neglected Endings: The Signi¿cance of the Pauline Letter Closings (Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1994), p. 157. See also Douglas J. Moo, Galatians (ECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), p. 391. 1

4

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

comment about writing with his own hand. I will argue that Paul does not signal the onset of the letter closing with this comment, which will help to explain why epistolary analyses of this paragraph as the letter closing have sometimes seemed forced or awkward. Finally, I will argue that these two previous missteps have led to an inadequate understanding of Paul’s purpose in writing this paragraph. Rather than seeing Paul as summarizing his previously made comments, we should notice that in Gal. 6.11-17 Paul adds new and decisive argumentative material in order to ¿nalize his message to his Galatian readers. In the third chapter of this book I will present a thorough epistolary analysis of Gal. 6.11-17, in order to demonstrate that it is the bodyclosing to Galatians. Galatians 6.11-17 is a unique passage in the broader context of the letters of Paul. Though it is comparable to other passages where the apostle mentions writing with his own hand – 1 Cor. 16.21 and Phlm. 198 – it is exceptional because of its length, content and function in the letter to the Galatians. In 1 Cor. 16.21 this writing occurs as part of a personal note similar to what one would ¿nd in an epistolary postscript. The reference to Paul’s writing with his own hand in Phlm. 19 may mean that either Paul has written down the entire letter, or possibly only one sentence of the letter. Paul’s handwritten section of Galatians is a signi¿cant interruption of the amanuensis, however, which has neither the form nor function of a letter closing. In fact, Gal. 6.11-17 functions as a closing to the letter body, which both adds argumentative force to and concludes the message of Galatians. Nils Dahl was the ¿rst scholar to analyze Galatians as a whole using epistolary conventions. Dahl identi¿ed Galatians as a ‘letter of rebuke and request’, which utilized the form of the ‘ironic rebuke’.9 By examining Galatians in light of the particular pattern and internal logic of such letters in the ancient world, Dahl was able to delineate a coherent structure to Galatians based upon two corresponding sections: the ‘background section’ (1.6–4.11) and the ‘pleading section’ (4.12–6.10).10 Dahl himself used the nomenclature ‘autobiographic epilogue’ for Gal. 6.1116, and considered 6.11-18 to be the letter conclusion.11 Dahl seems to have been aware, however, that the passage did not conform easily to the conventions expected in a letter closing and even suggested that 6.11-15 8. Paul’s writing with his own hand is also mentioned in Col. 4.18 and 2 Thess. 3.17. Because these letters are not accepted as genuine by some scholars, I will not rely upon them to advance my argument. 9. Dahl, ‘Galatians’, passim. 10. Ibid., pp. 132–9. 11. Ibid., p. 132. 1

1. Introduction

5

might be considered to be the ‘body conclusion’.12 Dahl did not expand on this idea; nor has any scholar evaluating Galatians since Dahl. Later efforts to expand and develop ideas concerning the epistolary structure of Galatians have more or less con¿rmed Dahl’s initial structure and classi¿cation.13 But, the attention paid to the epistolary conventions employed – or not employed – in 6.11-17 has in the main presupposed its nature as a letter closing. By offering a fresh analysis of the passage in light of the epistolary conventions outlined in works by John White,14 Luther Stirewalt Jr.,15 Jeffrey Weima16 and others, I will argue that Gal. 6.11-17 should be formally classi¿ed as the closing to the letter body of Galatians, whereas the formal letter closing consists only of 6.18. The function of the passage is then adjusted to take into account its close connection with the letter body and the main argument of the letter as a whole. In addition, Gal. 6.11-17 must be treated not simply as a summation of points established previously or as a last-minute personal addendum. Rather, through this section, Paul is concluding his argument by appealing to the core issue, both as it pertains to the character and intentions of the ‘agitators’ and as it pertains to the implications of his gospel for his ‘children’ in Galatia. That is, Paul is tying the entire letter together in this last paragraph by exposing his view of the corrupt motives of the ‘agitators’ and contrasting them with his own modus operandi through an appeal to the lenses through which they must ultimately all be interpreted: the cross and new creation. Here he shows that these twin realities are responsible both for the uniqueness of his gospel and the integrity of his lifestyle, both of which his disciples in Galatia are exhorted to embrace as their own. A second aspect of this monograph depends upon recognizing and correctly evaluating the signi¿cance of the theme of persecution in the letter to the Galatians. The entry point for this subject comes directly from the statements Paul makes in 6.12-17, which indicate that the 12. Ibid., p. 140. 13. For example, see Longenecker, Galatians; and G. W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTSup 29; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1989). 14. John L. White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter (SBLDS 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972), and Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). 15. Luther Stirewalt Jr., Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography (RBS 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), and Paul the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 16. Weima, Neglected Endings. 1

6

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

different responses of Paul and the agitators to persecution either validate or invalidate their ‘gospel’ respectively. This leads Paul to show how persecution is a signi¿cant part of both his history and ongoing apostolic ministry. He identi¿es himself both by his previous actions of persecuting followers of Jesus (1.13) and now by his status as one who is persecuted because of his own loyalty to Jesus (5.11; 6.17). Avoidance of persecution plays a pivotal role in the presentation of ‘another gospel’ by the agitators. As such, Paul’s concern in Galatians is to undermine what he regards as a counterfeit gospel by exposing its cowardly inception. He wants the Galatians to see that the agitators’ fear of persecution is responsible for their presentation of a message that will not require them to participate in such radical imitation of Christ and Paul. Rather, persuading Paul’s converts in Galatia to be circumcised will relieve the pressure that is being put on the agitators by appeasing those who threaten to persecute them because of their close association with these uncircumcised believers in Christ. Paul’s language of persecution (»ÀŪÁÑ, »ÀѺÄŦË) refers to intentional action taken by individuals or groups against others with the purpose of harming them and/or invalidating their message. The forms of persecution vary in Paul’s letters, including verbal attacks such as slander or threats (e.g. Phil. 1.17), but more often than not referring to physical attacks on the individuals who are the objects of the persecution (e.g. 2 Cor. 11.23-25). Paul’s concept of ‘suffering’ (ÈŠÊÏÑ, ÈŠ¿¾Ä¸), however, is broader than his idea of persecution, although it includes persecution as a subset. Suffering extends generally to the lifestyle that Paul adopts in order to preach the gospel and live faithfully in the ‘present evil age’ (Gal. 1.4). It seems to include what might be called ‘inconveniences’ like travel, poverty or exhaustion, and the concepts of ‘hardships’ (ÄŦÏ¿ÇË) and ‘weakness’ (ÒÊ¿šÅ¼À¸). So, while persecution would be a type of suffering for Paul, there are other ways one could suffer besides being persecuted. The relationship between these concepts will be important for our discussion of how Paul’s perspective on persecution in Galatians is related to his concepts of persecution and suffering in his other letters. Ernst Baasland pointed out nearly twenty years ago that the persecution theme in Galatians ‘is an aspect that the exegetic literature has more or less neglected, thus overlooking a side theme that may throw some light on the Letter to the Galatians in its entirety’.17 Baasland’s point of entry was Paul’s statement in 4.29 that ‘…as at that time, he who was 17. Ernst Baasland, ‘Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians’, Studia Theologica 38 (1984), pp. 135–50 (136). 1

1. Introduction

7

born according to the Àesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also’. More recently, studies have followed that have attempted to address the issue of persecution in Galatians based upon a closer reading of Gal. 4.12-20.18 The fourth chapter of this book will rehearse the contributions of these scholars to our current understanding of this question. In the ¿fth chapter, I will present an analysis of the role of the theme of persecution in Galatians by examining a number of passages in the letter beside 6.11-17 that explicitly mention the theme: 1.13-14; 1.21-24; 4.28–5.1; and 5.7-12. Each passage is brieÀy set in its literary context, and is then analyzed exegetically for its contribution to our understanding of the way the theme of persecution contributes to an understanding of Paul’s convictions about the situation in Galatia and his message to his Galatian readers. A sixth chapter will then advance the investigation of the persecution theme by analyzing four passages and two verses where I suggest it is implicit in Paul’s thinking, on the basis of what is learned from the passages where it is explicit: 2.11-14; 3.1-5; 4.12-18; 2.1-5; 1.7; and 5.4. Standing alone, this group of texts may not contribute enough to be persuasive. Read in light of the passages where persecution is explicit, however, they increase our con¿dence that the idea of persecution was in fact at the forefront of the apostle’s mind when he crafted this letter as a response to the crisis in Galatia. In Chapter 7 of this monograph, I argue that if the preceding insights are shown to have merit, the interpretation of the message of 6.11-17 emerges in a fresh light. Paul here argues that the motives of the ‘agitators’ are corrupt because they are not willing to suffer persecution ‘for the cross of Christ’ (6.12). This is supported by their failure to ‘keep the Law’, or the failure of those who are accepting circumcision because of them to keep the Law, in spite of the fact that they insist upon circumcision (6.13). Instead, the agitators want to compel the Galatians to be circumcised ‘only’ so that they might be relieved of persecution. Their concern is to ‘boast in your Àesh’ (6.13). Paul sees the mission of the ‘agitators’ to be one of satisfying the expectations of others to whom they are beholden by bringing the Galatians into their community 18. A. J. Goddard and S. A. Cummins, ‘Ill or Ill-treated? ConÀict and Persecution as the Context of Paul’s Original Ministry in Galatia’, JSNT 53 (1993), pp. 93– 126; Troy W. Martin, ‘Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Galatians 4.13-14)’, JSNT 74 (1999), pp. 65–91; and Scott J. Hafemann, ‘The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul’, in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (ed. Jostein Adna and Hans Kvalbein; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000), pp. 165–84. 1

8

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

through ‘circumcision’, which would remove the offense of their association with them. Paul sees this entirely as an attempt at self-promotion, which contradicts the position that he sees as the only legitimate one: to ‘boast…in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (6.14). This boast in Christ’s ‘weakness’ becomes the true source of Paul’s power – living a life of ‘death’ to the world so that its pressures and persuasions no longer have appeal to him. Unlike the agitators, Paul models for the Galatians the very Jesus he ‘publicly portrayed’ before them (3.1). By boasting in his way of life of participation in Christ’s cruci¿xion he calls the Galatians to live in the ‘new creation’ tension between experiencing the ‘peace and mercy’ of the righteous ones of God and experiencing the rejection and suffering of ‘cruci¿xion’. The ‘stigmata’ of Paul (6.17) then function as marks of authenticity, showing that his suffering because of the ‘stumbling block of the cross’ (5.11) matches both Jesus’ way of life and Paul’s gospel about Jesus. In this way, Paul undermines the inÀuence of the agitators by showing that their praxis invalidates their message, revealing corrupt motives and a pattern of living that is inconsistent with his gospel. Here is where Paul’s concept of ‘new creation’ provides the larger context for his response to the Galatians. For Paul, new creation is a reality that has begun through the cross and Spirit of Christ, but will be fully manifest only through the return of Christ. It consists of an internal transformation – God’s Spirit dwelling within the human person – in the context of an opposing ‘present evil age’ (Gal. 1.4). The ‘new creation’ of God is a paradox in which the individual is renewed by the presence of God, yet embarks upon a mission to spread this presence in the midst of a hostile world. The cross is the perfect symbol for God’s new creation. It shows the power of God to defeat death and eliminate the reign of sin and Satan. It also shows the heights of the rebellion of the present world system against God, and the pain and suffering that will inevitably come to those who resist it. The new creation of God will require a lifestyle that is consistent with the event that inaugurated it – that is, one that knows both the surpassing greatness of the power of God and the humiliating pain of persecution and suffering. After this analysis of the message of Gal. 6.11-17, we will be in a position to see that through this paragraph, Paul intends to persuade his readers that: (1) fear of persecution plays a determining role in both the motivation of the agitators and the potential circumcision of the Galatians; (2) Paul’s initial presentation of the gospel and the Galatians’ initial reception of it were both accompanied by suffering and power, which serve as marks of the authenticity of the message and the status of 1

1. Introduction

9

the Galatians as righteous; (3) the failure to discern this tension between suffering and power as a key feature of the ‘new creation’ is a source of the agitators’ corrupt motives and the Galatians’ susceptibility to the ‘other gospel’; and therefore, (4) both the salvi¿c/redemptive power of the cross and the call for the practical outworking of this pattern of life are crucial for the Galatians. They, too, should follow Paul by boasting only in the cross, allowing the world to be cruci¿ed to them, and allowing themselves to be cruci¿ed to the world. Chapter 8 offers some concluding thoughts about the overall signi¿cance of this apostolic response to the Galatian crisis. Finally, it is important to identify some of the limits of this study. First, it is largely a literary task focused on the epistolary and argumentative logic of Paul himself. Those who are interested in the historical reconstruction of the Galatian situation will no doubt be disappointed by my glossing over some of the weightier issues of such investigations (e.g., the geographical location of the Galatians, the relationship between Gal. 2 and Acts 15, and the identity of the agitators). But, to engage these issues fully would require a book of another sort. My intention here is to trace Paul’s logic in order to understand better his interpretation of the Galatian crisis and his message to the communities he hopes to steer through it. So, while I will not completely ignore issues of a historical bent, I will take them up only when I think it necessary to make better sense of the literary concern that is my focus. Second, it is important to point out that I will not seek to rede¿ne existing epistolary conventions in my attempt to revise the epistolary identi¿cation of Gal. 6.11-17. I offer no new research here on the papyrus letters and other documentary genres that have been analyzed by those more capable than I in discerning their patterns, tendencies and peculiarities. Rather, what I present is a re-examination of the conventions and clichés that are commonly presumed to demonstrate that Gal. 6.11-17/18 is the letter closing. Furthermore, I introduce into the discussion criteria offered previously by John White in order to argue for an alternative identi¿cation: Gal. 6.11-17 is the closing to the letter body and 6.18 alone is the letter closing. White’s criteria for identifying the form and function of the body-closings of papyrus letters have largely been overlooked by scholarship on Galatians, and Paul’s letters more broadly. They deserve much better than this. I hope this research can serve as a step in that direction. Finally, it should be noted that I do not claim to have exhausted the search for the signi¿cance of Paul’s ‘shorthand’ references in this passage to complex theological matters like being cruci¿ed to the world and 1

10

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

it to him (6.14), the relationship between circumcision, uncircumcision and ‘new creation’ (6.15), or the dizzying array of options for the interpretation of ‘the Israel of God’ (6.16). Indeed, entire monographs have been written pertaining to the latter two of these issues!19 Instead, what I hope to accomplish is to position these questions within the broader framework of Paul’s purpose in writing to the Galatians as it is revealed especially in Gal. 6.11-17. That is to say that I make the attempt to get at these ideas through the avenues of epistolary analysis and a better understanding of the role of the persecution theme in the letter. No doubt more can and should be said about the profound character of these concepts. This analysis should be integrated with the work of others in order to appreciate more fully the breadth of Paul’s vision of the new realities of existence ëÅ ÉÀÊÌŊ.

19. See, e.g., Moyer V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought (SNTSMS 119; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), and Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).

1

Chapter 2

ON THE INTERPRETIVE TRAIL – GALATIANS 6.11-17 THROUGH THE LENS OF ITS INTERPRETERS

In light of the many signi¿cant historical, literary, and theological issues that surround Paul’s letter to the Galatians, the presence of material written with the apostle’s own hand might seem to be nothing more than a side note. After all, it has been the content of Galatians, and not its original physical appearance, that has sparked hope, zeal, argument and wonder for almost two millennia. However, this small feature of Paul’s letter may yet come to play a key role in the ongoing attempt to understand his message accurately. In fact, Paul is so aware, or perhaps satis¿ed, that he is writing ‘with such large letters…with my hand’, that he directly invites his readers to ‘see’ what he is doing, and consider the implications (Gal. 6.11). Can it be that this bit of writing with his own hand is Paul’s way of crystallizing the entire argument and structure of Galatians? Can it be that this brief remark is meant to focus Paul’s readers on what he thinks is truly at stake in their congregations? Is it possible that with this combination of emphasis on his own handwriting, and signi¿cant argumentative material, Paul has constructed something of a ‘hermeneutical key’ to the interpretation of his entire letter?1 It is that very notion that forms the central argument of this book. Galatians 6.11-17 is a unique passage among the letters of Paul. Though it is comparable to other places where the apostle’s own handwriting is used (like 1 Cor. 16.21 and Phlm. 19) it is exceptional because of its length, content, and function in the letter to the Galatians. In 1 Cor. 16.21 Paul’s handwriting occurs as part of a personal greeting similar to what one would ¿nd in an epistolary conclusion. The reference to Paul’s handwriting in Phlm. 19 may mean that Paul has written down the entire letter, or possibly only one sentence of the letter. In Gal. 6.11, though, Paul’s claim to be writing in his own hand is almost always interpreted 1. Betz, Galatians, p. 313.

12

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

as an epistolary transition, by which Paul moves from the body of the letter to its closing. The paragraph that follows (6.12-17), however, is ¿lled with such theologically signi¿cant and polemically powerful material that commentators are forced to go to great lengths to explain how it is consistent with other Pauline letter closings. The classi¿cation of Gal. 6.11-17 as a letter closing is far from certain. In what follows, I will argue that Paul’s handwritten material in Galatians is a signi¿cant interruption of his amanuensis, which has neither the form nor function of a letter closing. Rather, Gal. 6.11-17 functions as a closing to the letter body, which adds argumentative force to, and concludes the message of, the letter. The passage serves as much more than a summary or restatement of arguments found earlier in the letter. Rather, in it, Paul brings his message to the Galatians to its logical conclusion, offering insights into the motives of the ‘agitators’, and highlighting his own convictions about the issues facing his churches, which have not been introduced previously. As such, the epistolary structure of Galatians, and in particular, the function of 6.11-17 within it, will be the primary concern of this initial chapter. It must be said at this point that the literature concerning the letter to the Galatians in particular, and the relationship between Paul’s letters to the documentary letter tradition represented in the papyri in general, is vast. The works I interact with in this chapter have been selected because they contribute to: (1) an understanding of the nature and function of, and the distinction between, the letter closing and the closing to the letter body in Paul’s letters in general, and (2) an analysis of the form and function of Gal. 6.11-17 in light of the previous criterion. Since the argument I am making here depends on an accurate understanding of the letter body on the one hand, and the letter closing on the other,2 the rest of this chapter is structured around these two letter segments. First, I will discuss epistolary structure of the letter body of Galatians, starting with John White’s monograph. White’s work provides us with a solid foundation on which to build our understanding of the way the message of Galatians is conveyed. Then, we will turn our attention to the letter closing, beginning with an inÀuential article written by Gordon Bahr, since nearly all relevant, subsequent commentators depend on his research and conclusions. What I intend to show is that, while several commentators have taken steps toward an accurate assessment of the form and function of Gal. 6.11-17, the task remains incomplete. Part of the problem is the lack of 2. I will call the former the ‘body-closing’ or ‘closing to the letter body’, and the latter, the ‘letter closing’. 1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

13

consistent terminology used to describe and de¿ne the passage. Another aspect of the problem is the inconsistent use of criteria essential for the identi¿cation of the various parts of the Pauline letter, based upon its Hellenistic precursors. The conclusion of this chapter will prepare the way for the next phase of this work by outlining the strategy I will employ in presenting my own epistolary analysis of the passage. 1. Understanding the Body-closing and Its Distinction from the Letter Closing of Galatians a. John White The ¿rst modern attempt to analyze the structure of Galatians in light of the Koine documentary letter tradition appears as a part of John White’s 1972 doctoral dissertation. White’s primary purpose is to address the form and function of the letter body – one of the ‘three basic parts of the common Greek letter’.3 As to form, White argues that the body is structured much like the letter in general, containing a ‘body-opening; bodyclosing; and [a] section between opening and closing (“body-middle”)’.4 These sections are established by the identi¿cation of transitional devices common to the documentary tradition, which signal movement from one part of the letter body to another.5 Once the strategic arrangement of the letter body has been mapped out, one stands in a much better position to understand the conceptual progression of the letter. As to function, White argues that the letter body is primarily used for the ‘imparting of information to someone at a distance’.6 The body thus becomes the ‘“message” part of the letter’, whereas the letter opening and letter closing ful¿ll the function of ‘maintaining personal contact’ with the recipients.7 3. White, Body, p. 1. The other two parts are the ‘letter opening’ and the ‘letter closing’. 4. Ibid. 5. In Body, pp. 2–38, White identi¿es four ‘formulaic’ general transitional devices and three ‘non-formulaic’ transitional devices that are employed throughout the letter body. In addition, he de¿nes several speci¿c transitional devices that are linked directly to one part of the body: the body-opening, body-middle or bodyclosing. 6. Ibid., p. 39. 7. Ibid. White draws upon the work of Heikki Koskenniemi here when he suggests that the primary functions of the common letter are to maintain personal contact and to impart information. The research he depends upon is found in Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Annales Academiae Fennicae; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1956). 1

14

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

White analyzes the body of Paul’s letters based upon two criteria: (1) the position of material within the body; and (2) the characteristic phraseology within each section.8 Generally speaking, material is arranged in the body according to three progressive stages, which we can illustrate by referring to White’s own analysis of Galatians: the ‘bodyopening’ (e.g. Gal. 1.6-14); ‘body-middle’ (Gal. 1.15–4.11 and 4.21-31); and ‘body-closing’ (Gal. 5.1-12).9 White views the function of these three sections as follows: We ¿nd an introductory statement regarding the occasion for writing in the body-opening [Galatians 1.6, ¿¸ÍÄŠ½Ñ ğÌÀ…]… This initial statement (or statements) is followed by a tightly framed and skillfully drawn theological argument…that extends into the body-middle. This theological section is followed by another discrete section…where the ‘principle’ espoused in the preceding section is applied more concretely to Paul’s readers [Galatians 3.1, Ϣ ÒÅŦ¾ÌÇÀ ¸ÂŠÌ¸À…]. This…is followed by a body-closing section, initiated by a statement brieÀy recapitulating the message of the body… in which Paul demands that the claims advocated earlier be accepted [Galatians 5.2, a»¼ ëºĽ ¸ıÂÇË…].10

Our primary concern here is with White’s description of the function and phraseology of the closing of the letter body. In general, White argues that it functions in two basic ways: ‘(1) as a means of ¿nalizing the principal motivation for writing (by accentuating or reiterating what was stated earlier in the body)…[and], (2) as a means of forming a bridge to further communication’.11 These two functions may or may not be intertwined and together form the conclusion of the letter’s message. The combination of these elements may take place …for example, when the reiteration of the motivation for writing is the basis for future communication, e.g., the addressor threatens the addressees regarding some negligence and suggests that he will ful¿ll the threat through an actual visit should the addressee not comply. The nature of the relationship connoted in the reiteration of this principal motivation for writing (whether good or bad), therefore, often tends to function as the basis that funds future communication.12

8. White, Body, p. 47. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. White did not analyze Gal. 5.13–6.17 in his study because he found no parallel for paranetic material in the common letter tradition. As a result, he located the body closing at Gal. 5.1-12. 11. Ibid., p. 25. 12. Ibid., p. 40.

1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

15

In terms of phraseology, White identi¿es ¿ve formulas that generally occur in the closing to the letter body in the common letter tradition: (1) disclosure; (2) expressions of responsibility; (3) courtesy request for a letter; (4) noti¿cation of a coming visit; and (5) conditional clauses employed formulaically as a threat.13 He adds two more formulas on the basis of his evaluation of the body closings of Romans, Galatians and Philemon:14 (1) a ‘con¿dence formula’ (Gal. 5.10);15 and (2) ‘implementation of the apostolic parousia formula’ (5.11).16 White’s analysis of Paul’s letters in light of the common letter tradition is a groundbreaking study, and contributes signi¿cantly to our understanding of the way Paul’s letters are organized. His identi¿cation of various transitional phrases that mark the body-closing of common Greek letters, and his comparison of them with Paul’s own tendencies is a signi¿cant step toward the goal of placing Paul’s writings in the appropriate perspective and context. In particular, we bene¿t from an understanding that the body-closing of Galatians must meet White’s two basic criteria: it should come at the ‘end’ of the body of the letter (that is, immediately prior to the true letter closing), and it must be marked by phraseology that is consistently identi¿able with the body-closing. White’s study, however, needs to be augmented in the following areas: (1) if Galatians is to be considered a letter, then it needs to be analyzed as such in its entirety. In other words, the role of Gal. 5.13–6.17 must be accounted for and explained in order to make sense of the letter as a whole; and (2) the distinction between transitional phraseology and common thematic concerns in the body-closing needs to be de¿ned more clearly. Thus, while the validity of White’s criteria for identifying the 13. Ibid., pp. 27–31, 41. 14. Ibid., pp. 59–60. These conclusions are a result of comparative analysis of Gal. 5.1-12, Rom. 15.14-33, and Phlm. 19-22. 15. The con¿dence formula is the means by which Paul signals his expectation that the recipients of his letter will respond favorably to it. 16. The apostolic parousia formula is the expression of Paul’s hope or intention to pay the recipients a personal visit in the future. For the identi¿cation of the ‘apostolic parousia’ as a structural element of the body-closing, White depends on Robert W. Funk, ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Signi¿cance’, in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 249–66. That the ‘apostolic parousia’ should technically be considered a ‘form’, and that it is always to be seen as a part of the body-closing, has been challenged by Margaret Mitchell in ‘New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus’, JBL 111, no. 4 (1992), pp. 641–62. 1

16

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

body-closing is admitted, his identi¿cation of Gal. 5.1-12 as the bodyclosing must be challenged because the passage does not ultimately meet those criteria. As we will see, the crucial work of identifying the epistolary macrostructure and the transitional points within the letter body of Galatians was yet to be done. Nevertheless, White’s research provides a crucial starting point for the epistolary analysis of the letter body of Galatians. In the same year as White’s dissertation was published, Nils Dahl would take these insights a step further. b. Nils Dahl Nils Dahl presented the ¿rst systematic analysis of the entirety of Galatians in terms of epistolary genre, content, and structure to the Paul Seminar of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1973.17 Though parts of this paper were not published until recently, its contents provided a blueprint for future study on the epistolary character and organization of the letter.18 Dahl’s primary purpose in the paper is ‘to illustrate how a formal, stylistic, and structural analysis may contribute to the interpretation of Paul’s letters, with the letter to the Galatians used as an example’.19 As such, Dahl pays close attention to how the interpretation of Galatians changes when the letter’s key epistolary indicators are identi¿ed. One of Dahl’s key contributions is his conclusion that Galatians has ‘some remarkable af¿nities with several types [of letters], especially with the “ironic letter” and the “letter of reproach”’.20 Dahl notes that Paul’s ‘expression of astonishment’ in Gal. 1.6 (¿¸ÍÄŠ½Ñ ğÌÀ…, ‘I am amazed that…’) serves a crucial epistolary purpose as ‘an indication of a strained relationship between sender and recipients’.21 The expression occurs at the beginning of the letter body, ‘where we normally ¿nd an assertion of thanksgiving or a benediction’.22 Dahl contends that ‘commentators have been fully aware of this peculiarity, but most of them have failed to observe that, while the opening with ¿¸ÍÄŠ½Ñ is unique among Paul’s 17. Nils A. Dahl, ‘Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure’ (paper presented to the Paul Seminar at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature; Chicago, 1973), pp. 1–101. 18. When citations are made from this publication as opposed to the original paper, they will follow the form used in the Introduction: Dahl, ‘Galatians’, plus the page number. 19. Dahl, ‘Paul’s Letter’, p. 2. 20. Ibid., p. 11. 21. Ibid., p. 12. 22. Ibid. 1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

17

letters, it nevertheless accords with epistolary conventions no less than an opening with ¼ĤϸÉÀÊÌľ’.23 In other words, Dahl sees in the bodyopening of Galatians not simply an anomaly among Paul’s letters, but an indication of an af¿nity with another convention altogether – the ‘ironic rebuke’.24 Furthermore, Dahl believes that the use of this form – the indication of strained relations between sender and recipients at the beginning of the letter body – has implications for the purpose and structure of the letter as a whole. Dahl was not the ¿rst to note the signi¿cance of Paul’s expression of astonishment in Gal. 1.6. White identi¿ed the use of ¿¸ÍÄŠ½Ñ in a reproaching manner as a ‘common means of opening the body’.25 It appears, for example, in P.Mich. 209, where Saturnilus writes to his brother: ¸ÍÄŠ½Ñ, Ó»¼Âμ, »¼Í̚ɸŠëÈÀÊÌÇÂüÅ ¸ĩ̾ øÅ ìȼЊ ÊÇÀ ÒÎЏ÷Ë ëº¸ÅŠÄ¾Å ĊË ÇĊÁÇÅ Á¸Ė ÇĤ»¼Äţ¸Å ÒÅÌÀÎŪžÊţÅ ÄÇÀ ìȼÄиË. I wonder, brother – this is the second letter which I have sent to you since I came home, and you have written me no reply.26

White’s analysis of the phraseology is limited to its connection with the sender’s disappointment about not having received a letter from the recipient, and as a precursor to a request for such a letter. He does not comment on the ironic nature of the expression – that is, that the sender is not so much amazed by the lack of receipt of a letter as he is irritated by it. So, while White acknowledges that the expression of astonishment functions in such a way as to demonstrate ‘dissatisfaction’, he does not move further in an attempt to analyze its implications for the structure of the rest of the letter.27 Terence Mullins followed White’s identi¿cation of the expression of astonishment as an epistolary form with his own contribution to the discussion. He argues that there are many more examples of the phrase in the papyri, and that its classi¿cation as a ‘form’ is dependent as much upon the ‘reproach aspect’ of the phrase as the exact terminology employed.28 Mullins writes that ‘the whole point is that the writer is rebuking, even scolding, the addressee. And he is not using ¿¸ÍÄŠ½Ñ in 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. The phrase was initially coined by Terence Y. Mullins in ‘Formulas in the New Testament Epistles’, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 380–90 (386). 25. White, Body, p. 19. 26. Reference and translation from ibid., p. 20. 27. Ibid., p. 106. 28. Mullins, ‘Formulas’, p. 385.

1

18

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

its common meaning; he is using it ironically, often sarcastically. He is not really astonished; he is irritated. This ironical use is an essential element in the form’.29 In addition, Mullins argues that in using the form, an author does not always refer to a failure to write; rather, ‘anything which irritates the writer can occasion this form’.30 Thus, the elements of irony and reproach together shape this expression of astonishment to constitute the ‘ironic rebuke’.31 To return to Dahl, his contribution is to take the initial insight of White, the additional framing of the form by Mullins, and use both in the identi¿cation of the overall structure of Galatians. While Dahl is careful to point out that the ironic rebuke itself is ‘not as such constitutive of any genre’, and that ‘there exist letters of rebuke and even ironic letters in which this form does not occur’, he does in fact identify other related features of an ironic letter in Galatians that make a stronger case for such a relationship.32 This relationship makes it possible to see how the opening of Galatians, with its expression of astonishment, states the theme and strikes the mood of the whole letter. The features that are related to the ironic rebuke are found mostly in those particular passages that speak most directly to the situation in Galatia (3.1-5; 4.8-11, 12-20; 5.2-12; 6.11ff.)… They, along with the opening and conclusion, provide the framework into which more general, somewhat self-contained units have been inserted.33

The implications for our interest in the epistolary function of 6.11-17 are signi¿cant. First, given the use of the ironic rebuke strategy in the letter, Dahl is then able to see a basic two-step structure in Galatians: rebuke (which also serves as a kind of background section) and request. The reason is that ‘as in petitions, letters of request, and other letters that contain the ironic rebuke, the “background section” is followed by a section in which the sender states what he asks for and what he hopes to achieve through his letter’.34 In Galatians, then, the ‘background section’ consists of 1.6–4.11, and the ‘request section’ consists of 4.12–6.10.35 29. Ibid. The scolding aspect seems particularly evident in the previously cited example from P.Mich. 209. 30. Ibid., pp. 385–6. 31. Ibid., p. 386. 32. Dahl, ‘Paul’s Letter’, p. 20. Such features include direct questions (e.g. Gal. 1.10; 3.1-5), irony (3.2), reproaches (3.1), aggravating circumstances (1.6-9; 4.15-19), and expressions of distress (4.11). 33. Ibid., p. 35. 34. Ibid., p. 86. 35. Ibid., pp. 80–1. Paul’s ¿rst imperative in the letter (outside of 1.8-9) occurs at 4.12, with his exhortation ºţżʿ¼ ĸË ëºŪ…Ò»¼ÂÎÇţ, »šÇĸÀ ĨÄľÅ. Dahl understands 1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

19

The background section focuses on Paul’s expression of dissatisfaction with the Galatians, centering on the ironic rebuke and related features. The request section then becomes Paul’s appeal for the Galatians to rectify the situation that has become such a troubling development for him. A second implication which affects our interest in Gal. 6.11-17 is that, by identifying the two major sections of the letter, Dahl effectively rede¿nes the body of Paul’s letter to include the material that White previously excluded. In other words, where White concludes that the body of Galatians ends at 5.12, Dahl insists that it extends at least to 6.10. He reasons that, ‘the normal de¿nition of “letter body” should be retained in analysis of the Pauline letters. If the “body” includes what lies between the conventional opening and concluding phrases, then the paraenesis must be considered part of the body’.36 He concludes that ‘in Galatians, as in Paul’s other letters, the paraenetic section is to be considered an integral part of the main body of the letter and not as some kind of appendix’.37 In the third place, Dahl then wonders whether the letter body ultimately concludes with 6.10, or extends beyond it further into Paul’s handwritten material. Dahl calls 6.11-18 an ‘autobiographic epilogue’, the importance of which to Paul is indicated by his reference to writing with his own hand in 6.11.38 What Dahl means by ‘autobiographic epilogue’ is not exactly clear.39 What is clear is that within these verses, Dahl identi¿es a transition from the letter body to the letter closing, all of which is written with Paul’s own hand. Dahl indicates that ‘if the paraenesis is part of the body, the summary in 6.11-15 is the “body this as a major transition, indicating that Paul’s discussion of the background to the current crisis is now over, and his appeals for the Galatians make things right now begin. 36. Ibid., p. 78. White admits to this ‘back-handed way’ of de¿ning the body of the letter in Body, p. 1 – that is, that the body is ‘that part which comes immediately after the opening conventions and immediately before the closing formulae’. However, White does also work to present a ‘more positive description of the body’ based upon the notion that the body normally conveys the message of the sender, while the introduction and conclusion maintain personal relationships. 37. Dahl, ‘Paul’s Letter’, p. 75. 38. Ibid., p. 97. 39. ‘Epilogue’ is not a term normally associated with epistolary conventions. Here, Dahl seems to use it in a generic sense of a short conclusion to a literary work, which, in this case, includes autobiographic material (6.11, 14). In other places, he refers to it as an ‘autobiographic conclusion’ (p. 98) and an ‘autographic conclusion’ (p. 101). 1

20

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

conclusion” ’.40 Dahl adds that 6.16 may also be a part of the closing to the letter body as a ‘prayer-wish’ that is ‘still closely linked to the preceding context’ (6.11-15).41 Thus, for Dahl, the letter closing does not begin until 6.17 with the mention of Paul’s ÊÌţºÄ¸Ì¸, or possibly 6.16 with the peace wish. It is then signi¿cant to note that in this analysis the appearance of Paul’s own handwriting does not indicate that the letter closing has begun. Rather, it occurs as a closing section within the letter body itself. Only after Paul highlights the ¿nal aspects of his appeal (6.11-15/16) does he write the formal letter closing (6.16/17-18). Thus, while Paul’s reference to his handwriting does constitute a transitional point in the letter, Dahl does not think it is a transition from letter body to letter closing. Rather, it is a transition from the body-middle to the body-closing. The result is a macrostructure of Galatians that includes a letter opening (1.1-5), letter body (1.6–6.15/16) and letter closing (6.16/17-18). Dahl has, then, advanced our discussion by identifying a key epistolary form, the ironic rebuke, which signi¿cantly informs an understanding of the structure of the letter as a whole. In addition, he has argued for an extension of the letter body to include the paraenetic material of Galatians, in keeping with a more general understanding of the tripartite structure of the common letter tradition. And, ¿nally, he has suggested that we see in Paul’s handwriting a transition from the body-middle to the body-closing. Dahl’s analysis of the body-closing and letter closing does not include a great deal of interaction with epistolary conventions, and for this, we will have to turn to additional commentators. However, Dahl’s paper does constitute the ¿rst substantial treatment of the epistolary structure of all the material in Galatians, including the ¿rst reference to the potential division of the material in 6.11-18 into two formal letter sections: body-closing (6.11-15/16) and letter closing (6.16/17-18).42

40. Dahl, ‘Paul’s Letter’, p. 97. 41. Ibid. 42. It is possible that Robert Funk suggests that the body of Galatians extends to 6.17 in Language, Hermeneutic and the Word of God: The Problem of Language in the New Testament and Contemporary Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1966). He attempts to ‘identify provisionally’ the body of various letters of Paul, and lists Galatians as ‘1.6–5.26 (6.17?)’ (p. 264). However, he does not explain the parenthetic 6.17, or discuss the matter further. To add to the uncertainty, later in the essay he seems to refer to the letter closing as ‘6.11ff.’ (p. 270 n. 75).

1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

21

c. G. Walter Hansen and Richard N. Longenecker In 1989, G. Walter Hansen published a monograph that, among other things, sought to outline the structure of Galatians based upon the location and clustering of epistolary formulae.43 The following year, Richard N. Longenecker published the ¿rst full-length commentary to approach the structure of Galatians by means of this same methodology.44 Both of these authors have something to contribute to our discussion here, but since Longenecker builds in part on the work of Hansen, we will focus on the conclusions of the latter, referring to those of the former only where they prove to be signi¿cantly different.45 Like Dahl, Hansen also builds upon the research of Terrence Mullins to develop his structural methodology. In addition to publishing insights that were crucial to the identi¿cation of the ‘ironic rebuke’, Mullins uncovered a pattern in the documentary letter tradition that makes it possible to determine the key transitional sections in a letter with more con¿dence. The logic behind his observation plays a crucial role in the formation of the arguments of both Hansen and Longenecker. Mullins writes that: Simply reading through a great many letters from the non-literary papyri suggests a general principle: the use of one form tends to precipitate the use of others with it… [In] a letter of any considerable length there will be places where a writer will pause and break the Àow of his thought for a moment. He may mark such places with epistolary forms whose relevance to the main subject matter will vary according to the way the writer thinks and expresses himself.46

Mullins argues that ancient authors employed common phrases and terms (forms/formulas) in their letters not only to communicate information, but also to ‘punctuate’ their letters by revealing breaks in their thought processes. Furthermore, he indicates that where one such form is employed, it tends to lead to the use of others with it. The net effect would be the clustering of epistolary formulas at points that indicate to the readers ‘a pause in the communication process’ resulting from a shift of the author’s attention from the content of his writing to the maintenance of his or her relationship with the readers.47 43. Hansen, Abraham. 44. Longenecker, Galatians. 45. In Galatians, p. ci, Longenecker acknowledges that Hansen’s analysis of epistolary and rhetorical structures is ‘more extensive’ than the one he presents in his commentary’s ‘Introduction’. The authors de¿ne the structural features of the letter in much the same way. 46. Mullins, ‘Formulas’, p. 387. 47. Ibid., p. 388. 1

22

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

When Hansen applies these principles of Mullins to his research on Galatians, he concludes that the ‘clustering of epistolary formulae’ constitutes ‘strong evidence for a signi¿cant break or turning point in the letter’.48 In other words, it is probable that where Paul uses recognizable epistolary forms, and clusters of such forms, one will ¿nd a break in his thought that functions as a transition in the Àow of Paul’s message. The nature of the transition – that is, whether it is a major or minor one – depends upon the nature and number of formulas occurring at a particular transitional point. Hansen proceeds to identify and graph the recognizable epistolary forms in Galatians to create a kind of map of the structure of the letter.49 The structure that emerges is one based upon two types of sections in the letter: (1) those with clusters of epistolary formulas; and, (2) those characterized as ‘general, thematic sections’.50 According to this structural principle, the sections with a heavy concentration of epistolary formulas then function as transitional units (1.1-13; 3.1-7; 4.11-20; 4.31– 5.12; 6.11-18), framing the more thematic sections of Paul’s argument (1.13-21; 3.7–4.10; 4.21-30; 5.13–6.10), which contain relatively few or no signi¿cant formulas.51 It is interesting to note that by using this structural principle, Hansen produces an outline of Galatians that is remarkably similar to Dahl’s, and Longenecker follows him in adopting this structural outline.52 Both Hansen and Longenecker agree that a transition is taking place at Gal. 6.11, but unlike Dahl, they believe that it is a transition to the letter closing and not the closing to the letter body. As such, Hansen’s their comments about the content of 6.11-17 will be treated in the following section. 2. Understanding Galatians 6.11-17 in Light of Letter Closing Conventions a. Gordon Bahr While John White’s primary concern was the quest to illumine the nature of the letter body, Gordon Bahr opens another line of dialogue concerning 48. Hansen, Abraham, p. 29. 49. Ibid., pp. 31–2. 50. Ibid., p. 32. 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid., p. 44. As in Dahl’s outline, Hansen argues that 4.12-20 constitutes a major transition in the letter body between ‘rebuke’ and ‘request’, as a result of the appearance of ¿ve epistolary forms: a request/petition (4.12); two disclosure formulas (4.13, 15); the use of the vocative (4.12); and a reference to a desire to visit the recipients (4.20). Longenecker follows this same pattern in Galatians, p. cix.

1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

23

the nature of Paul’s letter closings.53 He does so by comparing the typical Pauline letter closing to a ‘subscription’ contained within an ancient record or contract (described in the papyri frequently as a ĝÄǺţ¸ or ÊͺºÉ¸ÎŢ).54 A record is distinguished from a letter (ϼÀÉŦºÉ¸ÎÇÅ, ‘something written by hand’) in that it is not written communication between separated parties, but a report or recounting of an oral agreement reached in person by two or more parties.55 When parties came to terms, they would employ a scribe or notary to put into writing their oral agreement. The parties then provided their signatures following the scribe’s record of the agreement, as a way to con¿rm the authenticity and legality of the document. These ‘signatures’ often included a résumé or summary of the central points of the agreement, as well as the names of the parties, in their own handwriting. If one or more of the parties was illiterate, one acting as an agent signs on his/her behalf. When Bahr speaks of a ‘subscription’, then, this is what he means: the summary of the central points of a contract, along with the authenticating signatures, that follow the actual text of the agreement.56 Bahr contends that ‘in antiquity, there was no sharp distinction in form between letters and records. It seems probable that there was some confusion of the two formats.’57 He points to examples of records being written in the form of letters in Greek and Latin documents, as in B.G.U. 69, where an agreement is written in letter form, using the ‘a to b,

53. Gordon J. Bahr, ‘The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters’, JBL 87 (1968), pp. 27–41. 54. Unfortunately, Bahr refers to the ancient record or contract (ĝÄÇÂǺţ¸ or ÊͺºÉ¸ÎŢ) as a ĨÈŦÄžĸ throughout his article. A ĨÈŦÄžĸ is broadly speaking a ‘memorandum’ or ‘reminder’, and can consist of, for example, a simple grocery list as in P.S.I. 413, or instructions for a painter as in P.Cairo Zen. 59445. A ĨÈŦÄžĸ does not seem ever to include a contract in the papyri, and as such, never contains a subscription of the type Bahr indicates. Various forms of legal records do employ a subscription, including, for example: marriage contracts (P.Oxy. 1273), repudiations of marriage (P.Oxy. 129), deeds of adoption (P.Oxy. 1206), and resignations of claims to an estate (P.Tebt. 380). It is to this type of document that Bahr compares Paul’s letter closings. 55. Bahr, ‘Subscriptions’, p. 27. 56. It is important to note here that the ‘documentary papyri’ contain many of types of literature including letters, contracts, memoranda, accounts and lists, prayers, charms, petitions, applications, orders and receipts, as well as copies of literary texts. In this investigation, I assume the basic accuracy of the claim that it is the common/non-literary letter tradition, found within the papyri that forms ‘the primary literary Gattung to which the Pauline letters belong’ (White, Body, p. xii). 57. Bahr, ‘Subscriptions’, p. 32. Italics mine. 1

24

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

greeting’ format typical of letter openings.58 He also argues that items that would normally be classi¿ed under the rubric of ‘records’ were in some cases referred to as ‘letters’ by the Rabbis.59 In the end, Bahr seems to conclude that letters and records were nearly interchangeable in antiquity. At this point, it is important to ask whether or not Bahr’s analysis of the evidence is justi¿ed. Speci¿cally, it seems that the ‘distinction in form’ between letters and records is being blurred in Bahr’s mind because of the way he shapes the question. It is fair to say that both records and letters in the ancient world shared common features; however, the difference in form between them is still discernible. It is one thing to argue that there existed some interchange of phraseology between ‘records’ and ‘letters’. It is quite another thing to say that this interchange removes the distinction between the two categories altogether – as if ancient authors would not have known whether they were writing a letter or a record, or what essential features would have been expected in each. As Harry Gamble notes, ‘Bahr is much too bold in positing a confusion of letter and record forms. In fact, while some very limited inÀuence of letter form on the composition of records is apparent, no appreciable inÀuence in the other direction is evident in the available materials’.60 Bahr’s presumed free-Àowing interchange of conventions between records and letters seems overstated. This is further supported by the fact that Bahr fails to produce any evidence from the common letter tradition of the kind of subscription he has outlined as constituent parts of ancient records. Of the evidence he cites to substantiate his claim that subscriptions are carried over into the letter context, ¿ve out of his seven examples come from the writings of Cicero.61 The basic problem here is that Cicero’s letters can hardly be said to be a part of the documentary letter tradition because they are of such a high literary quality. For this reason, it is problematic to suggest that they have explanatory power when it comes to understanding Pauline letter structure.62 58. It should be noted, however, that there is no mention made of a second hand being used to write the subscription in this case – a point which Bahr himself acknowledges in ‘Subscriptions’, p. 32. 59. Ibid. Examples include a ‘letter of divorce’ and a ‘letter of assessment (announcement of public sale)’. 60. Harry Gamble, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism (Studies and Documents 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 78 n. 105. 61. Bahr, ‘Subscriptions’, p. 33. 62. John White argues that, whereas interpretation of the Pauline letter body may bene¿t from an examination of the literary tradition, ‘it is still feasible to delineate 1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

25

Another problem is that examples cited by Bahr do not have the same form that he outlined previously when working with records (that is, they do not recapitulate the substance of the letter). Rather, the material added to the letter closing includes items such as date, signature, greetings, and other matters that might be said to constitute a postscript (to be distinguished from the formal ‘subscription’ with which Bahr has concerned himself). Bahr actually admits this by saying that though this ending material is written in a second hand, like the subscriptions of records, ‘it seldom is a summary of the body of the letter, [though] it sometimes appears to be almost a second, personal letter from the author’.63 Thus, Bahr’s support for seeing record-like subscriptions in ancient letters is based largely on the presence of a feature common to both genres (two hands being responsible for different sections of the document), and the presence of some kind of letter closing material in each (though different in form and function for each genre). The nature of this evidence makes Bahr’s conclusions questionable. And, as we will see, there are good reasons for distinguishing between the kind of material found in a letter closing and the subscriptions included at the end of records. Bahr’s essay continues with an attempt to identify ‘subscriptions’ in Paul’s letters, and to discover the exact places in various letters where Paul begins to write in his own hand. Bahr is con¿dent that all of Paul’s letters contained two different scripts – one from Paul’s amanuensis and one from Paul himself.64 And, because he is con¿dent that all of Paul’s letters must also contain subscriptions, all he has to do is ¿nd the place where Paul seems to repeat himself (summarizing the previous contents) and he has discovered his point of transition from scribe to Paul. As a ¿rst attempt to demonstrate his hypothesis, Bahr turns to Galatians and argues that Paul begins his ‘subscription’ in 5.2, and writes the rest of the letter from that point.65 There are many problems with this the beginning and end of Paul’s letters’ on the basis of ‘conventions found in nonliterary papyrus letters’, in ‘Apostolic Mission and Apostolic Message: Congruence in Paul’s Epistolary Rhetoric, Structure and Imagery’, in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity, Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd (ed. B. H. McLean; JSNTSup 86; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1993), pp. 145–61 (148–9). 63. Bahr, ‘Subscriptions’, p. 33. 64� Ibid. Bahr’s conclusion is based upon his belief that ¿ve of Paul’s letters contain references to his personal handwriting: Gal. 6.11; 1 Cor. 16.21; Col. 4.18; 2 Thess. 3.17; and Phlm. 19. The authenticity issues not withstanding, it is noteworthy that Paul’s claim of a ‘sign (ʾļėÇÅ) in every letter’ is literally a ‘greeting’ (ÒÊȸÊÄŦË) in 2 Thess. 3.17. 65. Ibid., p. 35. 1

26

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

suggestion, but chief among them must be the identi¿cation of 5.13–6.10 as constituting a part of a recapitulation of material that has already been covered by the scribe. Given the paucity of evidence, and the failure to establish the likelihood of shifting the ‘subscription’ convention from record to letter, the irony of Bahr’s conviction that ‘I think that we can determine rather accurately where the hand of Paul began in the various letters by making use of the above observations with regard to the format and writing of records and letters in antiquity’, should not be lost on us.66 When we look at his argument it seems that what Bahr has actually helped to clarify is that letter closings are not congruent to the subscriptions of records. And, while Paul’s own handwriting does appear in some of his letters, it does not seem to be possible to demonstrate that it appears in every letter, not to mention exactly where it would appear in a letter that contains no explicit mention of it. In particular, then, Gal. 6.11-17 requires a frame of reference other than that of a record subscription in order for us to identify its epistolary form and function. b. Hans Dieter Betz In 1975, Hans Dieter Betz published an article in which he af¿rms that ‘the letter to the Galatians can be analysed according to Graeco-Roman rhetoric and epistolography’.67 Speci¿cally, Betz argues that it is an example of an ‘apologetic letter’,68 in which the author essentially makes use of forensic rhetoric to deliver a speech encapsulated by an epistolary frame. Galatians becomes a ‘self-apology’ wherein Paul argues as a ‘defendant’ in a court of law before the ‘addressees [being] identical with the jury’.69 As such, Betz proposes that the body of Galatians (1.6–6.10) be analyzed in rhetorical terms, and the ‘prescript’ (1.1-5) and ‘postscript’ (6.11-18) primarily on the basis of epistolary conventions.70 As 66. Ibid., pp. 33–4. 67. Hans Dieter Betz, ‘The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 21 (1975), pp. 352–79 (353). 68. Ibid., p. 354. That the classi¿cation of Galatians as an apologetic letter is largely unconvincing is maintained by various reviewers, including: David E. Aune, Review of H. D. Betz, Galatians, Religious Studies Review 7, no. 4 (1981), pp. 323– 8 (324); Wayne A. Meeks, Review of H. D. Betz Galatians, JBL 100 (1981), pp. 304–7 (306); and Paul W. Meyer, Review of H. D. Betz, Galatians, Religious Studies Review 7, no. 4 (1981), pp. 318–22 (319). 69. Betz, ‘Literary Composition’, p. 377. 70. Ibid., pp. 356–7. Betz also refers to 6.11-18 as the peroratio or conclusio of the speech that forms the body of the letter. The prescript and postscript are dealt with brieÀy in pp. 355–9. The body is addressed in a more thorough fashion in pp. 359–77. 1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

27

a result, in spite of Betz’s innovative and ground-breaking analysis of the letter body of Galatians through the lens of Greco-Roman rhetoric, his explanation of 6.11-18 differs very little from that of other commentators. In his 1979 full-length commentary on Galatians Betz explains that 6.11-18 functions as a ‘postscript in [Paul’s] own handwriting’ that ‘conforms to the epistolary conventions of the time’.71 He argues that the purpose of such a postscript was to ‘authenticate the letter, to sum up its main points, or to add concerns which have come to the mind of the sender after the completion of the letter’.72 In these introductory comments, two important issues require attention. Both issues seem to be centered in the use of unclear or imprecise terminology. First, Betz does not de¿ne what the ‘epistolary conventions of the time’ would be for what he calls a ‘postscript’. It is not enough to say that if a passage has a semblance of a summary, and is located toward the end of the letter, we can conclude on this basis that it is a formal epistolary ‘postscript’. The second problem can be seen in the italicized portion of Betz’s quotation above concerning the purpose of a postscript. Betz argues that it was intended to cover matters occurring to the sender ‘after the completion of the letter’. Formally, this would mean that a postscript should occur after the letter closing (that is, after the ¿nal greetings and farewell wish). The problem here is that 6.11-17 appears prior to the formal letter closing, which is located at 6.18.73 So, Betz’s epistolary analysis of the passage suffers from a lack of precision in terminology, and a lack of correspondence with the actual location of the passage with respect to a conventional postscript. What makes Betz’s analysis valuable for our purposes is that his epistolary analysis would have bene¿ted from a closer look at his own rhetorical analysis of the passage. Betz identi¿es 6.11-18 as a peroratio or conclusio, the ‘end and conclusion of the apologetic speech forming the body of the letter’.74 He argues that it has a dual purpose: (1) to remind the judge or audience of the merits of the case; and (2) to make a strong emotional impression upon them. This dual purpose is achieved through the use of three parts: enumeratio (sharpens and sums up the main points of the case); indignatio (arouses anger and hostility against opponents); and, conquestio (stimulates pity). And, as the closing part of 71. 72. 73. book. 74.

1

Betz, Galatians, p. 312. Ibid., italics mine. That 6.18 alone is the letter closing will be demonstrated in Chapter 3 of this Betz, Galatians, p. 313, italics mine.

28

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

a speech, the peroratio must closely relate to the exordium (the initial introduction of the argument, which Betz identi¿es as 1.6-11).75 It is the connection between the peroratio and the rest of the speech that should give Betz pause before he ‘separates’ 6.11-17 from the rest of the letter.76 If the peroratio is still a part of the speech in rhetorical terms, then it would seem logical that, in an epistolary sense, at least some of Gal. 6.11-18 should be a conclusion of the letter body.77 In fact, Betz does hint at this when he identi¿es 6.16-18 as ‘the concluding part of the postscript’.78 He further suggests that the conditional blessing of 6.16 forms an inclusio with the conditional curse of 1.8-9 so that ‘the whole argument in the letter leads up to the rule in v. 15’, and that the ‘body of the letter (1.6–6.10) therefore stands between the conditional curse and the conditional blessing’.79 Thus, his rhetorical analysis of the ‘speech’ suggests that it continues at least through 6.15, and potentially 6.16, if it is truly to be understood as an inclusio with 1.89. Furthermore, Betz states regarding 6.17 that ‘Paul concludes the peroratio with an apostolic order in regard to the future coupled with his self-description as a representative of the cruci¿ed Christ’.80 Here again Betz identi¿es 6.17 as still being a part of the ‘speech’, albeit the end of the speech. In fact, he thinks that Paul’s appeal to his ÊÌţºÄ¸Ì¸ ‘could be a conquestio, although reduced to a minimum’.81 This raises the question as to whether, if 6.11-17 is to be understood as part of the speech in Betz’s rhetorical analysis, it should not also be considered a part of the letter body in his epistolary analysis, leaving 6.18 alone as the outer ‘epistolary frame’ of the apologetic speech. Though we will not proceed further into the rhetorical analysis of Galatians, it is interesting to note that in what many see as a turning point in the history of interpretation of the letter, the explanation of the form and function of 6.11-18 remains somewhat clouded. Betz does an admirable job of trying to account for the uniqueness of Galatians, and this passage, through the lens of rhetorical criticism. He further attempts to explain the outer framework of the letter through an appeal to epistolary conventions. In actuality, his contribution has been crucial, if not

1

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

Ibid. Ibid., p. 355. That is, since the speech is ‘forming the body of the letter’ (ibid., 313). Ibid., p. 320. Ibid., p. 321. Ibid., p. 323. Ibid., p. 324.

2. On the Interpretive Trail

29

altogether convincing. At any rate, we can agree with Betz that whether seen through a rhetorical or epistolary lens, what he calls the peroratio ‘contains the interpretive clues to the understanding of Paul’s major concerns in the letter as a whole and should be employed as the hermeneutical key to the intentions of the Apostle’.82 c. G. Walter Hansen and Richard N. Longenecker Above we noted that Hansen and Longenecker contributed to a more helpful understanding of the way the structure of Galatians is revealed through Paul’s use of epistolary formulas. Here, we want to address the way they understand the form and function of 6.11-18. When we turn to Hansen’s treatment of 6.11-18, we see that he identi¿es the section as a ‘subscription’, or an ‘autographic letter conclusion’.83 This is problematic because, as we have seen, the ‘subscription’ is formally and structurally distinct from the ‘letter conclusion’ in terms of epistolary analysis. It is possible that he is not speaking technically when he refers to the section as a ‘letter conclusion’ – that is, that he simply means that this is the last part of the letter which takes the shape of a subscription. But, this will not be the only time Hansen seems to blur epistolary categories in his treatment of 6.11-18. Hansen de¿nes the unit on the basis of the presence of what he refers to as ‘epistolary formulae and other indicators of the epistolary structure’.84 The three indicators he identi¿es are: (1) an autographic subscription (6.11); (2) a benediction (6.16); and (3) a grace wish – vocative (6.18).85 The dif¿culty in evaluating Hansen’s methodology of structuring Galatians based on clusters of epistolary formulas is that he does not fully rely upon it here. That is to say that he does not simply identify epistolary forms in this section; rather, he includes other elements that are not technically forms. Of the three items he identi¿es as indicators of the epistolary structure in 6.11-18, only the use of the vocative in 6.18 (Ò»¼ÂÎÇţ) is truly an epistolary form.86 Paul’s grace wish may be seen as a substitute for the ‘farewell’ of the documentary letter tradition, but his ‘benediction’ (if it is a benediction) in 6.16, and the autographic reference in 6.11 are not technically epistolary forms. There

82. Ibid., p. 313. 83. Ibid., p. 51. 84. Ibid., p. 30. 85. Longenecker identi¿es these same formulas in Galatians, p. cviii. 86. John White, in Body, argues that ‘the vocative is employed intermittently…as a means of making major transitions in all three body-sections’ (p. 15). 1

30

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

is on this level, then, some confusion as to the relationship between elements or concepts occurring in the common letter tradition, and the speci¿c terms, phrases and constructions that have been identi¿ed as epistolary forms.87 It seems, however, that Hansen does not really depend on the presence of epistolary forms for his identi¿cation of 6.11-18 as a letter closing. Rather, it is largely the content of this section that leads him to classify it as such. In fact, Hansen turns to the research of Gordon Bahr in order to support the idea that 6.11-18 quali¿es as a ‘subscription’ because of the fact that it contains ‘the summary of the cardinal points of the letter’.88 Unfortunately, Hansen has failed to catch the distinction between letters and records in Bahr’s research. In fact, he writes that Bahr provides a survey of subscriptions in common Hellenistic letters and concludes with a helpful description of the function of the subscription. As Bahr points out, the subscription was…a summary of the body of the document. By giving such a summary, the signator made the contents of the body of the document his own and bound himself to the stipulations of the letter. Normally, the subscription only repeated the cardinal points in the body of the document. In certain cases, however, the subscription became a rather long and detailed summary.89

It appears from this citation that while Bahr discusses the subscription primarily as a feature of ancient Hellenistic records, and then applies these insights (however questionably) to the documentary letter tradition, Hansen has read Bahr as if his research has come directly from an analysis of subscriptions to letters. Hansen’s own language betrays this anomaly when he refers to an author who has ‘bound himself’ to the ‘stipulations’ of a letter through a subscription.90 In fact, these terms are not relevant for a personal letter, but ¿t perfectly with what Bahr is in fact analyzing – the use of subscriptions to ratify or validate contracts and records. So, Hansen’s analysis falls victim to the same objection as Bahr’s: collapsing the category of a record subscription into that of a letter closing.

87. Perhaps the most comprehensive identi¿cation of forms found in the common letter is found in White, Body, pp. 1–41. 88. Hansen, Abraham, p. 52. Bahr’s research is the same referred to and critiqued earlier in this chapter. 89. Ibid., italics mine. 90. Ibid. 1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

31

This is as far as Hansen takes the discussion, as his primary interest lies in the Abrahamic passages of chs. 3 and 4. We can bene¿t from Hansen’s application of Mullins’ insights regarding the use and clustering of epistolary formulas at key transitional points in the letter. There is, in fact, a clustering of such forms in 6.11-18 (though a somewhat different cluster than the one identi¿ed by Hansen), which will be signi¿cant in a forthcoming discussion of the passage. However, we must challenge Hansen’s identi¿cation of the passage as a ‘subscription’ or ‘letter conclusion’ on the same grounds that we challenged Bahr’s analysis earlier. That is to say that the subscription as such is not common to the letter tradition, and is not the best way to explain 6.11-17. In addition, we must also insist that even if it were, the notion that the contents of 6.11-17 only ‘repeat and underscore the main themes of the letter’, does not accurately reÀect the crucial argument of the passage.91 For a moment, we need to turn to Longenecker’s analysis in order to identify points at which he distinguishes himself from Hansen. His understanding of the structure of Galatians and the form and function of 6.11-18 is substantially the same as Hansen’s. His epistolary analysis of 6.11-18 in the explanatory section of his commentary does, however, provide more detail.92 He identi¿es seven ‘features that appear repeatedly in the subscriptions of a Pauline letter’.93 These features include: (1) a grace benediction; (2) greetings; (3) a peace benediction; (4) an ‘autograph’, or, reference to Paul’s handwriting; (5) concluding exhortations; (6) a prayer request; and (7) a doxology.94 Longenecker acknowledges that not all features occur in every Pauline letter. In fact he admits that 6.11-18 does not contain closing greetings, a prayer request, or doxology. However, he does argue that the four remaining features do occur in the passage, ‘with each having a nuance appropriate to what Paul has argued and exhorted earlier in the letter’.95 Thus, 6.11 is identi¿ed as an ‘autograph’; 6.16 is identi¿ed as a ‘peace benediction’; 6.12-15 contains ‘concluding exhortations’; and 6.18 is the ‘grace benediction’.

91. Ibid. This will be demonstrated in the following chapter. 92. Longenecker, Galatians, pp. 285–301. 93. Ibid., p. 287. Setting aside the issue of whether ‘subscription’ is the proper term for the passage, we are more interested in Longenecker’s attempt to identify the constituent parts of a common Pauline letter closing. 94. Ibid., pp. 287–8. 95. Ibid., p. 288.

1

32

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

Longenecker is on solid ground with respect to the identi¿cation of 6.18 as a grace benediction, or grace wish. In fact, I will argue in the next chapter that this is the one feature of a Pauline closing that is actually found in 6.11-18, and that Gal. 6.18 alone constitutes the letter closing. However, Longenecker’s assessment of the other three features typical of a Pauline ‘subscription’ is questionable – either as a result of their nature as ‘features’, or as a result of the connection between such features and the typical Pauline letter closing. In the case of the ‘autograph’, it should be remembered that a reference to Paul’s handwriting occurs in only one other letter closing among the seven undisputed Pauline letters: 1 Cor. 16.21, where Paul writes, ĝ ÒÊȸÊÄġË Ìĉ ëÄĉ ϼÀÉĖ ¸ŧÂÇÍ.96 Because Longenecker considers 2 Thessalonians and Colossians to be authentic, he includes 2 Thess. 3.17 and Col. 4.18 (where Paul’s uses the same phrase) in his analysis. Even if these letters are accepted as authentic, it is worth noting that in both cases, as well as in 1 Cor. 16.21, what Paul writes is explicitly a ‘greeting’ (ÒÊȸÊÄŦË), which would warrant their inclusion in the letter closing. However, what Paul writes in his own hand in Gal. 6.11 is de¿nitely not a greeting. Rather, it appears to be more of a transitional feature designed to call attention to the signi¿cance of what follows.97 Furthermore, even if Gal. 6.11 is included, only four of thirteen Pauline texts contain a reference to Paul’s handwriting near their conclusions. The other occurrence of a reference to Paul’s own handwriting is Phlm. 19, but this should not be identi¿ed as part of the subscription or letter closing of that document. These data challenge the identi¿cation of a reference to Paul’s own handwriting as a closing element, and speci¿cally whether the presence of such a reference in 6.11 supports the identi¿cation of the unit as a subscription. The ‘peace benediction’ of Gal. 6.16 is well-known because of its unique form and content among the Pauline letters: Á¸Ė ğÊÇÀ ÌŊ Á¸ÅŦÅÀ ÌÇŧÌĿ ÊÇÀÌÏŢÊÇÍÊÀÅ, ¼ĊÉŢž ëÈЏ ¸ĤÌÇİË Á¸Ė ìüÇË Á¸Ė ëÈĖ ÌġÅ `Êɸü ÌÇı ¿¼Çı.98 This conditional peace wish is identi¿ed by Longenecker as a 96. While Paul’s handwriting may in fact have been commonplace at the conclusions of his letters (as 2 Thess. 3.17 may suggest), this is not the same as saying that a reference to his own handwriting was. 97. Paul’s reference to his writing with ‘large letters’ will be discussed in detail below. 98. Signi¿cant attention has been given especially to Paul’s reference to the `Êɸü ÌÇı ¿¼Çı. See, in addition to the commentaries, Nils Dahl, ‘Der Name Israel: Zur Auslegung von Gal 6,16’, Judaica 6 (1950), pp. 161–70; W. D. Davies, ‘Paul and the People of Israel’, NTS 24 (1977), pp. 4–39; Peter Richardson, Israel in the 1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

33

feature of typical letter closings largely on the basis of the occurrence of the word ¼ĊÉŢž, since the form differs so dramatically from the peace benedictions in Paul’s other letters.99 Again, two related questions can be asked of Longenecker’s analysis: (1) is Paul’s conditional expression of peace and mercy in fact consistent enough with his other peace wishes to be included among them; and (2) is a peace wish necessarily a feature of the typical Pauline letter closing? As to the ¿rst question, Longenecker himself admits that the ‘form and extent of the peace benediction’ are ‘not at all clear’.100 And, though he admits that the ‘appearance and order of the double attributes “peace and mercy” is, indeed, highly unusual for a Pauline benediction’, he is willing to consider it as exactly that, primarily on the basis of the Nineteenth Benediction of the Rabbinic Shemoneh Esreh (‘Eighteen Benedictions’).101 And, as to the second question, there is some doubt as to whether the Pauline peace wish belongs to the letter closing, as opposed to the closing to the letter body. John White, for instance, argues that the Pauline ‘prayer/wish for eschatological peace’ should be considered a concluding convention of the letter body.102 He argues for this position based upon his understanding of Paul’s letters having a ‘ring composition’ in which the letter opening and letter closing constitute an ‘outer most circle’ pertaining to Paul’s desire for his recipients’ spiritual welfare.103 The ‘next inner ring is formed by the thanksgiving and the body-closing convention. This ring speci¿es the means of achieving spiritual welfare and the temporal limits that attend actualization’.104 In this light, it is possible to conceive of 6.16 Apostolic Church (SNTSMS 10; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 74–102; and G. Schrenk, ‘Was bedeutet “Israel Gottes”?’, Judaica 5 (1949), pp. 81–94. 99. Rom. 15.33; 16.20; 2 Cor. 13.11; Phil. 4.9; and 1 Thess. 5.23 contain the more standard form of the Pauline peace wish (cf. Eph. 6.23; 2 Thess. 3.16). Only 1 Corinthians and Philemon lack the peace wish among the undisputed letters. 100. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 297. 101. Ibid., p. 298. While the Palestinian Talmud has eighteen benedictions, the Babylonian has nineteen. It reads: ‘Bring peace, goodness and blessing, grace, favor and mercy over us and over all Israel, thy people’. The dating of the contents of both Talmudic texts continues to be the focus of scholarly investigation. 102. White, ‘Apostolic Message’, pp. 151–2. 103. Ibid., p. 153. 104. Ibid. White is aware that Galatians lacks a formal ‘thanksgiving’. The section he would identify as a replacement of the thanksgiving is 1.6-10, which contains the ironic rebuke. Thus, the ‘means of achieving spiritual welfare’ in Galatians would be the combination of 1.6-10 and 6.11-16. At a later point within the article, White suggests a functional correspondence between Gal 1.1-5 and 6.1618; and between 1.6-10 and 6.11-15 (the location of 6.16 in the former of the two 1

34

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

as a convention appropriate to the closing of the letter body, rather than as a part of the letter closing. The ¿nal feature Longenecker identi¿es in the passage supporting its identi¿cation as the letter closing is a section of ‘concluding exhortations’.105 This section, 6.12-15 according to Longenecker, ‘either summarizes brieÀy the central matters discussed within the body of the letter… or has to do with further relations within the community addressed’.106 First off, this is a fairly broad spectrum of possibilities for something con¿dently identi¿ed as a ‘feature’.107 Is it enough to identify ‘closing thoughts of some kind’ as an identi¿able feature of a Pauline letter closing? Second, there is quite a bit of difference between the tone, substance, and signi¿cance of 6.12-15 with respect to Galatians, and 16.13-18 with respect to the rest of 1 Corinthians. The crucial subject matter conveyed by Paul in Gal. 6.12-15 is central to the interpretation of the entire letter, and is expressed in an appropriately urgent tone. However, in the Corinthian passage we ¿nd material that is not central to the message of the letter. Neither is the tone of this passage like what we ¿nd in Galatians. In addition, the parallels Longenecker cites for Gal. 6.12-15 may not all be placed in the letter closings of the documents in which they are found.108 Longenecker has provided an in-depth look at 6.11-18 in terms of identifying conventional ‘features’ of a Pauline ‘subscription’. And, though his analysis is necessarily brief (owing to its occurrence in the midst of a full-length commentary), it does give some indication of the types of material found in the passage, and how it may function toward the close of Galatians. And, in spite of the fact that we should not identify 6.11-18 as a ‘subscription’ or ‘letter closing’, Longenecker has served to advance our discussion by paving the way for our next commentator.

correspondences being the peculiarity [p. 157]). Through private correspondence, Dr. White explained to me his contention that 6.16 begins the epistolary closing because ‘the breakdown in communication with the Galatian churches caused Paul to place the peace wish in such an emphatic, ¿nal position’ (via email, August 8, 2005). 105. Longenecker, Galatians, p. 288. 106. Ibid. 107. One dif¿culty lies in trying to understand what Longenecker means by ‘feature’. Does he mean epistolary form/formula or a less-technical thematic element? 108. Consider Phil. 4.8-19, for example. In addition, Longenecker supplies 2 Cor. 13.11a; Rom. 16.17-19; and 1 Thess. 5.27 among the other undisputed letters. 1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

35

d. Jeffrey A. D. Weima The most detailed discussion of the ‘endings’ of the Pauline letters was published by Jeffrey A. D. Weima in 1994.109 Weima’s work is a revision of his Ph.D. dissertation, written under the tutelage of Longenecker, himself. The two men do in fact share a common understanding of 6.1118 as the letter closing of Galatians. In Neglected Endings, Weima advances the argument as part of his examination of the letter closings of all seven undisputed Pauline letters, plus 2 Thessalonians. Weima’s study has two primary purposes: (1) to determine the extent to which the closing conventions in Paul’s letters echo and recapitulate the main points previously taken up in their respective bodies; and (2) to demonstrate how the letter closings provide interpretive clues for a richer understanding of their respective letters.110 To accomplish this, Weima ¿rst identi¿es the ‘closing conventions’ he ¿nds in ancient Hellenistic and Semitic epistolary traditions.111 The conventions Weima identi¿es are in the main the same as those that have been advanced by others conducting similar investigations, though Weima is able to add the study of papyrus letters published only recently to their work.112 The study of Hellenistic and Semitic traditions leads to the identi¿cation of corresponding closing conventions in Paul’s letters, which include: (1) the grace benediction; (2) the peace benediction; (3) the greeting (a sub-category of which includes the greeting with the holy kiss); (4) the autograph; (5) the doxology; (6) the hortatory section; and (7) a ¿nal grouping identi¿ed as ‘miscellaneous conventions’.113 109. Weima, Neglected Endings. 110. Ibid., p. 23. It is important to note that one of Weima’s purposes is not to determine the extent or makeup of the letter closings themselves – only to assess the function and interpretive signi¿cance of the closings he presumes. 111. Ibid., p. 28. Hellenistic letters are examined in the second chapter of the book (pp. 28–56) and Semitic letters in the third (pp. 57–76). 112. E.g., with respect to Hellenistic closing conventions, F. Ziemann, De Epistularum Graecarum Formulis sollemnibus Quaestiones selectae (Berlin: Haas, 1912); F. X. J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1923); Koskenniemi, Studien; White, Body; idem, Light; and, Gamble, Textual History. On Semitic conventions see, for example, J. A. Fitzmeyer, ‘Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography’, JBL 93 (1974), pp. 201–25; D. Pardee, ‘An Overview of Ancient Hebrew Epistolography’, JBL 97 (1978), pp. 321–46; and I. Taatz, Frühjüdische Brief: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der of¿ziellen religiösen Briefe des Früjudentums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). 113. This is the content of the substantial fourth chapter of Weima’s, Neglected Endings (pp. 77–155). The miscellaneous conventions are discussed on pp.148–52, and include the ‘joy expression’, ‘letter of commendation’, and the ‘postscript’. 1

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

36

Finally, Weima works thorough the letter closings of eight epistles bearing Paul’s name to assess the hermeneutical signi¿cance of these sections. It is as a part of this ¿nal chapter of his book that Weima analyzes Gal. 6.11-18 in detail in order to understand its function in the letter, and its interpretive value as a letter closing.114 Weima identi¿es 6.11-18 as the letter closing, and argues that ‘the transition from the body of Galatians to its closing is clearly indicated by Paul’s autograph statement of 6.11’.115 For Weima, the ‘autograph statement’ begins with an ‘autograph formula’, which he identi¿es as the phrase Ìĉ ëÄĉ ϼÀÉţ. Paul employs this phrase three times in the undisputed letters (1 Cor. 16.21; Gal. 6.11; Phlm. 19), and it occurs twice more in the disputed Paulines (2 Thess. 3.17; Col. 4.18).116 1 Cor. 16.21 Gal. 6.11 Phlm. 19

ĝ ÒÊȸÊÄŦË Ìĉ ëÄĉ ϼÀÉĖ ¸ŧÂÇÍ. a»¼Ì¼ ȾÂţÁÇÀË ĨÄėÅ ºÉŠÄĸÊÀÅ ìºÉ¸Ð¸ Ìĉ ëÄĉ ϼÀÉţ. ëºĽ ¸ıÂÇË ìºÉ¸Ð¸ Ìĉ ëÄĉ ϼÀÉţ, ëºĽ ÒÈÇÌţÊÑ.

2 Thess. 3.17

ÒÊȸÊÄŦË Ìĉ ëÄĉ ϼÀÉĖ ¸ŧÂÇÍ, Ğ ëÊÌÀŠʾļėÇÅ ëÅ ÈŠÊþ ëÈÀÊÌÇÂĉ, ÇĪÌÑË ºÉŠÎÑ. ÒÊȸÊÄŦË Ìĉ ëÄĉ ϼÀÉĖ ¸ŧÂÇÍ

Col. 4.18

Apart from these three words, as Weima acknowledges, ‘Paul exhibits a degree of Àexibility in the manner in which he indicates to his readers that he has begun writing himself rather than his secretary’.117 And, although parallels are infrequent in comparative material, Weima is convinced that the occurrence of the phrase in ¿ve Pauline texts is suf¿cient to classify it as a closing convention.118 Thus, the ‘autograph statement’ contains the ‘autograph formula’, and whatever other material the author then writes in his own hand, which in this case would include the rest of the letter (6.12-18). Following the autograph formula in 6.11, Weima argues that Paul includes a number of additional ‘autograph statements’ in 6.12-16, the purpose of which is to ‘summarize the primary concerns addressed earlier in the letter’.119 As to how these statements relate to the conventions 114. Ibid., pp. 157–74. 115. Ibid., p. 157. 116. Weima considers 2 Thessalonians an authentic letter, while he remains neutral on Colossians. 117. Ibid., pp. 118–19. 118. Ibid., p. 119. Weima admits the lack of parallels here, which reÀects the fact that ‘Greco-Roman letters rarely speak of a change of hand, for such a shift would have been obvious to the reader’. The importance of this evidence will be discussed more fully below. 119. Ibid., pp. 134, 158. By ‘autograph statements’ here, Weima simply means that they are statements written by Paul himself, rather than by an amanuensis. 1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

37

normally located in the letter closing, Weima is not particularly clear. As in 6.11, Weima thinks that that the link between these verses and a typical letter closing would be the fact that they are written in Paul’s own hand. Weima identi¿es Gal. 6.16 as a ‘peace benediction’, though he admits that among the other peace wishes in Paul’s letters, this one ‘deviates most from the standard form’.120 Weima argues that in the typical structure of a Pauline letter closing, the peace wish would be the ¿rst element, followed by a ‘hortatory section’, ‘greetings’, and the ‘grace benediction’.121 But, in Galatians, he argues that a hortatory section precedes the peace benediction, which is an acceptable alternate pattern based on the structure evidenced in 2 Cor. 13.11 and Phil. 4.9.122 For Weima, 6.17 constitutes a ‘hortatory section’, which does not have an essential form, but contains ‘ad hoc creations of the apostle’ designed to communicate ¿nal commands and exhortations.123 This element of the letter closing is de¿ned simply by the presence of the imperative mood in some verbal form, or a corresponding verb of entreaty that ‘expresses the imperative tone of Paul’s words’.124 At times, the closing commands seem to have little relevance to the epistolary situation, whereas at other times, they are directly related to the concerns addressed previously in the body.125 In this case, Weima argues that Paul’s closing exhortation is related to the body of Galatians since ‘it has a caustic tone and so serves as both a defense of Paul and a challenge to his opponents’.126 This ‘hortatory section’ is then followed by a ‘grace benediction’ (6.18), which is the ¿nal element in all of Paul’s letters, with the exception of 120. Ibid., p. 96. In fact, the differences are so substantial that it is dif¿cult to see any resemblance between this conditional peace wish and Paul’s other peace formulas, except for the presence of the word ¼ĊÉŢž. 121. Ibid., p. 154. 122. Ibid. He further argues that the presence this hortatory material is the reason that the peace benedictions in these three alternate form passages begin with the conjunction Á¸ţ, rather than »š. This description has become problematic because in his discussion of vv. 12-15, Weima does not indicate that these verses constitute ‘hortatory material’, though he implies that they do here. To complicate the analysis further, he will refer to 6.17 as the ‘hortatory section’ (pp. 145–8, 158–9). This highlights the uncertainty surrounding the concept of ‘hortatory material’, and whether it should appear before or after a peace wish, or both. 123. Ibid., p. 145. 124. Ibid. Common verbs of entreaty in these sections would be, for example, ȸɸÁ¸ÂšÑ (Rom. 16.17; 1 Cor. 16.15) and ëÅÇÉÁţ½Ñ (1 Thess. 5.27). 125. Ibid., pp. 145, 147. 126. Ibid., p. 159. 1

38

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

1 Corinthians, where Paul does add a postscript to convey his love to the recipients (16.24).127 Weima’s study has done much to highlight the signi¿cance of the Pauline ‘endings’ and – of particular interest to us – to wrestle with the uniqueness of the conclusion to Galatians. However, there are several issues that in my view are not resolved satisfactorily in his book. The ¿rst involves the basic need to articulate the criteria for identifying, or determining the extent of, a letter closing. The second involves the meaning and identi¿cation of three speci¿c ‘closing conventions’ in Weima’s research: the autograph, the peace benediction, and the hortatory section. The third and ¿nal issue involves the question of whether the material in 6.11-17 actually makes sense as reÀecting such closing conventions. With respect to the need to articulate criteria for de¿ning the letter closing, it is somewhat surprising that in a monograph devoted to exactly this section of Paul’s letters, there is no discussion of exactly what constitutes a letter closing. While it is true that Weima spends a great deal of time discussing ‘conventions’ found in letter closings, it is also true that he does not specify exactly why the letter closings have been de¿ned the way they are, and which, if any, of the conventions are determinative for the delineation of a letter closing. With reference to Galatians, Weima assumes the letter closing consists of 6.11-18 based entirely on the appearance of what he thinks is an ‘autograph formula’.128 No other structural indicators are addressed, in spite of the fact that the content of the autographic statements that follow has little in common with any known epistolary conventions. One way to highlight this problem is to refer back to Weima’s ¿rst purpose in writing: ‘to determine the extent to which the closing conventions in Paul’s letters echo and recapitulate the main points previously taken up in their respective bodies’.129 I would argue that there is a step missing here, and that is to determine the extent of the Pauline closing itself based upon a grouping of criteria. There is, then, a need for greater precision with respect to the logic involved in identifying Pauline letter closings.

127. The notoriously dif¿cult ending to Romans may also offer another example where the grace wish does not conclude the letter. Serious textual complications make it dif¿cult to determine whether the letter originally closed at 15.33; 16.20, 24 or 27. For a full discussion of the problem, see Gamble, Textual History, pp. 15–35, 84–126. 128. Weima, Neglected Endings, p. 157. 129. Ibid., p. 23.

1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

39

A second criticism I ¿nd with the work is that at least three of Weima’s closing conventions are of questionable value: the autograph, the peace benediction, and the hortatory section. The heart of the problem here is an inconsistent use of the concept of an epistolary ‘convention’. Since Exler130 and Koskenniemi,131 and perhaps more inÀuentially for Pauline studies, through John White,132 a reference to an epistolary ‘convention’ has signi¿ed the speci¿c phrases or formulas commonly repeated within ancient letters. These authors maintained that epistolary conventions consist of combinations of speci¿c words in the text that are repeated in the same, or a similar, way in other letters of the documentary tradition. Essentially, epistolary conventions are particular expressions of language that could be counted on to reveal something about the structure and inner-logic of a letter. And, while Weima does seem to use the idea of conventions this way,133 it is also clear that he expands the application of the term in his study by identifying the autograph and the hortatory section as closing conventions. With respect to what Weima describes as the ‘autograph formula’, it must be said that autograph statements like the one Paul uses in 6.11 are not epistolary conventions in the documentary letter tradition. This is due to the fact that readers of a personal letter in the ancient world would have had a visual clue as to where the ¿rst hand left off writing and the second hand began writing. Thus, an ‘autograph formula’ was unnecessary for very practical reasons. And, although it may have been common for an author to close a letter in his own hand, it is certainly not possible on this basis to attribute Paul’s phrase Ìÿ ëÄĉ ϼÀÉţ to any pre-existing epistolary convention. Whether two hands were commonly used in the composition of an ancient letter is a valid question. However, it is not the same as whether a reference to a second hand within the text of a letter constitutes an epistolary convention, and thereby helps to signal the onset of the letter closing. In fact, out of the three occurrences of this autograph formula in the undisputed letters, I will argue in the following chapter that two of them occur not in the letter closing, but in the letter body. Thus, Weima’s identi¿cation of the autograph as a closing epistolary convention seems unwarranted. Furthermore, Weima’s conviction that ‘the transition from the body of Galatians to its closing is clearly indicated by Paul’s autograph statement of 6.11’ seems overcon¿dent.134 130. Exler, Ancient Greek Letter. 131. Koskenniemi, Studien. 132. White, Body. 133. See, for instance, his detailed examination of the various linguistic combinations in Paul’s closing greeting formulas in Neglected Endings, pp. 104–17. 134. Ibid., p. 157. 1

40

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

We encounter the same problem when we attempt to identify the ‘hortatory section’ as an epistolary convention.135 While exhortation may occur as a thematic or rhetorical/stylistic element of a letter closing, this is not the same as saying that there is a particular formula, or linguistic combination, that can be identi¿ed based on a pattern of its usage in the documentary papyri. The reason this becomes important in the case of Galatians is that the placement of 6.17 and 6.12-15 in the letter closing are both dependent upon Weima’s identi¿cation of them as hortatory materials. The dif¿culty with this assessment was hinted at above, and can be stated more fully here. Whereas 6.17 actually contains an imperative, it functions less as exhortation and more as a warning. And, whereas 6.12-15 may contain an implied imperative (there is no imperative verbal construction in this passage), it is certainly much more than this. It contains material that not only encourages speci¿c perceptions and values, but explains the rationale for them, and for other material within the letter as a whole. As such, the identi¿cation of a section based primarily on a thematic or rhetorical element is not the same as identifying an epistolary convention that is common to the letter closing in the common letter tradition. And, because Weima depends on this for part of his identi¿cation of the letter closing of Galatians, it works against the strength of his analysis. Finally, with respect to the ‘peace benediction’, it must be said that there is a danger here of blending any Pauline reference to ¼ĊÉŢž that occurs somewhere toward the end of the letter, with what most scholars identify as his replacement of the health wish that serves as a convention in common Greek letters. The very nature of the Pauline expression as a ‘closing convention’ has already been challenged by those who assign this wish for well-being to the close of the letter-body.136 In addition to this caution is Weima’s own recognition that ‘this closing convention is not nearly as frequent nor as tightly structured as the grace benediction’.137 In Weima’s illustration of occurrences of the peace wish, apart from Gal. 6.16, he includes only ¿ve others among the undisputed letters, two of which are in the same letter (Rom. 15.33; 16.20), and one of which is Phil. 4.9 – a location that should not be assigned to the formal letter closing of that epistle. This leaves very scant evidence indeed for constructing a closing convention based around a peace wish.138 135. Ibid., pp. 145–8. 136. E.g. Exler, Ancient Greek Letter, pp. 101–13; White, ‘Apostolic Mission and Apostolic Message’, pp. 151–3. 137. Weima, Neglected Endings, p. 88. 138. This leaves 1 Thess. 5.23 and 2 Cor. 13.11 as the only other expressions of the ‘peace benediction’ (p. 89).

1

2. On the Interpretive Trail

41

Even if the peace wish were accepted as a closing convention, there is still the matter of whether Gal. 6.16 can be included as a variant of this formula. The following table illustrates the difference between Gal. 6.16 and the other peace benedictions identi¿ed by Weima. Table 1. Peace Wish Formulas in Paul’s Letters Reference

Intro.

Rom. 15.33 Rom. 16.20a 2 Cor. 13.11

ĝ »ò ĝ »ò Á¸Ė

Divine Source

Wish

Recipients

¿¼ġË ÌýË ¼ĊÉüÅ¾Ë Ä¼ÌÛ ÈŠÅÌÑÅ ĨÄľÅ ¿¼ġË ÌýË ¼ĊÉüÅ¾Ë ĝ ¿¼ġË ÌýË ÒºŠÈ¾Ë Á¸Ė ìÊ̸À ļ¿Џ ĨÄľÅ ¼ĊÉŢÅ¾Ë Phil. 4.9b Á¸Ė ĝ ¿¼ġË ÌýË ¼ĊÉüÅ¾Ë ìÊ̸À ļ¿Џ ĨÄľÅ 1 Thess. 5.23 ¸ĤÌŦË »ò ĝ ¿¼ġË ÌýË ¼ĊÉüÅ¾Ë Gal. 6.16 Á¸Ė ĞÊÇÀ ÌŊ Á¸ÅŦÅÀ ÌÇŧÌŊ ÊÌÇÀÏŢÊÇÍÊÀÅ ¼ĊÉŢž ëÈЏ¸ĤÌÇŧË Á¸Ė ìüÇË Á¸Ė ëÈĖ ÌġÅ `Êɸü ÌÇı ¿¼Çı

As is illustrated above, the only element this conditional wish/prayer for peace and mercy shares with other expressions of the peace wish is the word ¼ĊÉŢž, and even this does not function in the same way that it does in other peace wishes. Here, it is actually the content of the conditional wish (together with ì¼ÇË), whereas in the other formulas it is a genitive modi¿er of ¿¼ŦË, who Paul wishes/prays will be ‘with you’ (Rom. 15.33; 2 Cor. 13.11; Phil. 4.9), or will accomplish some other purpose on behalf of the recipients (Rom. 16.20; 1 Thess. 5.23). This means that every one of the elements Weima identi¿es as integral to the peace benediction form are either missing, or signi¿cantly different in Gal. 6.16. As a result, the inclusion of this sentence among others in the peace wish convention must be doubted. These two objections to Weima’s conclusions bring us to a ¿nal suggestion: perhaps Gal. 6.11-17 should not be included in an analysis of Paul’s letter closings at all. The structure and content of this passage do not ¿t neatly into the conventional categories Weima identi¿es, which leads to his identi¿cation of every one of its elements as in some way unique. He says that ‘every one of the closing conventions of 6.11-18 appears to have been adapted and reshaped to echo better the major tensions and essential concerns expressed throughout the letter’.139 At no point, however, does the anomalous character of the passage cause Weima to consider whether 6.11-17 in particular simply does not contain

1

139.

Weima, Neglected Endings, p. 160.

42

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

closing conventions. In the chapter that follows I will present the merits of understanding the passage not as a letter closing, but as a closing to the letter body. 3. Chapter Summary This review of scholarly contributions has traced the development of an understanding of the epistolary structure of Galatians, and in particular, the epistolary form and function of 6.11-17. It has been my purpose to demonstrate the major contributions to the discussion, and to identify their strengths and weaknesses. And, while there have been notable contributions in the positive sense, several issues remain that must be dealt with in order to identify more adequately the crucial contribution of the passage. In the ¿rst place, we have seen inconsistent terminology used with reference to this concluding paragraph. Among other things, it has been referred to as a ‘postscript’ (Betz), a ‘subscription’ (Bahr, Hansen, Longenecker), an ‘autobiographic epilogue’ (Dahl), and a letter closing (Weima). Part of the problem here has been the inÀuence of a model that is not appropriate to the common letter tradition (e.g. ‘subscription’), and the imprecise use of terms that are found within that tradition (e.g. ‘postscript’). Second, we have seen numerous dif¿culties surrounding the nature, purpose and signi¿cance of epistolary conventions in the common letter tradition, and how such conventions are related to the modi¿ed conventions present in Paul’s letters. And, third, with relation to Gal. 6.11-17, we face a lingering vagueness about the identi¿cation of the criteria that correctly signal the transition between body-closing and the letter closing in common letters, and in the Pauline letters. This review has been undertaken with a view to preparing the way for a hypothesis that makes better sense of the passage – a hypothesis that understands the form and function of Gal. 6.11-17 not in terms of an epistolary closing, but in terms of a closing to the letter body. In keeping with this overall purpose, the next step will be to execute an epistolary analysis of the passage that successfully deals with the issues that have proved to be obstacles up until this point. To do this, I will introduce evidence to substantiate the argument that Gal. 6.11-17 is not the letter closing, but rather, the closing to the letter body, which not only recalls the substance of Paul’s argument, but completes it for his Galatian churches.

1

Chapter 3

THE STRATEGIC FORM AND FUNCTION OF GALATIANS 6.11-17

The preceding overview of epistolary analyses of Gal. 6.11-17 has introduced us to the interpretive landscape surrounding the passage. In the present chapter, I want to de¿ne its nature and function in a way that makes most sense of its location within the letter and its contribution to Paul’s argument. Speci¿cally, I will argue that this paragraph should be understood as the closing to the letter body of Galatians, and not as the letter closing. I will support this proposal by clarifying how both of these letter segments are identi¿ed, and how they function in the Greek common letter tradition as well as in Paul’s letters. Our discussion will begin with a brief word about the genre and structure of Galatians. Then, I will present evidence that challenges the notion that Gal. 6.11-17 is a part of the letter closing (together with 6.18). Finally, I will argue that the shape and purpose of the passage suggest that it be understood as the closing to the letter body, which both recalls the heart of Paul’s message to the Galatians and completes it by describing Paul’s de¿nitive convictions on the matters involved. 1. The Epistolary Genre and Structure of Galatians John White’s conviction that ‘the common [documentary] letter tradition…is the primary literary Gattung to which the Pauline letters belong’ is the presupposition of this book with respect to the genre of Galatians.1 To be sure, Paul’s letters differ from the papyrus letters with respect to their length, rhetorical style, and essentially theological subject matter. But this in no way diminishes the similarities Paul’s letters share with common letters, especially with reference to their openings and closings. The relationship between Paul’s letters and ‘of¿cial letters’ may also be a helpful one for understanding Galatians, since he writes as one claiming 1. White, Body, p. xii.

44

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

an authoritative status among these communities.2 But this genre is also unable to explain fully all the facets of the letter’s occasion, production and delivery – especially the intensely personal nature of the letter. With reference to the ancient conception of epistolary types, Nils Dahl seems to be correct when he says that ‘none of Paul’s letters is a pure example of a speci¿c type’.3 In fact, the most helpful way to view Galatians is probably as a mixture of a few key types, including the ironic, reproaching/rebuking, apologetic and requesting types. Dahl thinks of Galatians as a mixed type containing ‘remarkable af¿nities with…the “ironic letter” and the “letter of reproach” ’.4 Hans Dieter Betz attempts to de¿ne Galatians as an ‘apologetic letter’.5 G. Walter Hansen and Richard Longenecker use the terminology of ‘rebuke and request’.6 More recently, Mark Nanos introduced the combination of ‘ironic rebuke’ to describe the epistolary type of Galatians.7 For our purposes, it is suf¿cient to say that these ÌŧÈÇÀ have likely inÀuenced the genre of Galatians, though it is the interplay between them that is responsible for the unique shape and tone of the letter. Stanley Stowers notes that each epistolary type says something signi¿cant about the kinds of social interaction that Paul envisions as taking place between the Galatian congregations and himself.8 In a letter as complex as Galatians, then, it should not be a surprise to see Paul engaging his readers in various ways, hoping to accomplish several objectives through a single text. In terms of the occasion of the letter, the position taken here is that Galatians is a ‘real’ letter, composed by Paul by means of an amanuensis (except for 6.11-18).9 It is a personal letter in that the existence of a vital relationship between the sender and the recipients is reÀected 2. For a detailed examination of Paul’s letter-writing strategy in light of the ‘of¿cial letter’ tradition, see Stirewalt, Letter Writer. 3. Ibid., p. 11. 4. Ibid. 5. Betz, ‘Literary Composition’, p. 353. 6. For Hansen, see Abraham, p. 25; for Longenecker, see Galatians, pp. cv–cix. 7. Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), pp. 32–49. 8. Stanley K. Stowers, ‘Social Typi¿cation and the Classi¿cation of Ancient Letters’, in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (ed. Jacob Neusner et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), pp. 78–90. 9. No further speculation on the way the amanuensis composed the majority of the letter will be discussed here. In that respect, see, e.g., E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005); and idem, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (WUNT 2/42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). 1

3. The Strategic Form and Function of Galatians

45

throughout (e.g. 4.12-20).10 It is ‘private’ in the sense that it is meant speci¿cally for the recipients identi¿ed by Paul in 1.2 (̸ėË ëÁÁ¾Êţ¸ÀË ÌýË ¸Â¸Ìţ¸Ë); but not in the sense that it is restricted to a single recipient.11 In fact, Galatians was written to an unde¿ned number of congregations, which makes it impossible for all the recipients to be identi¿ed with certainty.12 This does not mean, however, that the number of congregations was unde¿ned in Paul’s mind, which is what restricts us from identifying Galatians as a ‘public’ letter, or an ‘epistle’ written exclusively for literary purposes. It is possible to see Galatians as a ‘circular’ or ‘encyclical’ letter that was to be transferred from congregation to congregation throughout Galatia.13 It is also possible, though perhaps not likely, that multiple copies were made, and delivered directly to each congregation Paul desired.14 In terms of epistolary structure, it is not my intention to survey the many ways Galatians has been partitioned here. I do, however, want to point out that in spite of the distinct perspectives held by scholars with respect to the overall framework of the letter, they all hold the same basic conviction regarding the form and function of Gal. 6.11-18. They treat the paragraph as the formal letter closing, though they refer to it as a ‘subscript’,15 ‘subscription’,16 an ‘autographic subscription’,17 or, an ‘autographic epilogue/conclusion’,18 In other words, though their terminology is diverse, their understanding of the shape and purpose of 6.11-18 is not.19 10. Dahl calls it the ‘most personal of Paul’s letters’ next to 2 Corinthians, in ‘Paul’s Letter’, p. 7. 11. In Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), William Doty notes that ‘Paul’s letters were intended for public use within the religious gatherings’ (p. 25). 12. There is also the long-standing question of whether the letter should be understood on the basis of the North or South Galatian theory. 13. So, Dahl, ‘Paul’s Letter’, p. 7. That Col. 4.16 contains instructions for an exchange of letters may suggest this possibility. 14. While it is true that authors were known to make copies of their letters, it was rarely for the purpose of distributing them to multiple locations. For more on this, see Richards, First-Century Letter Writing, pp. 156–70; and Harry Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 82–107 15. Ibid., p. 27. 16. E.g., Longenecker, Galatians, p. viii. 17. Hansen, Abraham, p. 54. 18. Dahl, ‘Paul’s Letter’, pp. 96–7. 19. Interestingly, in Galatians: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), Martinus de Boer suggests that 6.11-17 might be considered to be a 1

46

Cruci¿xion and New Creation

I want to offer here two summary insights that will assist in our discussion of the epistolary form and function of 6.11-17: (1) there is no consensus as to the overarching structure of the letter; and (2) there is a basic consensus as to the form and function of 6.11-18. And, while the macrostructure described in the previous chapter as outlined by Dahl, and built upon by Hansen and Longenecker, is preferred by this author, it is by no means the determining factor for the treatment of 6.11-17 in what follows. Rather, it will be seen that on the one hand, understanding Galatians as a letter of rebuke and request has certain advantages in explaining the content of these verses and the resulting brevity of the formal letter closing (6.18). On the other hand, the analysis of the epistolary form and function of 6.11-17 will stand on its own, regardless of whether the ¿rst occurrence of the imperative in 4.12 is interpreted as a structural key. 2. Challenging the Identi¿cation of Galatians 6.11-17 as a Letter Closing We turn now to the question of the epistolary form and function of Gal. 6.11-17. It is evident that the nature of the passage as a part of the letter closing has been assumed by the majority of scholars. I aim to demonstrate, however, that on the basis of an exploration of the conceptual background of letter closings, and on the basis of the actual formulas employed in such closings in the common letter tradition and in Paul’s letters, the identi¿cation of Gal. 6.11-17 as a letter closing must be rejected. Before we begin this discussion, a brief comment is necessary here concerning the varied and sometimes confusing terminology that has been employed to discuss the concluding letter segment. Here, the terminology suggested by F.X.J. Exler20 and modi¿ed by John White21 will be employed. Speci¿cally, I will refer to the letter as having three basic parts: the letter opening, letter body and letter closing. Within the letter body, also as suggested by White, I will refer to three subsections: the body-opening, body-middle and body-closing. The phrase ‘closing to the letter body’ is used as an equivalent for the body-closing on occasion part of either the body-closing or the closing to the letter body (p. 12). In the end, however, he identi¿es it as part of the ‘epistolary closing’, and emphasizes its function as a ‘recapitulation’ of Paul’s rebuke against the agitators and of his gospel message (p. 12). 20. Exler, Greek Epistolography, p. 13. 21. White, Body, p. 1. 1

3. The Strategic Form and Function of Galatians

47

for aesthetic reasons. And, though every effort will be made to keep my usage as consistent as possible, it is not possible to standardize the expressions of the scholars that will be cited throughout the following discussion. Although the scholars mentioned in this chapter all think of Gal. 6.11-18 as the letter closing, they do not all employ this terminology in order to communicate this conviction. Indeed, only Weima employs the phrase ‘letter closing’ in his analysis of the passage.22 Suf¿ce it to say that ‘letter closing’ is the best terminology for epistolary analysis of Galatians. We have already seen in the previous chapter how the misapplication of a formal aspect of an ancient contract (ĝÄÇÂǺţ¸) has resulted in the use of the term ‘subscription’ in analyses of Paul’s letters.23 It should also be noted here that a ‘postscript’ is a legitimate epistolary convention; however, it is employed as a rule following the farewell wish.24 Since the farewell wish in Galatians is found at 6.18, it should be understood that Gal. 6.11-17/18 cannot then be a formal ‘postscript’. The use of the term ‘epilogue’ is borrowed from the study of rhetoric, where it refers to the closing section of a speech.25 Because the common letter tradition provides the primary backdrop for our analysis of Galatians, the use of the term ‘epilogue’ proves not to be analogous. Other terms will be identi¿ed and explained whenever necessary in the following discussion. For now, we turn our attention to the objective of distinguishing 6.11-17 from a typical letter closing in the documentary tradition. a. The Letter Closing in the Common Letter Tradition The place to start this discussion is with a question: What is a letter closing? Pseudo-Libanius suggests that the letter is ‘a kind of written conversation with someone from whom one is separated, and it ful¿lls a de¿nite need. One will speak in it as though one were in the company of the absent person.’26 This would suggest that the closing to a letter 22. Weima, Neglected Endings, passim. 23. See pp. 22–6 above. 24. Weima, Neglected Endings, pp. 52–5, and Gamble, Textual History, p. 64. 25. The term seems to originate with Aristotle, who de¿ned the ëÈÀÂŦºÇË as the concluding part of the speech in Rhet. 3.13, 19. Examples of sections within speeches the authors themselves identify as epilogues include Aristides, Or. 23.80; Isocrates, Or. 5.154; and Demosthenes, Or. 3.36; 2.31 as indicated by Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 444. 26.