Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis 9780567661227, 9780567031273

Citation preview

L  F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

�e ‘implicit premiss’ reconstruction of . An example of a standard syllogism .b–d: Part /, circumcision not required .b–d: Part /, works of the law not required .a–c (& .–): No other gospel .a–c: �e Galatians’ foolishness .a–b: Nullification of experiences �e text of .– Hansen’s understanding of .– .a–b: Abraham’s faith .a–: Part /, the Gentiles’ faith .a–: Part /, the Gentiles are Abraham’s sons .a–: �e blessing of Abraham, part / .a–: �e blessing of Abraham, part / Young’s understanding of .a–b .a–b: �e Christian and the curse of the law, part / .a–b: �e Christian and the curse of the law, part / �e fallacy in . .a–b: No one is justified by the law .a–b: Works versus faith, part / .a–b: Works versus faith, part / .a–c: �e curse and Christ, part / .a–b: �e curse and Christ, part / .b–d & .a–c: A covenant cannot be annulled .a–c: �e covenant is superior to the law .b–b: �e gospel versus the law .–a: �e law and the gospel .–: �e law until faith .–: Christians are sons of God .–d: Christians are equal .d–b: Abraham’s offspring and heirs .a–: Heirs as minors .a–b: Gentiles as heirs .a–b: Heirs to the promise .–c: Slavery under the spirits vii

                                  

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

viii . . . . . . .

.–: �e Galatians’ goodwill .–: Ishmael ‘according to the flesh’ .–: Isaac ‘through the promise’ .–: Children of the promise .–: No circumcision .–: Not under God’s influence .: Not preaching circumcision

      

L  T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A thematic low-level structure of Galatians �e structure of Galatians �e epistolographical structure of a Pauline letter Differences between informal logic and the PD approach �e distribution of speech acts Rules for a critical discussion Four points for an analytic overview Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– Standpoints and premisses in .– Summary of the argument in .– �e dialogic flow in Galatians Recollection of the principal arguments Result: the principal argument and sub-arguments Summary of all analysed arguments Statistics of arguments

ix

                               

A AnBib AB Argum BNTC CBQ ConBNT CRBS DS ExpTim EmSEC FRLANT Herm HNT HTKNT IL JAFA JBL JSNT JSNTSup JSRCNT LCL LNTS MeyerK Neot NovT NovTSup NTD NTOA NTS NTTS PBCS PBNS

Analecta Biblica Anchor Bible Argumentation – An International Journal on Reasoning Black’s New Testament Commentaries Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Discourse Studies Expository Times Emory Studies in Early Christianity Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Informal Logic – Reasoning and Argumentation in �eory and Practice Journal of the American Forensic Association Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament �e Loeb Classical Library Library of New Testament Studies, until : JSNTSup H. A. W. Meyer (ed.), Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Neotestamentica Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements Das Neue Testament Deutsch, Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies Pragmatics & Beyond, Companion Series Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series xi

xii PDA SBLDS SBLSBS SBLSP Sic Sat SNTSMS THKNT TLZ WBC WUNT ZNW

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Stichting Internationaal Centrum voor de Studie van Argumentatie en Taalbeheersing Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series �eologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament �eologische Literaturzeitung Word Biblical Commentary Wissenscha�liche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschri� für die neutestamentliche Wissenscha� und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

P Although Paul’s argumentation in Galatians has been analysed by so many and with such fervour, there is a need to return to the text again and again with new insight and new methods. Some years ago I was impressed by the perspective on biblical texts provided by analyses based on classical rhetoric. Later I found that not only the persuasive dimension but also the dialectical one needs to be analysed. Although the logos element of an argumentation is important for the rhetorical impact, rhetorical analyses typically focus on ethos and pathos, leaving the quality of the arguments per se superficially analysed. I found Stephen Toulmin’s method useful for a description of the layout of Paul’s argumentation,¹ but I wanted to be able to perform a more comprehensive analysis and one that would include a normative evaluation also. �ere seems to be some reluctance among exegetes to use normative approaches. Paul, it is said, needs to be understood in his own terms. �is is true, but how can we give a precise description of his argumentation if we do not have a clear understanding of what it is exactly that we need to analyse and what can go wrong in an argumentation? Neither formal logic, nor the traditional list of fallacies are sufficient tools in this respect. A pragma-dialectical analysis shows how the arguments in Paul’s argumentation are built up, why his argumentation is problematic at points, and how he manoeuvres strategically to persuade the Galatians. Considering the amount of research published on Paul’s rhetoric, it is high time to undertake research that explains his arguments precisely. An argumentation analysis brings us closer to understanding a conspicuous feature of Paul’s ministry. �e nature of early Christian argumentation is yet to be fully explored. No method, however sophisticated, does away with the intuitive element in textual interpretation. However, a clear framework for the analysis helps the analyst focus on those features which are relevant. In this respect the pragmadialectical method is truly helpful: it adds precision to the analysis. Features that have previously been intuitively grasped can now be described more accurately with the sophisticated instruments of a modern method. For sure, the biggest challenge in analyses of this type, the externalization of the arguments for analysis, is still present. Fortunately, due to the transparency of the method, it is easy for . Mika Hietanen, ‘Profetian är primärt inte för de otrogna – en argumentationsanalys av  Kor :b’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok  (), pp. –.

xiii

xiv

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

fellow researchers to locate any disagreements and to refine the analysis of any particular argument to the level of precision needed to answer a specific question. �e other advantage is the method’s normative dimension. �is is new within New Testament exegesis. Whereas previous studies that have used Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s or Toulmin’s theories have been descriptive, pragma-dialectics includes a specific set of ten ideal norms. When these are ‘violated’ the resolution of a difference of opinion is hindered. �is decalogue for good argumentation is general in nature and adaptable for different situations. �us, for instance, the usage rule, which stipulates that the interlocutors may not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, means different things in different contexts. A formulation which is clear in a scholarly debate, for example, may be very unclear in an everyday dispute. �us the ten rules are specific only with regard to those features of an argumentation that may hinder the resolution of a dispute. Since the rules are formulated in this way, all kinds of argumentation can be analysed, both legal and political, for example, as well as everyday and religious argumentation. �is work is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation, accepted at Åbo Akademi University (Åbo/Turku, Finland) in April . I wish to thank my promotor, Professor Em. Karl-Gustav Sandelin, for his supervision as well as my reader, Professor Lauri �urén, both for his critical comments and for paving the way for using methods of rhetorical and argumentation analysis among exegetes in Finland. I am also grateful to the external examiner appointed by the faculty for my public thesis defence, Dr Dieter Mitternacht (Lund University), for his remarks. I recently had the opportunity to spend a year at the department of Speech Communication, Argumentation �eory, and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam, and to attend my second ISSA conference. �e work done in Amsterdam is an inspiration for anyone interested in argumentation and I express my sincerest gratitude to Professor Frans H. van Eemeren and Dr Peter Houtlosser who have both given valuable feedback on my research. I thank the editor of ESCO, Dr Michael Labahn, and the editorial board for accepting my thesis in this series. Mika Hietanen December,  Helsinki, Finland

Chapter 

I .

General presentation of the task

Despite the vast amount of research, there are still fundamental differences in the understanding of Paul’s argumentation. A recurring theme in the debate concerns the coherency of Paul’s thinking. Did Paul dictate his letters in the bustle and haste of his everyday engagements, never intending to be logically coherent?¹ Should we be content with, for example, the view that Paul’s overwhelming need to convince sometimes led to haphazard argumentation embedded in a religious rhetoric that intended to be persuasive despite its logical shortcomings? Or is the argumentation perhaps just as Paul intended? Besides being important for a general understanding of Pauline argumentation, these questions have a concrete bearing on the interpretation of many passages: in which cases is Paul’s argumentation perhaps faulty or incomplete, and if it is, then how and why? An understanding of the way in which Paul argues is a necessary prerequisite for a good exegesis of any Pauline argumentative passage. To achieve such an understanding requires a thorough examination which employs appropriate methods. In a sense, when any biblical text containing argumentation is analysed, an argumentation analysis is carried out. In this manner of speaking, traditional exegeses of biblical texts normally contain argumentation analyses. In fact, many traditional exegeses contain quite detailed analyses which clearly aim towards disentangling and understanding all the details of the text-content.² However, since a traditional exegesis does not include tools developed specifically for the analysis of argumentation, it cannot provide a systematic and detailed implementation on the same level as a modern argumentation analysis. . Cf. the well-known view of Adolf Deissmann, presented in Licht vom Osten at the beginning of the previous century: ‘und wenn der Handwerkermissionar von Ephesos aus mit den unverständigen Galatern reden will . . . , so diktiert er in der Hetze und Hast des täglichen Andrangs einen Brief, ein paar derbe Schlußzeilen mit seiner eigenen am Webstuhl hart und müde gewordenen Hand hinzufügend’. Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch–römischen Welt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), th edn, ), p. ; (‘and when the cra�sman-missionary based in Ephesus wants to talk with the foolish Galatians . . . , he dictates a letter in the bustle and haste of his everyday engagements, adding a few rough lines in conclusion with his own hand which at the loom has become hard and tired’). . For example, many German commentaries, e.g. Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (MeyerK, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, th edn, ).





Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Paul’s argumentation in Galatians is difficult or unclear on many points, and analyses diverge on how to interpret both the substance and the function of nearly every passage. Since different methods pose different questions and consequently give different answers, the choice of method should be guided by the interests of the analyst. Different answers need, however, not conflict with each other – it is best to see the differences as the result of the difference in perspective that the various methods entail. Although historical, semantic, grammatical, and other information is important for a correct understanding of an argumentative text, an approach that is satisfied with this type of information is not sufficient if we want to know how Paul argues, how the arguments are construed, and why some of them are problematic from the perspective of argumentation. For this task, the traditional methods do not provide us with sufficient information since such considerations are not included in these methods. Among exegetes, rhetorical analyses abound from the s onward.³ Rhetorical analyses mainly focus on practical persuasion techniques: how is a text designed in order to be as persuasive as possible?⁴ �ere are many types of this approach, but they have in common a focus on arrangement, style, rhetorical effectiveness, and, in more recent studies, invention (lat. inventio) as well.⁵ Another perspective is the dialectical one: this studies how arguments are construed and argued in view of the relationship between claims and premisses, argument schemes and argument structures, soundness and fallaciousness. �ese aspects are secondary in rhetorical analyses. Rhetorical aspects of Paul’s letter to the Galatians have been analysed thoroughly, and these analyses have increased our understanding of the letter considerably. But to the best of my knowledge there is no analysis available of Paul’s argumentation from a dialectical perspective, that uses a contemporary method. In order to understand not only the rhetorical aspect of Paul’s argumentation but also the dialectical one, I have decided to use a method designed specifically for the analysis of argumentation. �is choice stems from the observation that studies so far have not been able to analyse Paul’s argumentation satisfactorily. Using a controlled work flow, my aim is to reduce the arbitrary element that burdens many an analysis. �e difficulties involved in analysing Paul’s argumentation should drive us towards a mode of research which is thorough, methodical, and transparent to the scholarly community. In , argumentation analysis could still be presented as a part of discourse analysis,⁶ but already at that time argumentation analysis had begun to proliferate . See Duane F. Watson and Alan J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method (Biblical Interpretation Series, ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ). . Rhetoric can be defined as ‘practical persuasion techniques’; see Section . (p. ). . Cf. Anders Eriksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in  Corinthians (ConBNT, ; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, ), pp. –. . Discourse analysis itself became a discipline of its own only in the s. For an account, see

Introduction



as the independent field of research it is today. Within the field of argumentation analysis, there are different methods to choose from. However, many methods are designed for the analysis of a specific kind of discourse such as everyday argumentation, spoken argumentation, judicial argumentation, and political argumentation.⁷ Other methods are very limited in scope; some analyse from a specific point of view while others focus on some specific discourse or argumentation phenomenon.⁸ �e best-known theories of argumentation are those of Crawshay-Williams, Næss, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Toulmin, Woods and Walton, Barth, Krabbe, Anscombre and Ducrot, and Grize.⁹ For the purpose of this thesis I have chosen Van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragmadialectical method. It is one of the most comprehensive, has a well-laid theoretical foundation, and has clearly formulated criteria to facilitate an analysis that is both descriptive and normative. It incorporates both dialectic and rhetorical considerations. �e method has a firm base in advances within the discipline of argumentation analysis that has been developing since the early s. It is also a method still in active development, with new publications emerging every year. �e method has been developed in Amsterdam, by the same group of scholars who took the initiative with the important ISSA conferences and the journal Argumentation.¹⁰ Although the field of argumentation analysis, with its different schools and trends, is very heterogeneous, it is generally agreed that the PD method represents the state of the art of argumentation analysis. It has been called ‘the most important argumentation theory in the world today’.¹¹ (See Chapter  for a more thorough description.) �e PD approach provides a methodological framework and useful instruments for undertaking an argumentation analysis in order to show how Paul’s arguments are presented, how they are linked to each other and how they function within the text. It also provides a framework for understanding the argumentation in the context of a dialogue between Paul and his addressees. �e short Teun A. van Dijk, ‘Introduction: Discourse Analysis as a New Cross-Discipline’, in Van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Disciplines of Discourse, vol. i (London: Academic Press, ), pp. –. . Cf. Frans H. van Eemeren et al., Fundamentals of Argumentation �eory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ), pp. –, with bibliographical references. See also Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke and Allan Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning (New York: Macmillan Publishing, nd edn, ), pp. – for some differences between legal argumentation, argumentation in science, argumentation about the arts, argumentation about management, and ethical reasoning. . For an overview of different methods, see Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, and the four volumes of Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (London: Academic Press, ). . I refer to Van Eemeren et al., Handbook. . �e conferences arranged by �e International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ISSA, have been arranged in Amsterdam every fourth year since . In the same year the publication began of the journal Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning. . J. Anthony Blair; see Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, A Systematic �eory of Argumentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), back-cover.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

definition of argumentation as it is understood from a PD perspective is that, ‘[a]rgumentation is a verbal, social, and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward a constellation of one or more propositions to justify this standpoint’.¹² In addition, the normative component of the method allows for an evaluation of argumentation. Such an evaluation is important for understanding the argumentation as such, and in the case of Paul it is also a preliminary step in assessing what part of, to what degree, and how Paul’s argumentation is relevant today (these considerations do, however, fall outside of the scope of this thesis). �is thesis presents an examination on two levels, analysis and evaluation. �e first level is a descriptive analysis of what can be called ‘technical aspects’ of argumentation, such as structures and schemes. �is can be compared with an analysis of Paul’s grammar from a grammatical perspective. �e second level is normative: a general evaluation of the argumentation as mirrored against a set of rules for sound reasoning. Furthermore, later development of the method has incorporated rhetorical considerations – in my opinion this is a crucial addition to the method if it is to be truly useful for the analysis of a text as polemical as Galatians. Also, the use of the method in an analysis of a Pauline text requires us to include considerations which are usually not an issue with modern everyday argumentation. Epistolography, Greek, Roman and Jewish culture, Paul’s personal style and rhetoric, and ethical and religious reasoning, especially need to be considered. Certainly any analysis has to consider the letter as a whole – but Galatians contains too much material to be carefully analysed in its entirety in one volume.¹³ I will therefore concentrate the study on the heart of the letter, Gal. .–., which contains the main arguments in support of Paul’s thesis. At this point I define my task as follows: to provide a fresh analysis of the argumentation in Galatians, especially .–., to better understand the way in which Paul argues, and to evaluate the benefits of a specific argumentation analysis of a New Testament text. In the following sections I will give a brief overview of the present state of research. First I discuss Paul’s argumentation generally and then I indicate the specific problems in Gal. .–..

.

Overview of Paul’s argumentation

Studies which set out specifically to study Paul’s argumentation are few in number. In , Siegert noted that the history of argumentation analysis in New Testament . Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ), p. xii. . An idea of the vast possibilities of research is given by ‘A Selective Bibliography of Studies of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians’, JSRCNT, which presents some nine hundred titles.

Introduction



exegesis has been widely neglected and that it is ‘now completely forgotten’.¹⁴ �ere are a number of older works which consider Paul’s argumentation, but these are of limited use, since they o�en limit their analysis to aspects of style, for example the use of parallelisms, antitheses, or tropes.¹⁵ �e formation of theories for rhetorical as well as for argumentation analysis in the s gave rise to its first implementations within Pauline exegesis in the s. Works before this are only valuable on a few points for this study. �e plethora of rhetorical studies which were published in the s and s become more and more interesting as the methods as well as a sense of the limits and uses of the different methodological approaches develops. Quite a few of the early explorations present implausible analyses, typically including long discussions on rhetorical genera or proving that Paul’s argumentation strictly follows ancient rhetorical practices as laid out in the handbooks of the time.¹⁶ Most of these exegetical analyses of Paul’s argumentation, both early and recent ones, are based on Aristotle and other classical sources; they do not follow the standards of modern argumentation analysis. Among modern works, the first thorough description of Paul’s argumentation from the perspective of argumentation analysis is Siegert’s Argumentation bei Paulus, mentioned above. Siegert’s work deserves a mention here. With a method based on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca,¹⁷ Siegert includes a wide overview of different approaches to Paul’s argumentation and summarizes his own analysis with a -page presentation of the characteristics of Paul’s argumentation.¹⁸ �ese characteristics are divided into three subgroups: formal characteristics; characteristics of content; and characteristics of interaction.¹⁹ �e first group contains . ‘Die Geschichte der Argumentationsforschung in der paulinischen und überhaupt neutestamentlichen Exegese ist eine Geschichte von Versäumnissen. Das wenige, was geleistet wurde, ist heute vollkommen vergessen.’ Folker Siegert, Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm – (WUNT, ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), ), p. . . Cf. the following two works: Ed. König, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die Biblische Literatur Komparativisch Dargestellt (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung �eodor Weicher, ) and E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in �e Bible Explained and Illustrated (London: Messrs Eyre and Spottiswoode, ). See also Walter Bühlmann and Karl Scherer, Stilfiguren der Bibel: Ein kleines Nachschlagwerk (Biblische Beiträge, ; Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) and David E. Aune, �e Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, ) which provide more recent bibliographies. For an overview of this research history, see Siegert, Argumentation, pp. –. . For an example, see Joop Smit, ‘�e Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech’, NTS  (), pp. –. . Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, �e New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. John Wilkinson & Purcell Weaver; University of Notre Dame Press, ; Notre Dame & London: University of Notre Dame Press, ). �is work has been characterized as a re-discovery of classical rhetoric, Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ), p. . Kennedy notes that �e New Rhetoric is among ‘the most classicizing, primarily Aristotelian’, among the ‘new’ rhetorics. George A. Kennedy, Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition from ancient to modern times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, nd edn, ), p. . . Siegert, Argumentation, pp. –. . Siegert, Argumentation, pp. iv–v.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

(a) dissociation and association; (b) analogy and metaphor; (c) argument a fortiori; and (d ) climax, chain, and enthymeme. �e second group contains (a) topoi; (b) values; (c) final and causal argumentation; (d ) role models and non-role models; (e) God as role model; ( f ) references to symbols and typology; and (g) authorities. �e third group contains (a) relation to the auditorium, argumentatio ad hominem and ad personam; (b) ethos and pathos; (c) figures of actualization, communication, and style of dialogue; (d ) stimuli for participation of the reader: ellipses, paradoxes; and (e) irony.²⁰ Siegert’s list is clearly indebted to �e New Rhetoric. Much of Siegert’s description of the characteristics of Paul’s argumentation consists of identifying different forms and types of argument as suggested by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca. His work thus shares some of the problems inherent in the theory.²¹ Siegert describes some of the characteristics of Paul’s argumentation. Here I wish to go a step further and try to explain and also to evaluate Paul’s argumentation. �e existence of logical problems in Paul’s argumentation has been acknowledged ever since Paul’s writings first appeared,²² but there is still more to say about the nature of these problems. A brief summary of how this subject has been approached is helpful at this point. Dieter Mitternacht provides an overview whereby he distinguishes three different positions in modern exegetical research concerning the question of the coherency of Paul’s argumentation: (a) a tradition-history exclusion of textual passages; (b) a differentiation between ‘reason’ and ‘argument’; and (c) the pragmatic–psychological actuality of the message.²³ (a) A tradition-history exclusion of textual passages. In a tradition-history analysis, coherent lines of development are important. Passages which differ from the expected vocabulary or theology are considered alien in the context. However, even though an accumulation of deviations from the normal vocabulary of an author can indicate the use of some traditional material, as Mitternacht remarks, to consider passages that do not fit the analyst’s understanding of Paul’s theology to be traditional material is too subjective a criterion.²⁴ �is approach is probably not very useful in the case of Galatians, which exhibits very few examples of this type. Some passages may contain traditional material or be based on such, but if they are clearly incorporated in the argument in an understandable manner they do not pose this type of problem. (b) A differentiation between ‘reason’ and ‘argument’. E. P. Sanders’ solution to logical tensions in Paul’s argumentation is to differentiate between ‘reason’ and ‘argument’.²⁵ Here ‘reason’ refers to the ‘patterns of religion’, and to deeper . Siegert, Argumentation, pp. iv–v. . For a criticism of �e New Rhetoric, see Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, pp. –. . Cf.  Pet. .–. . Dieter Mitternacht, Forum für Sprachlose: Eine kommunikationspsychologische und epistolär– rhetorische Untersuchung des Galaterbriefs (ConBNT, ; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, ), pp. –. . Mitternacht, Forum, pp. –. . E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ).

Introduction



and consistent logic, whereas ‘argument’ refers to the textual surface which may display erroneous logic. Following this, Sanders suggests that every argument stands in logical connection with the central convictions of Paul and that any impression of inconsistency in Paul’s arguments arise only when the reader does not relate the arguments to the reasons behind them. �is approach requires a high degree of favourable interpretation which requires that the analyst establishes a plausible connection between ‘reason’ and ‘argument’. (c) �e pragmatic–psychological actuality of the message. According to Heikki Räisänen, a cognitive analysis does not explain the discrepancies in Paul’s argumentation – the problem is to be found in Paul’s experience and its relation to his message. According to Räisänen, the root of Paul’s ambivalent relationship with the law is his unwillingness to admit that he actually wants to abolish a large portion of it. While Paul consciously declares the law to be a holy and eternal institution, again and again he unconsciously makes comments that reflect his conversion experience of being freed from the law.²⁶ Against this background of current understandings of Paul’s argumentation, Mitternacht concludes that there is a discrepancy in Galatians between a theology of the law and passages which refer to the current situation within Galatian congregations. Mitternacht follows Sanders in his suggestion that there is a coherent purpose behind inconsistencies on the textual surface. He also follows Räisänen in adopting a methodological approach which extends beyond the ideological and cognitive, towards pragmatic, psychological, and social aspects of the text.²⁷ It is interesting in this context to note that a specific argumentation analysis of Pauline texts has not been considered vital even though Pauline argumentation is explicitly the issue. No single method can bring out all aspects of a text. Even with the clear purpose of analysing only the argumentation in Galatians, this undertaking is inextricably connected with a wide array of aspects such as sociological and psychological that all need to be taken into account at least to some extent for an argumentation analysis to be balanced and trustworthy. �ere is, however, a risk of arbitrary psychologizing if the analyst reads too much between the lines. Assumptions concerning what lies behind the text should be kept to a minimum and always have a strong relation with the text. On this point a PD analysis is different from many analyses of biblical argumentation made within New Testament exegesis.²⁸ . Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (WUNT, ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), nd edn, ), pp. , –. Räisänen is supported by Kari Kuula, �e Law, the Covenant and God’s Plan. Volume : Paul’s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, ; Helsinki & Göttingen: �e Finnish Exegetical Society & Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ), pp. –, –. . Mitternacht, Forum, pp. –. . �e remarks of �urén concerning rhetorical analysis also hold true for argumentation analysis: ‘We need both a solid text and the ability cognitively to understand it. Knowledge of traditions and historical circumstances, social values and political systems behind the text contribute to the research and control the results. But the main interest of rhetorical criticism is not what is behind the text but what is in the text; how it functions as such, for any reader in any age.’ Lauri

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Logical and rhetorical features together make up an argument. Both are important when understanding the nature of an argument as viewed from the text itself and also viewed from the perspective of the original context. Since the PD approach facilitates such a comprehensive analysis, it should help us to understand Paul’s argumentation better. Hopefully it will give some answers to the questions of to what degree, how and why Paul’s argumentation is logically consistent or inconsistent.

.

Problems in the argumentation in Galatians .–.

In this section the focus is on problems which may be due to difficulties in understanding Paul’s argumentation. Interpretational problems relating to areas such as semantics, grammar, and textual criticism are addressed only when necessary.²⁹ Galatians is traditionally divided into three main sections, whereby the middle section is considered the most important portion of the letter, o�en labelled the ‘argumentative section’. According to this tripartite division, the letter is understood as follows: Galatians – present Paul and his reason for writing, Galatians – present arguments in support of his viewpoints, and Galatians – contain exhortations and other elements usually located at the end of a Pauline letter. Additionally, the prescript, Gal. .–, and the postscript, Gal. .– have usually been recognized as separate units.³⁰ �is traditional view has been challenged by some exegetes using a rhetorical approach. For instance, Kra�chick has suggested that Galatians – should be considered the main part of the letter because these chapters convey Paul’s reason for writing: exhortations not to follow other teaching than that which he has given

�urén, �e Rhetorical Strategy of  Peter: With Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions (Åbo: Åbo Academy Press, ), p. , n. . . �e general opinion is that, in Galatians, text-critical problems are not an issue, see Howard Eshbaugh, ‘Textual Variants and �eology: A Study of the Galatians Text of Papyrus ’, JSNT  (), pp. –. However, Eshbaugh’s own opinion is quite different. He finds theologically relevant variations in Gal. ., ; ., ; ., and . (in order of importance). Eshbaugh summarizes: ‘If P is a secondary text, these variants suggest that P has a subordinationist Christology. . . . On the other hand if P is the original text, the other text has embellished these readings and established a broader, higher Christology.’ Eshbaugh, ‘Papyrus ’, p. . For text-critical details in Galatians, see Kurt Aland (ed.), Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschri�en des Neuen Testaments: Die Paulinischen Briefe, Bd. : Galaterbrief bis Philipperbrief (Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, ). . e.g. Lightfoot, Barrett, Bonnard, Ridderbos, Kümmel, Schlier, and Knox; see the clear overview in Antonio Pitta, Dispositione e Messaggio della Lettera ai Galati: Analisi retorico–letteraria (AnBib, ; Roma: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, ), pp. – (with bibliographical references). A less usual division than a tripartite, is a bipartite one, e.g. Oepke, Bring, and Lührmann, see Pitta, Galati, pp. –. For a helpful overview of how Galatians has been divided and understood from a thematic, chiastic, epistolographic, rhetorical–epistolographical, and epistolographical–rhetorical perspective, see Pitta, Galati, pp. –.

Introduction



them; not to circumcise themselves.³¹ Furthermore, most rhetorical analyses note that the whole letter should be considered argumentation; not only the logos-, but also the ethos- and pathos-elements are part of the argumentation. Consequently, the introductory sections as well as the concluding ones are part of the rhetorical impact of the letter. �e rhetorical impact is the sum of many elements on different levels. �is is an important development from traditional views. I consider Kra�chick to be right in pointing out Paul’s practical aim with his letter and thus attributing to chs – a greater significance than what has been traditionally thought.³² �e last two chapters should not be seen just as a digression³³ or a conventional paraenetic closing of the letter without theological relevance.³⁴ �e old opinion that the paraenetic section of Galatians is only general in character, not relating to the situation of the Galatian congregations,³⁵ is outdated.³⁶ But, even if we accept the importance of Galatians –, chs – are still crucial because they are the necessary foundation for the exhortations in chs –. Without the argumentation in Galatians –, the exhortations in Galatians – would have little basis. In addition, chs – should also be considered when analysing the argumentation in chs –. In the analysis of Galatians – it is therefore necessary to keep the whole letter in mind and to understand subsequent units in the light of previous ones. �e main insight of Kra�chick’s is that the purpose of Paul’s argumentation, far from being abstract theology, is to influence the congregational life of the Galatians.³⁷ �is should also be kept in mind when analysing the more theoretical portions of the letter. . Steven John Kra�chick, ‘Ethos and Pathos Appeals in Galatians Five and Six: A Rhetorical Analysis’ (unpublished dissertation, Emory University, ), pp. –. . For a discussion, see Mika Hietanen, Galaterbrevet i ljuset av en retorisk analys (Religionsvetenskapliga skri�er, ; Åbo: Ämnet religionsvetenskap vid Åbo Akademi, ), pp. –. . Contra Martyn who goes so far as to say that ‘we can imagine Paul composing his Galatian letter without including any of the elements that now make up :–:. Could he not easily have passed from the ringing conclusion of : to the epistolary postscript of :–?’ J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, a; New York: Doubleday, ), p. . Similarly Smit, ‘Galatians’, pp. –. . Oepke’s comment is typical: ‘Er [Paulus] wendet sich nun den religiös–sittlichen Mahnungen zu, mit denen er, wie die meisten seiner Briefe, so auch Gl beshließt.’ D. Albrecht Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT, IX; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, nd edn, ), p. . See also Wayne A. Meeks, ‘Galatians: A Commentary . . . , by Hans Dieter Betz; Philadelphia: Fortress, ’, JBL  (), pp. –, who understands the passage as a ‘digression to avoid a misunderstanding of or objection to the course of action demanded in the main argument’. . Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), th edn, ), pp. –. . See John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ), pp. –. . Kra�chick’s analysis stands in contrast with earlier work, especially that of Martin Dibelius, who considered Paul’s letters not to have a specific recipient, and not to have been meant for any specific situation; Dibelius, Formgeschichte, pp. –. See also Frans Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT, IX; Freiburg: Herder, th edn, ), p.  and Jost Eckert, Die urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief (Biblische Untersuchungen, ; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, ), pp. –.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: A thematic low-level structure of Galatians .– .– .–. .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .–. .–

Salutation �e true gospel Paul’s calling and mission Righteousness through faith, not law �e Galatians’ reception of the Spirit Abraham’s faith and the Scripture Testamental practice and inheritance �e purpose and function of the law Equality ‘in Christ’ �e freedom of God’s children Paul’s concern for the Galatians Paul’s relationship with the Galatians An allegory of Hagar and Sarah Freedom versus circumcision Freedom, the Spirit, and ‘the flesh’ Recommendations with regard to ethical praxis Statements concerning circumcision, and a blessing

As for the division of the text, the best starting point is an attempt to divide it into units that would be as indisputable as possible. Such units are o�en short, thematically demarcated, and of a special character or in some other way clearly identifiable. A comparison between Betz’s, Longenecker’s, and other commentaries shows that, concerning Galatians –, there is indeed agreement on a low-level division – such a mainly thematic division is fairly straightforward. �e disagreement concerns the function of these smaller units in relation to, in most cases, bigger, argumentative units. Although I will focus on the middle section of the letter, different sections of the whole letter are considered and referred to throughout the analysis. To this end, a low-level thematic division of the whole letter is presented in Table .. On a higher level, there are different suggestions concerning the structure of the text. Turning now to the so-called argumentative section, Betz calls Galatians –  ‘the proofs’ or the probatio section and finds six arguments that all support Paul’s main argument, ‘the proposition’ or the propositio of .–. �ese arguments are as follows: .–: the Galatians’ experience of the spirit, .–: God’s promise to Abraham, .–: common human practice of law, (.–: a digression on the [Jewish] Torah), .–.: Christian tradition, .–: friendship, and .–: the allegory of Sarah and Hagar.³⁸ Richard Longenecker, on the other hand, does not consider .– to be a part of the probatio section, but sees this as part of the following the exhortatio . Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), p. viii.

Introduction



section.³⁹ Longenecker also operates with larger units than Betz and does not find the proofs to be as neatly arranged as they are with Betz. However, both agree on the structure of the first part of the passage: vv. –, –, and –.⁴⁰ Longenecker also agrees with Betz on the two last sections, .– and .–. However, Longenecker considers these two sections, together with .–, to be a part of the exhortatio (.–.). Already at this point a tentative functional structure can be attempted. �e first decision to be made is how to delineate the ‘argumentative’ section, i.e. the section in which logos-elements dominate. �ere is a consensus that this begins at .. �e ending is disagreed upon. �e safest choice is to opt for a generous selection and end with ., which then includes most of the suggestions on where the ‘argumentative’ section ends.⁴¹ �is is in line with a maximally argumentative interpretation (cf. p. ). �is view is supported by the contents of the text. Since argumentation analysis is primarily an analysis of substance, not form (in the sense of figures, tropes, rhetorical forms etc.), a delineation on the basis of content is warranted. Betz’s division at ./. is specifically a result of an analysis of form, not of content.⁴² A division into more sections is a more neutral choice than a division into larger units. Only an argumentation analysis can show how these small units function in relationship with each other in the larger argument and thus suggest a division into larger units. I will therefore use the units listed in the thematic low-level structure in Table .. Lining out the whole letter in a way that shows the main parts of the text as well as the low-level structure from Table . yields the following result, see Table .. �is table is based upon a basic interpretation of the function of these text-units. Several other ways of structuring the section have been suggested. �e important thing that such different divisions illustrate is the difficulty among commentators to understand how the different arguments function within the larger context. Is it possible to determine how the different proofs or elements connect to each other and how they support Paul’s main arguments? Only with the help . Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC, ; Dallas: Word Books, ), pp. vii–viii. . Longenecker points out the importance of this part of Galatians –: ‘Gal .– is one of the most familiar and closely studied portions of Paul’s letters. �at is so because of its concentration of themes central to the Christian Gospel, its attack against legalism, and the complexity of Paul’s arguments in support of a Law-free Gospel. �ree sets of arguments are mustered in support of the thesis of .– that the Law plays no positive role in becoming a Christian: (a) arguments from experience (vv. –); (b) arguments from Scripture (vv. –); and (c) ad hominem theological arguments (vv. –).’ Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Among the suggestions are ., ., ., ., ., ., ., ., and .; see Pitta, Galati, pp. –; and Otto Merk, ‘Der Beginn der Paränese im Galaterbrief ’, ZNW  (), pp. – (). . �e most compact and helpful defence for beginning the paraenetical section at . is found in Merk, ‘Der Beginn’. According to Betz, ‘his [Merk’s] own conclusions are not based upon an analysis of the composition and are, therefore, not convincing’. Betz, Galatians, p. , n. . From an argumentation analysis perspective, an analysis based on the contents is more valuable than one based on the (rhetorical) composition.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: �e structure of Galatians  .– Salutation .– �e importance of the true gospel :  ’  .–. Paul’s ethos, calling, and mission .– �eological standpoint: righteousness through faith, not law    .– Arguments from experience: the Galatians’ reception of the Spirit .– Arguments from Scripture: Abraham’s faith .– Ad Hominem arguments: testamental practice and inheritance .– �e purpose and function of the law .– Equality ‘in Christ’ .– �e freedom of God’s children .– Paul’s concern for the Galatians .– Personal appeals: Paul’s relationship with the Galatians .– An allegory of Hagar and Sarah    .– Freedom versus circumcision ,    .– A warning concerning freedom, the Spirit, and ‘the flesh’ .–. Recommendations with regard to ethical praxis  .– Statements concerning circumcision and blessing

of an argumentation analysis, which yields a structure of the argument,⁴³ can one attempt to answer such a question satisfactorily. We now turn to an overview of Gal. .–.. I present the main difficulties concerning the argumentation in Gal. .–.. It is generally acknowledged that this section contains several cruces interpretationis: Abraham’s faith and function as a role-model; the Christian as being not under the law but in Christ; the ‘Judaizing’ threat; and the difficult Hagar–Sarah allegory. I base the survey mainly on the two most important commentaries based on a rhetorical analysis, those of Betz and of Longenecker.⁴⁴ Although rhetorical analyses usually differ from argumentation analyses, these two types of analysis approach many of the same problems. In order to make this section brief, a full discussion is kept for the analysis in Chapter . �e first two sections, .– and .–, are given a longer presentation since they are good examples of how rhetorical analyses work on the one hand, and why there is, on the other hand, a need for a specific argumentation analysis. . A structure of the text must not to be confused with an analytical overview of the argument, which should be part of an argument analysis. �e structure of the text is important only in order to gain some preliminary understanding of how the argumentation advances and in order to determine the best way of dividing the text into smaller units suitable for analysis since it is too long to be analysed as a single section. In the end, the argument is considered as a whole regardless of textual units. See Table ., p. . . Betz, Galatians; Longenecker, Galatians.

Introduction



Gal. .–: �e Galatians’ reception of the Spirit �e striking beginning of this section, with its five questions at the outset has led many commentators to feel Paul’s agitation. Betz even understands the passage as an interrogatio of the ‘witnesses’ in a court setting.⁴⁵ However, Betz himself points out that the questions are self-evident and that Paul is not able to question the ‘eye-witnesses’ himself. Betz’s analogy between the situation in Galatia and a court-situation is not very convincing.⁴⁶ Betz gives this passage great importance, since it introduces, as he calls it, ‘the strongest of all possible defence arguments – undeniable evidence’,⁴⁷ the gi� of the Spirit. If this evidence is accepted, the Galatians will have to concede that their experience of the Spirit and of miracles did not occur as a result of works of the law, but by the proclamation of faith. �us .– prepares for the arguments in the probatio section, as Betz labels it, following classical rhetorical terminology. Longenecker agrees with Betz about the general rhetoric of the passage: since the interrogatio conventions dominate, a forensic type of rhetoric ‘seems fairly clear’.⁴⁸ However, in his analysis Longenecker finds that the passage reflects common practice among the diatribe preachers of Paul’s day: the six rebuking rhetorical questions are typical of this sort of argumentation.⁴⁹ But, if this is so, we are far from the courtroom and from any forensic rhetoric. I understand the outcome of the debate of the rhetorical genus to be that this has not been helpful in the case of Galatians. �e discussion of the matter indicates that it is difficult to decide to what classical rhetorical genus Galatians belongs. �e question is important for those who need to place the letter within a classical rhetorical tradition. However, classical rhetorical categories are not necessary in order to determine how the argumentation functions in the text. A closer look at vv. – clearly shows the rhetorical nature of the passage – a quality generally overlooked by commentators before Betz, who finds a lot of pathos and ethos in the passage – for example in just one verse, .: Paul is biting and aggressive (ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται), he is ironic or even sarcastic (τίς ὑµᾶς ἐβάσκανεν), he uses the rhetorical technique of πρὸ ὀµµάτων ποιεῖν (οἷς κατ’ ὀϕθαλµοὺς ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράϕη ἐσταυρωµένος), and generally the . One of Betz’s more original ideas is that the Galatians, apart from being the addressees of the letter, are also the eye-witnesses of the evidence of Paul’s ‘case’. Betz, Galatians, p. . �is gives Paul the possibility of proceeding as if the eye-witnesses are in court. Betz, Galatians, p. . Betz deduces this especially from .–, where ‘Paul makes full use of this opportunity’ as he ‘enters into his first argument by an interrogatio of these witnesses’. �is interpretation has been duly criticized, see, for example, George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Studies in Religion, Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press, ), p. . . For a critique of an understanding of the letter as an example of forensic rhetoric, see Hietanen, Galaterbrevet, pp. –, – (with bibliographical references, e.g. Kra�chick, ‘Ethos & Pathos’, pp. ,  and Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, pp. –). . Betz, Galatians, p. . . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . Longenecker analyses Gal. .– under the heading ‘Arguments from Experience’. Longenecker, Galatians, pp. –. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

verse shows that he is at a loss with the Galatians. As Betz declares rhetorically, ‘But what can he do against the spells and charms his opponents have cast upon the Galatians!’⁵⁰ Longenecker goes even further. According to him, . is not only ‘biting and aggressive in tone’, it also expresses Paul’s ‘deep concern, exasperation, and perplexity’.⁵¹ Both Betz and Longenecker, however, correctly point out that βασκαίνω (here: ‘bewitch’) was o�en used figuratively in the rhetoric of the day. It was used for characterizing opponents and their sophistic strategies. �us there is no reason to draw the conclusion that the Galatians really had fallen under a spell of magicians or magic of any sort.⁵² Although almost all recent commentators recognize several phrases as part of normal rhetorical practices, they still seem to be affected by the rhetoric themselves.⁵³ If, for example, as Betz asserts, everything in . is rhetorical, then why does he still read into the text that Paul were so emotionally engaged?⁵⁴ However, the rhetorical nature of the text does not mean that it is without substance. A statement in the form of a rhetorical question also conveys some fact or opinion. Traditional methods have been insufficient for interpreting such statements. �e main point in .– is presented in v. , which is repeated in an expanded form in v. . Commentators point out that the argument is forceful since it rests on the experience of the Galatians themselves. Since they received the Spirit before they began to consider coming under the law, the experience itself shows that the giving of the Spirit was not connected with abiding by the law. �is, at least, seems to be Paul’s point. Mußner’s comment is typical of a traditional reading of the verse. He declares that Paul’s question in v.  needs no answer: it is already answered in the experiences of the Galatians.⁵⁵ �is interpretation does not allow . Betz, Galatians, pp. –. Similarly Oepke, Galater, p. , who states that here, ‘dieselbe Stimmung ihm wieder ergrei�, in welcher er , seinen Brief begonnen hatte . . . Staunen über ihr unbegreifliches Tun’. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . e.g. Martyn wants to emphasize Paul’s use of a ‘vocabulary of magic’, which according to Martyn suggests that taking up observance of the law is equivalent to ‘a belief in magic’. Martyn, Galatians, pp. –. Similarly Schlier, Galater, p. . . Cf. the observation in this respect in Lauri �urén, ‘Was Paul Angry?: Derhetorizing Galatians’, in Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (eds), �e Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: essays from the  Malibu Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ), pp. –. . Mußner even refers to grammatical considerations, that ῏Ω ἀνόητοι (‘You foolish!’) is used only in affected speech (Mußner, Galater, p. , n. ). �is kind of reading completely ignores the rhetorical nature of the text. If one wants to give the impression of urgency, what better way than using a phrase used ‘only’ in affected speech? On the other hand, we cannot a priori assume that Paul was not agitated. However, if there are enough indications of an argumentative strategy, then it is justified to give priority to an interpretation that emphasizes the rhetorical employment of some words and phrases over their candid (i.e. not consciously rhetorical) use. . Mußner describes the situation: ‘Die Antwort der Galater konnte nur sein: Wir haben das Pneuma aufgrund der gehorsamen Annahme der Glaubens-Predigt empfangen, nicht aufgrund gesetzlicher Werke, von denen wir damals ja noch gar nichts wußten. Das können die Galater nicht leugnen.’ Mußner, Galater, p. .

Introduction



for the possibility that the Galatians – or a faction among them – could have had a different interpretation of their experiences. Just because Paul does not present any other interpretation does not mean that one or more other interpretations did not exist among the Galatians. �ere is a need for a clear and neutral mode of analysis. Longenecker observes that due weight has not always been put on the importance of the Spirit in Paul’s main argument in Galatians.⁵⁶ Martyn agrees with Longenecker and in his analysis he goes much further, distilling interesting information about Paul’s opponents. Martyn finds that the reason why Paul turns to speak about the Spirit is ‘that he knows the Spirit to be one of the chief topics by which the Teachers are currently leading the Galatians from true faith into the realm of superstition and magic’.⁵⁷ Also Mußner understands Paul’s reference to ‘who’ (τίς) as referring to a demonic power of some sort – that the doings of the Galatians was so incomprehensible that it seemed to him to be a demonic bewitchment.⁵⁸ Again, if we admit that Paul is using rhetorical language, such interpretations become dubious. For instance, could it not be that the Spirit and the experiences of the Galatians were only of minor importance for them and that the reason for Paul to make use of them in his argumentation was to show that they had misinterpreted their experiences? And, as mentioned above, can we really assume that Paul’s and the Galatians’ interpretations about these matters concurred? A plausible analysis needs to consider all viable options of interpretation. We must always keep the context in mind: Paul is conducting an argumentation with the aim of convincing his addressees. In this context, the use of words like ‘bewitch’ and ‘foolish’ need not mean anything more than that Paul is using language tailored to a general argumentative strategy. �e question in v.  concludes the series of questions in vv. –. Paul does not give the answers directly, but most commentators agree that the answers are self-evident. For instance, commenting on the question in v. , Mußner states: ‘Die Antwort, die wiederum nicht gegeben wird, könnte nach allem nur lauten: ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως.’⁵⁹ What seems to escape such commentators, though, is that the reason that this is the ‘only’ answer may be more a result of Paul’s argumentative strategy than of the actual facts or the view of the other party. �ese examples show the importance of considering the argumentative context in which a portion of an argumentative discourse occurs. Speech act theory (which is incorporated into the PD method, see Section .) is designed to provide just such a sensitivity to the function of different parts of discourse. Section .– is a good example of how our understanding of the function of the text influences our understanding of the content of it. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Martyn, Galatians, p. . What Betz and Longenecker call Paul’s opponents, Martyn calls ‘�e Teachers’. . Mußner, Galater, p. . . Mußner, Galater, p. : ‘�e answer, which, however, is not given, could a�er all only be: “by believing what we heard”.’



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians Gal. .–: Abraham’s faith

Section .– presents arguments from Scripture that make use of the example of Abraham. Regarding the passage, Betz notes that ‘[t]here is agreement among the exegetes that Paul’s argument in this section is extremely difficult to follow’.⁶⁰ According to Betz Paul cannot be expected to conform to our modern conceptions. He stresses the importance of reading Paul using his methodology. Betz assumes that the main criteria for selecting a proof in Paul’s era did not stress the logically argumentative value of the proof, but only that ‘a proof could demonstrate by some agreed method that one’s ideas and notions were attested by or contained in the passage referred to as evidence. �e basic skill, therefore, was to find passages in the Scriptures which had the same terminology one was using in the argument.’⁶¹ Based on this assumption, Betz believes that Paul’s argument can be shown to be consistent for Paul in his context. Betz does not elaborate on this ‘method’. Mußner, on the other hand, confidently traces Paul’s use of Scripture to the rabbinic tradition, the use of which is especially apparent in Paul’s use of the Abraham example in Gal. .–.⁶² Such considerations may lie behind the fact that few have attempted or even suggested a basic argumentation analysis of the passage. However, such an analysis is independent of what possible tradition Paul follows in his argumentation and should be useful for an analysis of a passage such as Gal. .–. �e problem with interpreting the passage is that it is not immediately apparent how the quotations from Scripture relate to Paul’s argument. In . Paul uses Abraham’s faith as proof for the important doctrine that faith is reckoned to one as righteousness, and that such faith cannot include works of the law. �e Scripture references do not, however, seem very well supported. A careful analysis is needed in order to clarify the flow of thought. Several arguments in .– have been classified as enthymemes, but o�en without a detailed argumentation analysis. Most of the sub-arguments in the passage do not seem to fit well with the form of an enthymeme (including different variations of the enthymeme) and an unbiased analysis could help sort out the premisses and statements, both those expressed and those unexpressed. Verses – are especially problematic: the quotation in v. b, from Deut. ., seems to contradict the claim in v. a which it is supposed to warrant. How is the statement: ‘For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse’ warranted by the quotation: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law’? Many have solved the problem by suggesting the presence of an implied premiss. �e solution has been expressed as an enthymeme with the implicit premiss recovered: see Fig. .. . Betz, Galatians, p. . . Betz, Galatians, pp. –. �e same view is held by several earlier scholars, e.g. Mußner, Galater, p. , with bibliographical references (see n. ). . Mußner, Galater, p. .

Introduction



Fig. .: �e ‘implicit premiss’ reconstruction of . All who do not keep the law perfectly are cursed. [Deut. . /Gal. .b] [No one can keep the law perfectly.] All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. [Gal. .a]

Although still common, this view is problematic mainly because it reflects an understanding of Judaism that finds little support in the Jewish sources. Judaism did not require a perfect keeping of the law, nor did it generally consider works of the law as a means of securing the covenantal relationship.⁶³ Since such an argument would not have been successful, it is improbable that Paul used it. We need to find another interpretation. �e section of .– is very different from that of .–. It is helpful to utilize a methodological framework that can account for both types of texts and help clarify how the argumentation advances and how the different parts support each other. �e argumentation seems to feature several unexpressed premisses which will have to be recovered in the analysis. �e argumentation also features rhetorical devices that need to be understood. A traditional exegesis does not provide tools for such an analysis. In short, already these two sections, .– and .–, show that a methodological framework for an adequate analysis must be able to explain both logical and rhetorical features of the text. Gal. .–: Testamental practice and inheritance Paul’s third example is from daily life, more specifically from legal practice. Setting aside the problem of what tradition Paul refers to, the intent of the argument is clear: God made a promise to Abraham (‘the blessing of Abraham’), this promise is attested in the Scriptures, and it cannot be annulled by later changes, i.e. the law which came with Moses. �e argument continues the one in .– and aims to show that the heirs to the promise to Abraham are those who believe in Christ. �e idea that the law given to Moses would cancel the promise given to Abraham is of course foreign to Judaism, where both were viewed as a whole: Abraham already knew the Torah. Paul wants to separate the two in order to emphasize that Abraham was justified by faith, without works of the law – which came much later. Paul even states (.) that to insist to found the inheritance upon the law of Moses cancels out the promise made to Abraham. However, the argument itself is clear and commentators tend to disagree only on some of the details, most of which are very difficult to establish conclusively. Commentators assume that here Paul responds to opponents by insisting that God’s promise was given long before the Mosaic law and that it was given to Christ. �e claim is problematic since there is no other backing than the reference to the . See Norman H. Young, ‘Who’s Cursed – And Why? (Galatians :–)’, JBL () (), pp. – (); Martyn, Galatians, pp. –; Mußner, Galater, pp. – (with references).

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



singular form in ., τῷ σπέρµατι, which in Genesis refers to Isaac specifically or to Abraham’s offspring generally.⁶⁴ Gal. .–: �e purpose and function of the law In labelling the section .– ‘a digression’, Betz follows the tradition among exegetes.⁶⁵ �e section does not seem to relate directly to the argumentation against legalism in the previous portion of the chapter. Longenecker notes that, for this reason, many commentators ignore the whole section of .–. in favour of .–, which is considered the core of the subject at hand.⁶⁶ Longenecker develops Betz’s understanding of the letter’s propositio, .–, into a bipartite section where vv. – sum up the points of agreement and vv. – lay out what remains contested.⁶⁷ According to Longenecker, the first part states what Paul believes to be agreed by all true believers, that the law plays no positive role in becoming a Christian. In the second part, then, Paul argues that the law plays no positive role in Christian living. �e first point is explicated in .– and the second point in .–..⁶⁸ �is suggestion integrates the section of .–. with the rest of Galatians – in a new way and elevates the section’s importance in Paul’s argument. Longenecker’s suggestion will be addressed in Chapter  and the function of the passage analysed. Gal. .–: Equality ‘in Christ’ �is section, as well as the two following (.– and .–), continues the argumentation about Gentile Christians’ status before God. Much of the contents of .–. have been stated earlier in Galatians  and are here summed up. Betz understands .– to be the centre of the ‘probatio section’ since Paul here declares the status of Gentile Christians⁶⁹– the all-important theme in Galatians –. At the same time, oneness in Christ, illustrated by vv. –, is a new perspective. According to Betz these verses declare ‘the abolishment of social, cultural, and religious prerogatives’.⁷⁰ However, the function of the passage in the argument actually seems to be somewhat more modest: to illustrate oneness in Christ in order to show that Gentile Christians are also ‘Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise’ (.). �e form of vv. – indicates a pre-Pauline source, probably in the baptismal liturgy.⁷¹ If this is so, Paul creates here a reference to the Galatians’ personal experiences, similar to the one in .. Although commentators typically focus on the contents and origin of vv. –, the aforementioned function is of primary . . . . . . . .

Gen. .; .; .ff.; .. Betz, Galatians, p. ; Longenecker, Galatians, p. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . Longenecker, Galatians, pp. –. Longenecker, Galatians, pp. –. Betz, Galatians, p. . Betz, Galatians, p. . Betz, Galatians, pp. –.

Introduction



importance in the argument. To clarify the function is a task for argumentation analysis. Gal. .–: �e freedom of God’s children �is section contains a discussion of the same themes that are dealt with earlier in .–: slavery versus freedom. It also deals with the theme of law and of sonship – a recurring theme in .–. Furthermore, the section also connects with what follows through the theme of freedom (implicit in vv. , , and ; cf. .– and ., ). �e comparison in vv. – is hyperbolic; vv. – seem to be based on some older formulae, and v.  has the nature of a conclusion. Betz understands v.  to be the conclusion of .– at the same time as it connects with . and through . with .–. In the argument structure, Betz sees it as a part of .–., the ‘fourth argument’.⁷² Longenecker sees v.  as concluding not only .– and .–, but also the whole section of .–..⁷³ To be more precise, in Longenecker’s structure, .– is part of .–., which again is part of .–..⁷⁴ Consequently, the function of .– is not quite clear: what portion of the argumentation does it possibly conclude? and what is its argumentative function? Gal. .–: Paul’s concern for the Galatians According to Betz, this is where Paul ‘turns to the attack’ a�er having laid down the argumentative foundations in .–..⁷⁵ Betz parallels the method of interrogatio used here with the use of it in .–. Longenecker mentions the same parallel as Betz between .– and .–, but understands them as an inclusio for the probatio section, and thus makes a different interpretation: whereas Betz also includes the following sections, .– and .–, in the probatio section, Longenecker sees .– as the conclusion of that section.⁷⁶ In some sense, then, .– marks the border of what may be two different parts of the argumentation in chs –. �e role of .– needs to be clarified. Gal. .–: Paul’s relationship with the Galatians �e section of .– presents difficulties for most interpreters. In view of the preceding passages, .– seem out of place, presenting a concoction of thoughts which are difficult to relate to the preceding argumentation. I find Betz to have partly solved the problem by noting the rhetorical character of the passage.⁷⁷ Betz here sees ‘a string of topoi belonging to the theme of “friendship” (περὶ ϕιλίας)’.⁷⁸ �e main thrust of the passage, however, does not seem to be one of friendship as . . . . . . .

Betz, Galatians, p. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. vii. Betz, Galatians, p. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . Betz, Galatians, pp. –. Betz, Galatians, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

such, but one of Paul’s ethos in relation to the Galatians. �e section is clearly of a different character than the heavy argumentative sections which precede it. A PD analysis may be helpful in explaining the function of the passage. Gal. .–: An allegory of Hagar and Sarah �is section consists of a mixture of allegory and typology.⁷⁹ It is unclear why Paul inserts this passage into his argumentation; neither its function nor its meaning is clear. Paul wants to show that Gentile Christians are the offspring of Sarah, and not Hagar, but the details of the allegory are obscure. Betz suggests that this is intentionally so. Referring to Pseudo-Demetrius, Betz notes that indirect arguments sometimes are more effective than direct ones: ‘[t]hrough the allegory :– he then lets the Galatians find the truth for themselves’.⁸⁰ Concerning this particular passage, this explanation seems unsatisfactory, since the meaning of the allegory is exceedingly difficult to find. I will return to this in the analysis. Gal. .–: Freedom versus circumcision Deciding the function of section .– has traditionally been difficult: does it belong to the preceding argumentative section or to the following paraenetic section? Verse  seems to mark the start of a new section. However, the change of tone in . as well as the parallels between .– and previous sections (‘freedom’, ‘circumcision’) has led many commentators to draw a thicker line at ./ rather than at ./..⁸¹ Supporting this, it is noted that .– has the character of an introduction to the following. �e fact of the matter is that the section is different from the preceding one, with a clearly more paraenetic character (especially vv. –) than earlier sections. However, it also contains argumentative material with logos-elements (especially vv. –). �e parallels between .– and .– support a division where the paraenetic section begins with ..⁸² In contrast, from the perspective of a rhetorical analysis it has been suggested that the probatio section ends with . and that the paraenetic (or exhortatio) section begins with ..⁸³ In any case, the section is in need of analysis from the point of view of its argumentative function. Preliminary, I have suggested that it functions both as a summary of the main logos section and as a transition to the main pathos section (see Table ., p. ).⁸⁴ . Cf. Betz, Galatians, p. . . Betz, Galatians, p. . . Such as in the commentaries of Zahn, Oepke, Schlier, Merk, Eckert, and Mußner. . Longenecker has even suggested that .– and .– form an inclusio for Paul’s treatment of the ‘Judaizing threat’. Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . e.g. Betz, Galatians, p. ; and Kra�chick, ‘Ethos & Pathos’, p. . . �e suggestion was made already in  by Merk: ‘. . . wodurch sich Gal .– nicht nur als Zusammenfassung des Voranstehenden, sondern auch als Überleitung zum Folgenden erweisen würde’. Merk, ‘Der Beginn’, p. .

Introduction .



Specific presentation of the task

Galatians is clearly an argumentative text and, as such, is not only suitable for an argumentation analysis, but requires one for an understanding of the argument in it. �e letter presents difficult questions from an argumentation analysis perspective both on a higher level concerning the structure and coherence of the argumentation and on a lower level concerning both the form and substance of many single arguments. It is probable that some of the difficulties in the interpretation of .–., as well as concerning Galatians as a whole, can be clarified by an adequate argumentation analysis. In Section . (on p. ), I defined my task as threefold: to provide a fresh analysis of the argumentation in Galatians (focusing on .–.), to better understand the way in which Paul argues, and to evaluate the benefits of a specific argumentation analysis of a New Testament text. To be more precise, the PD method can aid in clarifying the substance, the function, and the quality in Paul’s argumentation as well as Paul’s argumentative strategy. In addition, the use of the method can clarify the benefits of an argumentation analysis of a biblical text. I now specify my task to be fourfold, as follows: . �e substance of Paul’s argumentation Are the arguments convincing from a logos-perspective? Are the arguments theologically consistent if viewed as a whole? What are the contents of the arguments concerning the main themes of gospel, law, Spirit, circumcision, and freedom? . �e function of Paul’s argumentation Does Paul’s argumentation function in the sense that the different arguments together form an argument? What is the relationship between logos, ethos, and pathos in the argument? Is there a clear use of strategic manoeuvring? How is the argument convincing? . �e quality of Paul’s argumentation Is the argumentation sound from an argumentation analysis perspective? Is the argumentation in Galatians coherent, a set of loosely connected arguments, or something else? . �e benefits of an argumentation analysis Does a specific argumentation analysis aid the exegete in understanding a Pauline text? Is a PD analysis suitable for the task? In Chapter , I present the method and discuss its application to a Pauline text. Since the method is new as a tool within exegesis, I present it with some detail in order to enable the reader to follow the analysis in Chapter . �e fact that the method has continued to develop since its first presentation makes it possible for the analyst to focus on different aspects of the method. My use and adaptations of the method are therefore explained. Chapter  also presents some of the background for the method, such as argumentation analysis in general, speech act theory, and the concept of fallacies.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Chapter  contains the detailed analysis. �e introductory sections (. and .) put Gal. .–. in the context of the whole letter and the letter in its historical context. Galatians .–. is then divided into ten smaller units for analysis. �e analysis of each unit is further subdivided, and each unit is analysed following the same modus operandi. �e findings of the analysis are presented in Chapter . �e results from the ten units of analysis are brought together in an attempt to describe Paul’s argumentation.

Chapter 

T M .

Background

Although it would seem natural that the choice of a method from within the discipline of argumentation analysis would be among the first options when setting out to analyse argumentation, within exegesis the avenues of more recent developments within this and adjacent fields remain largely unexplored. �ere are some examples of exegetes doing argumentation analysis proper, but these usually make use of older methods from the s to the s. Since then there has been a considerable development within the field. �e use of a state-of-the-art method in approaching Paul’s argumentation is pending. In the following I will present a survey of exegetical studies which discuss or make use of four methods which are relevant to my study: speech act analysis; modern argumentation analysis; rhetorical analysis; and epistolographical analysis. Of these, epistolographical analysis and most of the rhetorical analyses present classical perspectives (rhetorical analysis is to some extent also carried out from a modern perspective), whereas speech act analysis and argumentation analysis are modern approaches. Speech act analysis As speech act analysis is an integral part of pragma-dialectics, it is a natural starting point for the overview. Speech act theory is one of the most influential contributions within the field of discourse analysis. �e theory was first introduced by J. L. Austin and then significantly expanded upon by J. R. Searle.¹ Most of the contemporary theories within discourse analysis build upon the work of Searle, although there are different approaches. �e theory is described later in Section . (on p. ) as part of the presentation of the PD method. Here the focus is on the use of speech act theory in exegesis. Briggs’ survey of the uses of speech act theory in biblical interpretation gives us a useful introduction.² Briggs states the following: . See J. L. Austin, How to Do �ings with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, nd edn, ); John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). . Richard S. Briggs, ‘�e Uses of Speech-Act �eory in Biblical Interpretation’, CRBS  (),





Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians �ere have been a surprisingly large number of calls for the use of speech-act theory in biblical interpretation – surprising that is in relation to the relatively few works which have gone on to achieve the goal. Typically these ‘manifesto’ type works present a brief summary of the discipline, o�en related largely or only to Austin, and then content themselves with general statements about the evident congruence between speech-act theory and the biblical text as some form of communicative action.³

Although much of the literature dealing with speech act theory and exegesis is interesting and contains important observations on things such as the character of religious language, it is not here necessary to review all theoretical considerations. �e PD theory already provides the necessary framework and the necessary tools for an analysis – it represents a development of earlier conceptions of speech act theory. Of interest here are the practical applications. �ese are, however, few. As referred to in the quotation above, the interest shown in speech act theory has not resulted in many applications of it.⁴ Siegert includes speech act theory in his analysis of Romans –.⁵ He emphasizes that the commitments⁶ created by the speaker through speech acts are not connected to the wishes of the speaker, but to the rules that are connected with the speech act in question.⁷ In the actual analysis, however, Siegert’s use of the theory is restricted to some almost incidental remarks.⁸ �ree years a�er the publication of Siegert’s dissertation, the experimental journal Semeia dedicated a volume to the subject of ‘speech act theory and biblical pp. –. See also Richard S. Briggs, Words in Action: Speech Act �eory and Biblical Interpretation (London: T & T Clark, ). . Briggs, ‘Uses of Speech-Act �eory’, pp. –. . For an overview of speech act analyses within New Testament studies, see Briggs, ‘Uses of Speech-Act �eory’ and H. Ito, ‘Command or Petition? A Speech Act Analysis of the Parents’ Utterances in John :cd’, Acta �eologica  (), pp. – (). Within New Testament research speech act analysis was first used in parable research, as early as in ; see J. G. Du Plessis, ‘Speech Act �eory and New Testament Interpretation with Special Reference to G. N. Leech’s Pragmatic Principles’, in P. J. Hartin and J. H. Petzer (eds), Text & Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, ), pp. – (). . For Siegert’s discussion on semiotic and speech act theory, see Siegert, Argumentation, pp. – . . �e concept of ‘commitment’ is central in speech act theory and pragma-dialectics. It describes the obligation to defend such statements which are capable of giving rise to a dispute. Such a statement is regarded as an expressed opinion; Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A �eoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussion Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion (PDA, ; Dordrecht, �e Netherlands & Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications, ), p. . Cf. the Burden-of-proof-rule (p. ). . Siegert summarizes: ‘Das ist fürs folgende unsere Definition des “Sprachgeschehens” der Argumentation: keine Selbstbewegung der “Sprache” oder gar einzelner “Begriffe”, sondern Verständigung zwischen Subjekten nach sozial gültigen, wandlungen unterworfene Regeln.’ Siegert, Argumentation, p. . �is, of course, is at the heart of speech act theory, that ‘speaking a language is engaging in a (highly complex) rule-governed form of behavior’. Searle, Speech Acts, p. . Rules are here understood in a broad sense, including social ones: ‘X counts as Y in context C’. Searle, Speech Acts, p. . . See pp. , , and  in Siegert, Argumentation.

�e Method



criticism’.⁹ �e various articles reflect great optimism regarding the use of speech acts for biblical criticism. Most of these articles are, however, programmatic in nature and the only application of speech act theory is on an Old Testament passage, Gen. –. �e discussion, especially the contributions of Hugh C. White, Daniel Patte, and Martin J. Buss, are valuable, as well as the bibliography. A main article of interest is that of Daniel Patte, who envisions a ‘speech act exegesis’.¹⁰ Patte’s hopeful expectations about the contribution of speech act theory have, however, only to a small extent been realized: the theory is yet to become a widely used tool for exegesis. Patte’s article clearly shows how differently speech act theory can be understood and developed. Patte points out that the theory focuses on ‘something which is not in the text, and yet is part of the communication of meaning by that text.’¹¹ While this is true, Patte’s conclusion is problematic: ‘Since the focus is on extra-textual rules,� ¹²� the text itself, as an object of critical judgement, tends to disappear.’¹³ Patte understands speech act theory in such a way that ‘the primary concern should be to account for the subjectivity of the religious practitioners or of the authors of a religious text’.¹⁴ �is is very different from the perspective I have adopted. I find Siegert’s understanding of speech act theory much more helpful for a text-centred analysis, which is my pursuit. As far as any intentionality on the part of the author (Paul) is discussed, this is an important part of argumentation analysis, not to mention rhetorical analysis, but it can, and should, be discussed in strong relation to the text, which should never be allowed to ‘disappear’. Also, the PD approach is built upon such a text-centred understanding of the analysis where the text is in focus, not extra-textual rules. �e discussion in Semeia illustrates the difficulties one must deal with when attempting to apply a method across disciplines. Finally, Patte’s fundamental presupposition is that ‘religious discourses are peculiar speech acts which cannot be assimilated to other kinds of speech acts.’¹⁵ �is understanding, as well as the emphasis on ‘subjectivity’ and ‘intentionality’ are already criticized in a response by Buss in the same volume of Semeia.¹⁶ I agree with Buss, and reject any notion of analysing the New Testament on a different methodological basis from other comparable non-biblical texts. To depart from this methodological principle will not serve the purpose of scholarly exegesis.¹⁷ . Hugh C. White (ed.), Speech Act �eory and Biblical Criticism (Semeia, ; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, ). . Daniel Patte, ‘Speech Act �eory and Biblical Exegesis’, Semeia  (), pp. –. . Patte, ‘Speech Act �eory’, p. . . �e idea of extra-textual rules is fundamental to speech act theory. Searle states that ‘[s]peaking a language is engaging in a (highly complex) rule-governed form of behavior.’ John R. Searle, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the �eory of Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . See further Section . (p. ). . Patte, ‘Speech Act �eory’, p. . . Patte, ‘Speech Act �eory’, p. . . Patte, ‘Speech Act �eory’, p. . . Martin J. Buss, ‘Potential and Actual Interactions Between Speech Act �eory and Biblical Studies’, Semeia  (), pp. –. . For a helpful presentation of this problem through the modern history of theology (and



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Among those exegetes who have gone on to produce speech act analyses of New Testament texts, the approaches vary. For example, in Dietmar Neufeld’s thesis the focus is on Austin’s theory, which is supplemented with insights from J. Derrida and Donald Evans.¹⁸ Neufeld considers the basic speech act theory to be inadequate in the study of a biblical text such as  John because of the special nature of religious speech acts. �at speech act theory can also be used for religious texts without the need for special modifications is demonstrated by H. Ito who uses Searle’s theory.¹⁹ To accommodate the theory in the analysis of literature, he supplements Searle’s theory with insights from Grice and literary theorists.²⁰ �e end result is a sophisticated analysis of passages in the Gospel of John.²¹ �e relationship between speech act theory and conventional forms of exegesis warrants a remark. �e newer methods must be seen as complementing – not substituting – traditional exegesis. In order for most of the newer methods to be effective, the approach cannot be one of traditional exegesis into which some aspects of a modern method have been incorporated. �e old and the new do not mix well but have to be kept apart as separate analytical steps. Different theoretical frameworks and methodologically or technically incompatible work flows can easily create confusion. Instead, a�er both types of analysis have been carried out separately, the results can be combined. On discussing whether to give priority to ‘biblical exegesis’ or to ‘speech act theory’ in devising a project for ‘speech act theory and biblical exegesis’, Patte summarizes his experiences, which can be applied to other methods from structural semiotics and exegesis, as follows: As long as we simply sought to appropriate from structural semiotics (Greimas’s semiotics) analytical techniques so as to pursue our traditional exegetical goals, the results were quite disappointing. But when we took the risk of rethinking the exegetical task in terms of the conceptual framework offered by structural semiotics – and thus developing a ‘structural exegesis’ – a very fruitful study of biblical texts could be envisioned.²²

Speech act analysis is an integrated part of pragma-dialectics. When used as a tool for the analysis of a biblical text it in part fulfils earlier calls for the use of speech act theory in biblical interpretation.²³ especially exegesis) see Heikki Räisänen, Beyond New Testament �eology: A story and a programme (London: SCM Press, nd edn, ). . D. Neufeld, Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of  John (Biblical Interpretation Series, ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ); J. Derrida, ‘Signature Event Context’, Glyph I (), pp. –; Donald D. Evans, �e Logic of Self-Involvement: A Philosophical Study of Everyday Language with Special Reference to the Christian Use of Language about God as Creator (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, ). . Ito, ‘Command or Petition?’. . Ito, ‘Command or Petition?’, pp. –. . Ito, ‘Command or Petition?’; H. Ito, ‘�e Significance of Jesus’ Utterance in Relation to the Johannine Son of Man: A Speech Act Analysis of John :’, Acta �eologica  (), pp. –. . Patte, ‘Speech Act �eory’, p. . . As Wisse notes, ‘Briggs is right in noting that speech act theory is no more than a kind of auxiliary tool rather than an encompassing methodology.’ Maarten Wisse, ‘Words in Action:

�e Method



Argumentation analysis A survey of the literature on analysis of Pauline texts shows that rhetorical approaches dominate from the late s onward. Also, completely apart from any rhetorical analyses, the characteristics of Pauline argumentation has again and again attracted interest. Especially Paul’s understanding of the law has been widely discussed. In these discussions the question of whether Paul’s argumentation is coherent or not is a recurrent theme. Many analysts using a rhetorical approach have shown that logical incoherence is not to be equalled with rhetorical ineffectiveness. �is realization marks an important advance in our understanding of Paul’s argumentation.²⁴ But this line of study needs to be complemented by thorough studies of Paul’s argumentation which employ a method for argumentation analysis. To clarify: the rhetorical aspects of a text basically include all aspects, since the success of an argument with an audience is determined by all qualities of the text, not only those relating specifically to pathos-elements, although these usually are the first to be associated with ‘rhetoric’. Argumentation analysis, on the other hand, has not traditionally included rhetorical aspects of a text understood as aspects crucial for the interplay between orator and audience. In the way I carry out a PD analysis such features are also accounted for, meaning that all the argumentative aspects of the text are analysed. Following this, a division between rhetorical analysis and argumentation analysis is more confusing than helpful. Since these concepts are used differently in different contexts, in each case the contents need to be explained. Superficially, one may use ‘rhetorical perspective’ to designate analyses making use of classical or modern rhetoric and ‘argumentation analysis perspective’ to designate analyses originating within the discipline of argumentation analysis. When turning to studies which are argumentation analyses in the stricter sense of the term, i.e. studies which are based on a formulated theory with developed instruments for argumentation analysis, there are many articles but few larger studies. �e line between argumentation analysis and other types of modern text-theoretical approaches is not always easy to draw. Much text-centred work concerns argumentation but is not argumentation analysis in the sense in which the term is understood within the discipline of argumentation analysis. Just to mention three examples: John D. Moore’s dissertation, ‘Wrestling with rationality in Paul’,²⁵ and articles such as ‘A Sketch of the Argument of  Cor –’, and ‘Gal :–: as Part of a �eological Argument on a Practical Issue’.²⁶ Although studies such as these clearly investigate Paul’s argumentation, the Speech Act �eory and Biblical Interpretation, by Richard S. Briggs; London: T & T Clark, ’, Ars Disputandi  (), pp. – (). In pragma-dialectics this tool is adequately put to use. . For more on this subject, see Lauri �urén, Derhetorizing Paul (WUNT, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ). . John D. Moores, Wrestling with rationality in Paul: Romans – in a new perspective (SNTSMS, ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). . In Lars Hartman, Text-Centered New Testament studies: text-theoretical essays on early Jewish and early Christian literature (WUNT, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ).



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

former employing a semiotic perspective, the latter a text-linguistic perspective, they are not argumentation analyses as the term is understood within the field of argumentation analysis. Efforts to undertake an argumentation analysis proper are o�en hampered by a lack of clarity regarding method. For instance, Hellholm presents an analysis of Romans , in which he ambitiously sets out to use analytical philosophy, text-linguistics, and ancient rhetoric.²⁷ Supplementing a mainly Aristotelian understanding of rhetoric with modern approaches, he illustrates the argumentation in Romans . Surprisingly, the conclusion of his analysis is that ‘Paul is shown to be capable of arguing his case in accordance with the best of Hellenistic argumentative rhetoric.’²⁸ Are not the insights from an analysis with modern methods valuable on their own terms? It seems that there is some resistance among exegetes to acknowledge the results of modern approaches unless they are put in the context of classical rhetorical theories. �e study of enthymemes is perhaps the area within biblical exegesis that most directly relates to the field of argumentation analysis and an area which has attracted attention among many exegetes. �e interest in enthymemes is due to the fact that the enthymeme – broadly defined – is the most common form of rhetorical argumentation and a feature that is given much weight in classical rhetorical literature. Enthymemes are thus o�en discussed in rhetorical analyses of biblical texts.²⁹ Usually, though, only the more important ones are discussed, and the analysis required to reconstruct all the unexpressed premisses in the passage that is being analysed is very seldom carried out.³⁰ In other studies a basic argumentation analysis is not carried out at all, even though the analyst concerns him/herself with enthymemes among other things. For instance, concerning Gal. .– the so-called ‘implicit premiss’ theory is generally accepted on the basis of a superficial reconstruction of a supposed enthymeme (see Section ., p. ff.). It should also be noted that much of the study of enthymemes within the field of biblical studies is not connected with an interest in the new academic discipline of argumentation analysis, but with an interest in ancient rhetoric, and, to a lesser degree, with different types of modern rhetoric. Since the enthymeme is also a feature discussed within argumentation analysis,³¹ there is an overlap in argumentation and rhetorical analysis. A�er all, an argument with a conclusion based on two premisses, one of which is unexpressed, is in fact the most common . David Hellholm, ‘Enthymemic Argumentation in Paul: �e Case of Romans ’, in Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ), pp. – . . Hellholm, ‘Enthymemic Argumentation’, pp. –. . See Eriksson, Traditions, pp. –. . Cf. Anders Eriksson, ‘Enthymemes in Pauline Argumentation: Reading between the Lines in  Corinthians’, in Anders Eriksson, �omas H. Olbricht and Walter Übelacker (eds), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts (EmSEC, ; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, ), pp. –, who claims to have analysed all the enthymemes in  Corinthians. However, much of the argumentation in  Corinthians falls outside that analysis. . For the distinction between a logical and a rhetorical enthymeme, see the paragraph on unexpressed premisses, Section ., p. .

�e Method



form of argumentation. Such studies are, however, not comparable with fully fledged argumentation analyses, since they concentrate on only some features of argumentation and sometimes on a single one, such as the enthymeme. Although such analyses have contributed to our understanding of Paul’s argumentation, as it pertains to methodology, there is a need for a clearer analytical framework. Within non-theological fields dealing with the pragmatic³² aspects of textual analysis there has been a huge development of theories for textual analysis at the same time as the interest for rhetorical and modern text-theoretical approaches in New Testament studies has continued. Some major contributions have been acknowledged by New Testament exegetes – as mentioned above – while many others have been neglected. Rhetorical analysis �e interest in rhetoric among theologians stems from a wider rediscovery of rhetoric and the emerging of a whole new branch of textual analysis, discourse analysis.³³Among scholars working within this field there has been a great deal of methodological development, and the field of discourse analysis now includes many methods suited for a wide variety of analyses. Rather few studies of exegetes, though, show any real interest in the state of research in these or adjacent fields: rhetorical approaches are the only ones that have gained a wider interest. Nevertheless, especially in the light of the heavy critique that has been levelled against much of the classical rhetorical analyses,³⁴ there is real incentive to learn from modern disciplines and to find in them better instruments for textual analysis. �e relationship between rhetorical analysis and argumentation analysis is a complex one.³⁵ �ey represent different methodological frameworks within which the same phenomenon can be analysed differently. According to Aristotle, . Pragmatics: the branch of linguistics dealing with language in use. �e field can be said to cover all the disciplines of discourse analysis, e.g. rhetorical analysis and argumentation analysis. �is branch thus adopts a different approach than logic, where only the formal features are given attention. See Alessandro Ferrara, ‘Pragmatics’, in Van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Dimensions of Discourse, vol. ii (London: Academic Press, ), pp. –. . For a description of the emergence of discourse analysis as a discipline in the s (in German ‘Textwissenscha�’), see Van Dijk, ‘New Cross-Discipline’. . See especially Philip H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle (SNTSMS, ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Kern’s thorough and biting critique is devastating for many analyses based on a so-called classical rhetoric. Basically, Kern systematically presents the theoretical background for much of the critique that has been levelled against rhetorical New Testament criticism ever since the publication of Betz’s commentary in . . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser describe the situation in the following way: ‘it must be acknowledged that neither the dialectical perspective nor the rhetorical perspective is so clearly and univocally defined that we know exactly what we are talking about. �e perceptions and descriptions of the two perspectives vary considerably over time. �e same applies even more strongly to their mutual relationship and the way in which the one perspective may be subordinated to, combined with, or even integrated in, the other. As soon as we are interested in the precise role that each of these perspective [sic] can have in analyzing argumentative discourse, and judging its reasonableness, the differences start to matter.’ Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser (eds), Dialectic and Rhetoric: �e Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (Argumentation Library, ; Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ), p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

there are three sorts of argument: demonstrative, dialectical, and rhetorical.³⁶ �e objectives of these are, respectively, certainty, acceptability, and persuasiveness. �e respective theories behind them are logic, dialectic, and rhetoric. In other words, if the aim is persuasion, then the arguments need to be rhetorical, and the theory rhetoric. If the aim is certainty, the arguments need to be demonstrative, and the theory logic.³⁷ �e historical division between dialectic and rhetoric is, however, not satisfactory. �e contents of both perspectives have varied over time and the definitions tend to overlap. For example, all argumentation includes a logical element.³⁸ One could attempt to distinguish between argumentation and persuasion by focusing on the audience. Does the audience understand or does it accept the argument? Is the argumentation aimed at assent to the opinion of the speaker or does it seek assent to the speaker’s will ? One could try to solve the problem by developing theoretical distinctions between different aspects of ‘to convince’ and ‘persuasion’, cognitive and volitional aspects, and inherent and consecutive effects,³⁹or, on a more general level, note that dialectic and rhetoric represent two different perspectives on argumentative discourse where the former is associated with gaining acceptability of the tenability of an opinion in the light of critical questions and the latter with achieving agreement by the audience.⁴⁰ Paul’s argumentation is practical argumentation. He does not engage in formal logic but aims at convincing his addressees using a mixture of logos, pathos, and ethos, which calls for a method that is able to take all into consideration. Roughly, the basis of the PD method (the earlier developments) facilitates an analysis of the logos-elements, and the more recent developments (the evaluation of strategic manoeuvring), of the ethos- and pathos-elements.⁴¹ �e possibility to take both dialectical and rhetorical aspects into account is one of the strengths of pragma-dialectics. �e interest for rhetorical analysis has led to a considerable new branch within exegetical studies. �e focus has mainly been on the New Testament, especially on the Pauline letters. Paul’s letter to the Galatians has been part of the debate from the beginning due to Betz’s influential  commentary.⁴² �e plethora of studies that have been published since Betz’s commentary have contributed to a new understanding of Paul’s letters and of argumentation in the New Testament . Aristotle, �e ‘Art’ of Rhetoric: with an English Translation by John Henry Freese (G. P. Gould (ed.); LCL, ; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ), I.III.. . See the overview in Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, pp. –. . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, Dialectic and Rhetoric, p. . . I am referring to the suggestions of �urén which I do not find entirely helpful. Lauri �urén, Argument and �eology in  Peter: �e Origins of Christian Paraenesis (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ), pp. –. . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, Dialectic and Rhetoric, p. . . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, Dialectic and Rhetoric, p. . . Betz, Galatians. �e preceding article, Hans Dieter Betz, ‘�e Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians’, NTS  (), pp. –, was also important, but mostly a�er the commentary had attracted attention to it.

�e Method



generally. Although the various methods used are still in a state of flux, the results gained so far must not be ignored. �e Pepperdine rhetorical analysis conferences – on rhetorical criticism of Scripture, primarily the New Testament, provide a wide spectrum of examples and different approaches predominantly based on classical rhetoric.⁴³ �e result of the earlier intense discussion – in the s and s – about the rhetorical genus of Galatians has shown that the character of the letter as a whole is such that it is not easily classified according to the genera of classical rhetoric.⁴⁴ Also, the structure of Galatians is not typical of a classical rhetorical speech. Only the identification of a propositio in .b/–/ and a probatio in .–././. are generally agreed upon. Many have also identified an exordium in .–/ and a narratio in .//–./. �e exact place of the beginning and the end of these sections is debated. �e most difficult to place from a classical rhetorical perspective are the last two chapters. Consequently, there are several different suggestions as to where to find a peroratio, an exhortatio, a subpropositio or similar in Galatians –.⁴⁵ Such results from a historically rhetorical perspective and the structuring and categorizing it has yielded are of little use for a modern argumentation analysis. Since most of these analyses following Betz take their point of origin in classical rhetoric, they give rise to difficult methodological questions. Although the various conventions described in both Greek and Roman works on rhetoric have enabled analysts to identify a great many rhetorical features, the classical approach was not uniform – different handbooks present different approaches. In addition, even though classical rhetorical theories provide a framework for understanding the purpose of using rhetorical devices, they do not give a sufficient framework for the analytical procedure of identifying such devices in a text. �is . Stanley E. Porter and �omas H. Olbricht (eds), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the  Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ); Stanley E. Porter and �omas H. Olbricht (eds), Rhetoric, Scripture and �eology: Essays from the  Pretoria Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ); Stanley E. Porter and �omas H. Olbricht (eds), �e Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the  London Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ); Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (eds), �e Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the  Malibu Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ); Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (eds), Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ); Anders Eriksson, �omas H. Olbricht and Walter Übelacker (eds), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts (EmSEC, ; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, ); �omas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson (eds), Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the  Heidelberg Conference (EmSEC, ; New York & Edinburgh: T & T Clark, ). �e volume from the Pretoria conference in  has not yet been published. . Cf. Dieter Kremendahl, Die Botscha� der Form: Zum verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetoric im Galaterbrief (NTOA, ; Freiburg, Schweitz & Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg & Vandenoeck & Ruprecht, ), pp. –. According to Aristotle, a speech belongs to one of three genera – forensic, epideictic, or deliberative – depending on the situation, audience, and purpose of the speech. Aristotle, Rhetoric, I.III.. . See Kremendahl, Form, pp. –; Betz, Galatians, pp. vii–viii; Longenecker, Galatians, pp. vii–viii, cix–cxiv.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

is only natural, since – as many have already noted – any form of classical rhetoric was designed for creating texts, with the purpose of holding public speeches in mind – not textual analysis. �e needs of an analyst are different from those of a public speaker: the former needs help in understanding argumentation, the latter in creating it. �erefore, a classical rhetorical approach can become an anachronism: (a) we know little of Paul’s education, and of the extent to which he followed classical rhetorical handbooks; (b) there was no uniform classical rhetorical approach but various approaches; and (c) classical approaches were not designed for textual analysis. �us the theory that is actually used is either a modern synthesis more or less alien to the classics or an analysis strictly according to some classical tradition (e.g. Aristotle) of which the connection to Paul is weak.⁴⁶ Furthermore, beginning with Betz, an analysis based on a classical approach tends to focus on the identification of those figures, forms, and strategies described in the classical literature – an o�en eclectic endeavour which has attracted heavy criticism.⁴⁷ Many modern methods, for example the PD method, are more flexible and are suitable for the analysis of any argument of any form. Discrepancies in the methodology make an analysis problematic. How should one proceed? In what way should one describe the procedure? Concerning a rhetorical analysis of biblical texts, some suggestions have been put forth, but no satisfactory solution has really been found. Some broader framework for the use of an adapted form of classical rhetoric as a tool for analysis was suggested in  by George A. Kennedy in New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, and his suggestion has not been substantially refined since.⁴⁸ �e main problem with Kennedy’s suggestion, and with most of the work that followed in its wake, is the link he makes between classical rhetoric and ‘universal rhetoric’, to use Kennedy’s label. If we accept Kennedy’s thesis that Aristotle describes universal rhetoric,⁴⁹ then why should we limit ourselves to Aristotle’s description of it?⁵⁰ If one is analysing rhetoric from a universal perspective, would . Kern puts this bluntly, ‘What can it matter to us how the classical Buddhist or Aristotle would have read a text with which they had no real points of contact – whether philosophical, literary or historical?’ Kern, Assessing an Approach, p. . . e.g. David E. Aune, ‘Galatians: A Commentary . . ., by Hans Dieter Betz; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ’, RSR () (), pp. – (), who in his review of Betz’s commentary notes that such eclecticism may originate with Paul himself, making it impossible to make a credible analysis based on some classical tradition: ‘the letter appears rather to be an eclectic combination of various rhetorical techniques and styles of diverse origin which are nevertheless welded together in a new and distinctive literary creation’. . Kennedy suggests the following stages in the practice of rhetorical criticism: to determine, define or consider () the rhetorical unit; () the rhetorical situation; () the rhetorical problem; () the arrangement of material; and () the rhetorical exigence. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, pp. –. . ‘Aristotle’s objective in writing his Rhetoric was not to describe Greek rhetoric, but to describe this universal facet of human communication.’ Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, p. . . As Classen puts it, ‘there is no reason why one should restrict oneself to the rhetoric of the an-

�e Method



not modern ‘universal’ methods be more accurate?⁵¹ I suggest that historical considerations should rather be included in a modern sophisticated approach than that the approach itself should aspire to be historical. In actual rhetorical analyses, the consequences of methodological deficiencies surface in several ways. Because of the lack of but the broadest of guidelines (such as those of Kennedy), different scholars attempting a rhetorical analysis approach the same texts in a wide range of ways, and it is not always clear on which methodological premisses they base their analyses. Because of different points of departure, and different ‘routes’ taken, the analyses are sometimes difficult to follow; random, and at times forced or unnatural identifications of rhetorical features are not necessarily put together systematically and linked to each other clearly.⁵² Following this, modern rhetorical approaches have also been attempted. Studies making use of contemporary methods are, however, few and most of them remain rather isolated instances of the method used: they have not been able to raise any wider interest among exegetes in general. �ere is thus a spectrum of rhetorical analyses, ranging from those that strictly conform to some classical theory to those that adopt a more pragmatic approach based on classical theory to those that utilize a modern theory.⁵³ �e first category has received the harshest critique and is best seen as a period of experimentation before an understanding of the limits and uses of the method developed.⁵⁴ �e

cients in interpreting texts from antiquity, and not avail oneself of the discoveries and achievements of more recent times.’ Carl Joachim Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (WUNT, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ), p. . . Kern notes that in several studies the link to classical rhetoric has weakened. He summarizes: ‘When the link is completely broken (or only maintained where its validity is demonstrable) the ground will be clear for scholarship to replace attempts to uncover classical rhetoric with efforts to describe early Christian rhetoric, first-century Jewish rhetoric, and ultimately, Paul’s rhetoric. Efforts in this direction are under way, but o�en the analysis is hindered by the intrusion of classical standards.’ Kern, Assessing an Approach, p. . . �e trend of identifying as many rhetorical features in Paul as possible according to a taxonomy of classical rhetoric ended a few years ago. In  Anderson warned – himself approaching Paul from a classical perspective – that ‘[i]t is very easy to label a particular passage or argument in Paul’s writings by some Greek technical term, but unless rhetorical theory enables us to say something relevant concerning its use and function at that point, our analysis is pretty worthless.’ R. D. Anderson Jr, Ancient Rhetorical �eory and Paul (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and �eology, ; Kampen: Kok Pharos, ), p. . . For an overview of studies with some form of rhetorical analysis of the Bible, although no longer up to date, see Watson and Hauser, Bibliography; for Galatians pp. –. . �ere are many examples, but limiting myself here to a few on Galatians, the following illustrate too strict an analysis according to some understanding of classical rhetoric: James D. Hester, ‘�e Rhetorical Structure of Galatians :–:’, JBL () (), pp. –; Robert G. Hall, ‘�e Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration’, JBL () (), pp. –; Smit, ‘Galatians’; James D. Hester, ‘Placing the Blame: �e Presence of Epideictic in Galatians  and ’, in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ), pp. –; Troy Martin, ‘Apostasy to Paganism: �e Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy’, JBL () (), pp. –.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

second category has been more well received. It is more narrowly represented.⁵⁵ �e last category is the least explored one, but the interest for modern approaches seems to be growing.⁵⁶ �e lively critical discussion about the merits and limits of a rhetorical analysis has clearly shown the need for methodological development and a refinement of approaches to Pauline text-analysis. Methodologically, many rhetorical analyses so far presented have not in all respects been convincing. In addition, rhetorical analyses are inadequate when it comes to describing the dialectical part of argumentation. �is is not to say that rhetorical analyses and argumentation analyses do not overlap. In some respects rhetorical studies come close to an argumentation analysis, as do (for example) the analyses in Betz’s and Longenecker’s commentaries. �e overlap is in part only and the methodological framework determines which perspective is dominant. In PD theory, the rhetorical perspective is incorporated into the dialectical framework and earlier rhetorical analyses of Galatians are useful in a PD analysis primarily in analysing the argumentative strategy. An argumentation analysis perspective brings in an additional element. Most argumentation theories maintain that it is not enough to have rhetorical success with an audience, but that one should critically maintain certain standards of reasonableness. In the case of Paul, it is indeed unlikely that he would have been uninterested in the reasonableness of his arguments, and later readers certainly would be very interested in it. Consequently, a modern comprehensive analysis would need to account for both rhetorical features – without historical methodological prerequisites – and for dialectical aspects as well. Epistolographical analysis �e letter to the Galatians was written to be heard. Would it have been easier, Paul would most probably have visited the Galatians in person.⁵⁷ In any case, . See especially Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of  Corinthians (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur �eologie, ; Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, ) and Johan S. Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik (WUNT, ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), ). See also Janet Fairweather, ‘�e Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric: Parts  & ’, Tyndale Bulletin () (), pp. –; A. H. Snyman, ‘Persuasion in Philippians :–’, in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the  Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ), pp. –; and J. W. Marshall, ‘Paul’s Ethical Appeal in Philippians’, in Stanley E. Porter and �omas H. Olbricht (eds), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the  Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ), pp. –. . See e.g. the following dissertations: Mitternacht, Forum; Susanne Schewe, Die Galater zurückgewinnen: Paulinische Strategien in Galater  und . (FRLANT, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ); D. Francois Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (WUNT, . Reihe, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ). . Heikki Koskenniemi identifies three characteristics of the Graeco-Roman letter: () it is a way of expressing a friendly relationship (ϕιλοϕροσύνη); () it functions as a substitute for the presence of the author (παρουσία); and () it continues a dialogical conversation in writing (ὁµιλία). Heikki Koskenniemi, Studien zur Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis  n. Chr (Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ, Ser. B., ,; Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, ), pp. –.

�e Method



Table .: �e epistolographical structure of a Pauline letter – Opening (sender, addressee, greeting) – �anksgiving or blessing (o�en with intercession and/or eschatological climax) – Body (introductory formulae; o�en having an eschatological conclusion and/or an indication of future plans) – Paraenesis – Closing (formulaic benedictions and greetings; sometimes mention of the writing process)

he did what was usual at the time and wrote a letter to be read to the Galatian congregations. In so doing he followed certain conventions relating to letterwriting. However, Paul’s letters are very difficult to range among any classical types of letter. �e main deviation from classical letters is that Galatians is much longer than letters usually were, and much more detailed, resembling a small treatise more than a letter.⁵⁸ Consequently, it has been suggested that the letter to the Galatians should rather be understood as a rhetorical speech since it clearly exhibits classical rhetorical conventions.⁵⁹ �e standard form of a Hellenistic letter is as follows: an introductory section; the main body of the letter; and a concluding section.⁶⁰ Paul’s letters more or less follow this general structure but with the addition of a paraenesis before the conclusion; William G. Doty suggests that the Pauline letters generally have the structure outlined in Table ..⁶¹ Galatians differs from this general structure by the following omissions and extensions: the omission of a thanksgiving or blessing at the beginning; the want of any plans of visit; and the loss of greetings: the autographic passage (.–) is longer and from the point of view of content different from usual. In short, the form of the letter would probably have been noticed with some irritation by the receivers.⁶² �is is generally seen as intentional on Paul’s part and in accordance with his message in Galatians. Doty draws two conclusions from his view that Paul followed Hellenistic conventions of letter-writing and modified them somewhat. First, Doty contests the view that Paul’s material was mostly Jewish in origin and simply cast into Greek . For a general description of letter-writing in antiquity, see Abraham J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary �eorists (SBLSBS, ; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, ). For a comparison between ancient letters and Paul’s letters, see John Lee White, �e Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle (SBLDS, ; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, ). . See Klaus Berger, ‘Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede: zum formular der frühchristlichen Briefe’, ZNW  (), pp. – (); Franz Schnider and Werner Stenger, Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular (NTTS, ; Leiden: Brill, ), p. ; Verena Jegher-Bucher, Der Galaterbrief auf dem Hintergrund antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik: Ein anderes Paulusbild (Abhandlungen zur �eologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, ; Zürich: �eologischer Verlag, ), pp. –, . See also Hietanen, Galaterbrevet, pp. –. . William G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ), p. . . Doty, Letters, p. . . Cf. Kremendahl, Form, p. . According to Kremendahl, the normal χάρις formula at the end of the letter is also missing, since he finds . to be a redactional addition to Paul’s text.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

form. Secondly, he contests the view that Paul did not compose his letter with care and with a clear sense of what he wanted to write.⁶³ Doty’s identification of a structure in Paul’s letters is widely accepted (sometimes with minor differences). Especially interesting, however, is that many who utilize an ancient rhetorical perspective end up with a similar structuring, but on the basis of rhetorical conventions. Schnider and Stenger attempt a rhetorically aware epistolographical analysis. �ey criticize those who attempt to describe Paul’s letter too strictly from the perspective of the classical letter-form (‘mit allzu starrem Blick auf die Muster der antiken Epistolographie’). Paul’s letters are closer to the genus of a speech than that of a conversation among friends.⁶⁴ M. Luther Stirewalt Jr analyses Paul’s letters strictly from an epistolographical viewpoint with the thesis that Paul’s letters resemble the official administrative letter.⁶⁵ Stirewalt states that ‘[t]he logistics for the preparation, dispatch, and reception of letters define the context and identify the genre of the document. �ey also influence the writer’s method of composition.’⁶⁶ When turning to an analysis of the actual letters, however, all epistolographers agree that Paul’s letters differ greatly from whatever epistolographical conventions one compares them with, creating what o�en is referred to as an epistolographical sub-genre. Stirewalt’s comment is typical: ‘Paul’s uses of epistolary conventions are regularly modified by the demands of his unique ministry, by his theological commitments, and by his personal creativity.’⁶⁷ It seems to me that, as it pertains to the structure of Galatians, little is gained from trying to classify the letter as a species of ancient letter supposedly following a certain structure. For example the notion of an introduction, a body, and a conclusion can be seen as a universal quality of communication. �is tripartite main division is in fact the only one upon which most scholars agree, and all subdivisions therea�er are disputed. �is alone gives reason to believe that Paul’s form is not imported from conventions of letter-writing.⁶⁸ �is is not in conflict . Doty, Letters, p. . . Schnider and Stenger, Briefformular, pp. –: ‘Sicher folgt Paulus bei der Abfassung seiner Briefe keinem klassischen Handbuch der Rhetorik, doch nötigt ihn die Adresse seiner Briefe, nicht nur briefstilgemäß sondern auch rhetorisch zu verfahren.’ . M. Luther Stirewalt Jr, Paul, �e Letter Writer (Grand Rapids, MI & Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ), p. . �is connects to the older discussion begun by Deissman on ‘non-literary’ and ‘literary’ papyri. �e common opinion today is that such a division is artificial and that Paul’s letters have traits of both personal and administrative letters. For Deissman’s view, see Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, pp. –, and for a critique of this, see Otto Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe (Beiträge zur Wissenscha� vom Alten und Neuen Testament, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, ). Stirewalt anchors Paul’s letters firmly within the administrative type of letter. . Stirewalt Jr, Letter Writer, p. . . Stirewalt Jr, Letter Writer, p. . . e.g. Stirewalt states that ‘[i]t must be said that neither in form, nor function, nor style can Paul’s letters be contained in one category’. He suggests the solution that Paul ‘adopted, molded, and devised a communicative form’ to meet his needs. His letters ‘arose in a unique epistolary setting and may be said to constitute an addition to the epistolary corpus’. Stirewalt Jr, Letter Writer, p. .

�e Method



with the fact that some similarities between Paul’s letters and those of the official or administrative letters are present, which is most apparent in the opening or salutation and the subscription of the letter. Should Paul’s letters, then, be regarded as speeches or as letters? Paul’s letters display typical characteristics of a letter. Structurally, for instance, the salutation and the subscription are unmistakably epistolographical. �e rest, however, clearly resembles a speech more than a letter (even though epistolographical features are found throughout the letter). �is observation led Betz to conclude that ‘[t]he epistolary framework of the Galatian epistle can be easily recognized and separated from the “body” – in fact, it separates so easily that it appears almost as a kind of external bracket for the body of the letter’.⁶⁹ From an epistolographical perspective Betz has been criticized for not giving sufficient attention to an epistolary analysis.⁷⁰ On the other hand, from a rhetorical perspective, the letter should be treated as a whole, including the opening and the conclusion. Also, in a speech these serve important rhetorical functions. Such considerations are taken into account in the epistolographical study of Schnider and Stenger. �ey describe Paul’s letter as Redeersatz, which they hold to be especially true for Galatians.⁷¹ Both epistolographical and ancient rhetorical features in Galatians have been debated at length. Concerning the relationship between epistolography and rhetoric in an analysis of Pauline letters, opinions vary from the claim that only one approach is legitimate to various mixtures of both approaches.⁷² In my opinion, an understanding of both of these perspectives is helpful, but both fall short when it comes to a comprehensive explanation. It has been shown that Paul’s style differs so much from whatever conventions one uses as a reference that assigning the letter to some category of ancient letter-writing or speech does not do justice to the element of Paul’s originality.⁷³ In short, Galatians can be analysed both from an epistolographical and from a rhetorical perspective. It is both a letter and . Betz, ‘Literary Composition’, p. . . Longenecker, Galatians, pp. civ–cv. . ‘Weil der Galaterbrief mithin also die Erneuerung bzw. neuerliche Ausrichtung der gemeindebegründenden Evangeliumsverkündigung, also Redeersatz par excellence ist (vgl. Gal ,), ist es nicht verwunderlich, daß unter allen anderen Paulinen Gal der Brief ist, der sich mit den Kriterien der Rhetorik am besten und durchgängigsten erfassen lässt.’ Schnider and Stenger, Briefformular, p. . . For a research history overview, see Kremendahl, Form, pp. –. . It has, for example, been suggested that Galatians can be classified as an apologetic letter; a ‘magical letter’; a ‘heavenly letter’ (Betz, Galatians, pp. , ); a letter of blame (Hester, ‘Epideictic in Gal.’); a political letter (Jegher-Bucher, Der Galaterbrief ); a letter of rebuke (Anderson Jr, Rhetorical �eory); or a half-official letter of petition (Mitternacht, Forum, pp. –). All classifications have been unsatisfactory in some way. Even when considering that both letter writers and orators had a lot of freedom within classical theories, Galatians is very difficult to classify with any of the letter-categories. In addition, some of the suggested letter-types are unclear, see Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco–Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity, ; Philadelphia, PA: �e Westminster Press, ), p. , who finds neither apologetic nor rebuking letters in the New Testament. For further discussion on epistolographical features in Galatians, see Mitternacht, Forum, pp. –.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

a speech. Both perspectives answer different types of questions necessary in order to form a full understanding of rhetorical and epistolographical conventions from Paul’s time used in the letter.⁷⁴ For an argumentation analysis, epistolography is important for the identification of epistolographical conventions such as the use of certain phrases.⁷⁵ In order not to misread such phrases, they need to be recognized and evaluated on the basis of their significance at the time of writing as far as we know. �is epistolographical perspective can easily be incorporated in the identification of speech acts and in the analysis of the argumentation. Conclusion As this survey shows, as far as specific argumentation analysis is concerned, there is only fragmentary help to be found in previous studies. Although the field of argumentation analysis has grown rapidly for four decades now, in exegesis it has been overshadowed by an interest in rhetorical approaches. �e connection between the two is very close, though, and many insights made within the framework of a rhetorical analysis are relevant for a study made within the framework of an argumentation analysis. �e basis for the study is different, however, and especially in the light of the fact that most rhetorical analyses of Pauline texts have been made from an ancient rhetorical perspective, the choice of a modern approach such as pragma-dialectics is methodologically very different. Many analysts who use a classical rhetorical approach make a point of using a method which exhibits conventions which are historically close to Paul. �ese connections are difficult to establish. When using a modern method these aspects are unimportant. Conjectures about Paul’s education and about what was in ‘the air’ regarding communicative practices are not needed. A modern method does not rely on a historical connection between method and object of analysis. Still, the text cannot be analysed ‘as is’ without any consideration of the original context. Conventions at the time of Paul regarding language and letter-writing are important. However, since neither the conventions of some form of classical rhetoric nor some form of classical epistolography are fully able to describe Paul’s way of arguing and writing, there is in fact good reason not to use these approaches as a starting point. �e insights provided by ancient perspectives are important, but they can easily be incorporated in the externalization of the argument and thus be taken into account, when necessary, in a modern analysis. Much more difficult is the socialization, which requires familiarity with the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of the participants engaged in the debate. �e difficulty persists regardless of the method used.⁷⁶ . Cf. �urén, Rhetorical Strategy, p. . . See Schnider and Stenger, Briefformular, pp. –, where the following are listed: ‘Rekursformel’, ‘Kundgabeformel’, ‘Ersuchensformel’, ‘Ausdruck der Erstaunens’, ‘Ausdruck der Freude’, ‘Schwurformel’, ‘Eulogien’, and ‘Doxologien’. . �e concepts externalization and socialization are explained in the next section, under ‘Metatheoretical Premisses’, p. .

�e Method



In the analysis I will, then, include insights from studies of – or studies utilizing – speech act theory, argumentation analysis, different types of rhetorical analysis, and, to a lesser extent, epistolography. Concerning some figures of speech, patterns of argumentation and such, parallels found in Greek, Roman, and Jewish conventions of writing, argumentation, and rhetoric can be of help. Still, the emphasis throughout is on an inter-textual analysis. It seems to me that those studies that are based on a rhetorical perspective do not take into account sufficiently the dialectical features of the text. On the other hand, traditional methods are not designed to account for features of argumentation in a text satisfactorily. Much of the information about the argumentation of Paul has been gained intuitively using conventional methods, methods which were not designed specifically for an analysis of argumentation. Unfortunately, if the approach is unclear methodologically it is difficult to retrace the chain of thought if one wants to understand how an exegete came to a certain conclusion. Using methods that have been developed and tested by experts within the relevant fields within textual analysis has the advantage of a clear analytical process.

.

General characteristics of the method

�e PD approach is part of a development which began to take shape in the early s, when attention within several disciplines paid to the study of discourse became more integrated under the label discourse analysis.⁷⁷ Argumentation analysis is one of the branches within discourse analysis which gradually emerged as a branch in its own right in the s with the emergence of its own journals and conferences. As recently as  it was possible in a presentation of argumentation theory to state that ‘no general theory of argumentation has been propounded, there is also no methodologically recognized analysis of argumentation’.⁷⁸ Since then the research within the field of argumentation theory and analysis has developed rapidly. Now there are a variety of general theories to choose from. Van Eemeren describes the situation as follows: ‘�e current state of the art is characterized by the co-existence of a variety of approaches, differing considerably in conceptualization, scope and degree of theoretical refinement, albeit that all the modern approaches are strongly influenced by classical and post-classical rhetoric and dialectic.’⁷⁹ �e PD approach is one of the more comprehensive and ambitious among the new approaches. It is an attempt to combine a descriptive and a norma. See Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Disciplines of Discourse, vol. i (London: Academic Press, ) for an overview of the different disciplines within discourse analysis and their backgrounds. . Josef Kopperschmidt, ‘An Analysis of Argumentation’, in Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Dimensions of Discourse, vol. ii (London: Academic Press, ), pp. – (). . Frans H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ), p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

tive approach and thus to provide a comprehensive theoretical framework for a method of analysis for any argumentative text.⁸⁰ Quoting J. Anthony Blair’s description, [i]t is the only theory that incorporates a developed underlying philosophical perspective with a complete elaboration of a theory and a full account of its practical applications. It is the only theory that integrates insights from the complete range of fields in which argumentation is studied (among others: linguistics, philosophy of language, logic, communications, rhetoric). . . . It has had simply a huge influence on argumentation studies around the world.⁸¹

Basically, the advantage of a PD analysis lies in its allowing the combination of logical and pragmatic aspects. �is is useful in the case of a Pauline text: revealing the logic is not enough to understand how the arguments function in a context, and a pragmatic analysis alone (e.g. a rhetorical analysis) is not enough to clarify the dialectical structure of the arguments. �rough a PD analysis I hope to show how Paul’s arguments are put forward, how they are linked to each other, and how they function in the text. As part of the process, underlying but unexpressed premisses⁸² are to be extracted and the arguments scrutinized for any fallacies. �e PD method meets the need for a well-founded and implemented method.⁸³ A clear procedure not only helps the analyst, but the reader as well, who can follow a regimented analysis more easily. Still, the method is flexible enough to be applied to different texts and different needs. It can be described as ‘dynamic’, ‘contextsensitive’, ‘multi-agent’, and ‘a theory of fallacy and argumentative structure’.⁸⁴ As to the definitions of ‘dialectic’ and ‘rhetoric’, the former can, on an analyticaltheoretical level, be described as ‘a method of regimented opposition’ in verbal . �e relationship between ‘descriptive’ and ‘normative’ approaches is a major area of debate within contemporary argumentation research. �e former generally claim to be value-free, the latter discuss the quality of argumentation. See Frans H. van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse (Studies in Rhetoric and Communication, Tuscaloosa, AL & London: University of Alabama Press, ), pp. vii–xi, , where the problem is discussed briefly with an example. Pragmadialectics can be classified as belonging to a general field of study termed ‘normative pragmatics’, Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, �eory of Argumentation, back-cover. . An unexpressed premiss is an omitted element which is not unintentionally omitted but is nevertheless implicitly present in the argumentation; Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. . . �e theoretical background has attracted praise even from analysts with another perspective, see, for example, Robert T. Craig, ‘Practical Communication �eory and the Pragmadialectical Approach in Conversation’, in Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds), Argumentation Illuminated (Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), pp. – (–): ‘With its practical and normative orientations; its effort to integrate theory and practice; its openness to a wide range of methodological approaches; its vocabulary of idealization, reconstruction, critique, and practical application; its understanding of communication as practice and as method – in these among other respects, the pragma-dialectical approach appears to differ from my notion of practical discipline chiefly by virtue of being a good deal clearer and more fully developed.’ . Daniel Bonevac, ‘Pragma-dialectics and Beyond’, Argum  (), pp. – (–).

�e Method



communication and interaction ‘that amounts to the pragmatic application of logic, a collaborative method of putting logic into use’, and the latter as ‘practical persuasion techniques’.⁸⁵ Using the PD approach has one further important implication. Whereas a rhetorical analysis is mainly concerned with the rhetorical effectiveness of argumentation, the PD approach is mainly focused on the rational quality of the argumentation. �ese overlap; poor rational quality lessens the rhetorical effectiveness and vice versa, but, as described above, usually only one of these features is methodologically the main interest in a method relating to the analysis of argumentation. �e focus on the rational quality in pragma-dialectics is especially apparent in the normative element, which through the use of certain norms facilitates an evaluation of the argumentation. In the case of Paul, such an analysis could be useful for assessing whether Paul’s argumentation is rationally defensible today by helping to answer questions about the coherency, logic, and nature of his argumentation. �e main theological theme in Galatians is about the law and its requirements and its relationship to the freedom of the Christian. �is is not only a theoretical question – in Galatians it is very much a practical one. Paul’s mode of argumentation is a mixture of assertions, proofs and examples intertwined with appeals to ethos and pathos – all embedded in a type of rhetoric that has proven elusive to classification. Analysis of such a text requires a comprehensive method which is flexible enough to be applicable to a wide variety of texts. �e theoretical groundwork of the PD model was laid by Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst in their  thesis, ‘Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions’.⁸⁶ Different aspects of the theory were developed in the  study, Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ), as well as in several journal articles.⁸⁷ A collaborative monograph, Van Eemeren . �e definitions are from Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, ‘Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse’, DS () (), pp. – (). See also Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, ‘Rhetorical Rationales for Dialectical Moves’, in J. Klumpp (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, ), pp. –. For a detailed discussion on the relationship between dialectic and rhetoric, see Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, Dialectic and Rhetoric. . �e abridged English translation was published in , the Dutch original in . . See especially Frans H. van Eemeren, ‘Dialectical analysis as normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse’, Text () (), pp. –; Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, ‘Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argum  (), pp. –; Frans H. van Eemeren, ‘Argumentation Studies’ Five Estates’, in Joseph W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fi�h SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, ), pp. –; Frans H. van Eemeren, ‘For Reason’s Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse’, in Van Eemeren (ed.), Argumentation Across the Lines of Discipline: Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation  (PDA, ; Dordrecht: Foris Publications, ), pp. –; Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, ‘Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argum  (), pp. –; and Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, ‘Speech Act Conditions as Tools for Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse’, Argum  (), pp. –.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

et al., Reconstructing Discourse was published in .⁸⁸ Important works a�er  include a  collection of papers, Studies in Pragma-Dialectics⁸⁹ and the follow-up in , Advances in Pragma-Dialectics.⁹⁰ An overview of the method’s crucial concepts and their relation to similar concepts in other approaches to the study of argumentation and reasoning is given in Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory.⁹¹ A Systematic �eory of Argumentation presents an overview of the standard version of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation.⁹² �e whole line of development of the method, including the latest trends, is described in �e Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation.⁹³ �ese are the main sources for the PD theory. A concise introduction to the whole field of argumentation analysis in general – as well as to pragma-dialectics – is found in the  handbook Fundamentals of Argumentation �eory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments.⁹⁴ Other members of the Amsterdam research group have contributed with studies on different aspects of argumentation analysis.⁹⁵ Also important are the volumes from the ISSA conferences in Amsterdam on argumentation which contain elucidating articles.⁹⁶ �e need for a practical introductory textbook was met with the publication of Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation.⁹⁷ �e PD method is the result of a broad research programme. �e impetus for this programme is described by Van Eemeren in Argumentation Studies’ Five Estates (). �e aim is to overcome the problems with those approaches that emphasize either the normativity or the descriptivity of an analysis. �e normative methods originate in philosophy and the descriptive ones in linguistics. �e authors of the PD method stipulated that for a method to fully describe argumen-

. �is work was the result of two separate projects, the primarily normative work of Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, and the primarily descriptive work of Jackson and Jacobs. Both projects were based on speech act theory. See Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, p. xi. . Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (eds), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation, ). . Frans H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (Sic Sat, Amsterdam: Sic Sat & Newport News, VA: Vale Press, ). . Van Eemeren, Crucial Concepts. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, �eory of Argumentation. . Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, ‘�e Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation’, Argum  (), pp. –. . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook. . For a presentation of the relevant studies, see Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, pp. –. . Most useful are the more recent volumes, from the conferences held in , , and : Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds), Proceedings of the �ird ISSA Conference on Argumentation . . .  (Sic Sat, a,b,c;  vols; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ); and Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Fi�h Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ). �e volume from the  conference is forthcoming. . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation.

�e Method



tation as it in fact functions, it has to deal with both pragmatic and dialectical aspects.⁹⁸ Fundamental to the PD approach is the understanding of argumentation as dialogical, with a difference of opinion. �rough the use of propositions the protagonist tries to convince the antagonist of the acceptability of an opinion.⁹⁹ �is definition of argumentation rests on the fact that argumentation by nature is oriented towards convincing someone.¹⁰⁰ In an argumentative discussion the discussants advance statements in which standpoints are attacked and defended. By means of argumentative statements they try to convince one another of the acceptability of the expressed opinion under discussion.¹⁰¹ An argumentative discussion is thus different from an informative discussion where the intent is primarily to convey information. In practice these two usually overlap since information is needed in order to carry out an argumentative discussion.¹⁰² As implied in the definition above, ideally an argumentative discussion is also a critical discussion with the intent of resolving a difference of opinion.¹⁰³ �is is, however, not always the case, such as in an emotional quarrel, and in such a case a resolution of the difference of opinion may be impossible. �ere are many ways in which to analyse dialogue. Van Eemeren et al. have chosen to develop a model that ‘construes argumentation as a methodical exchange of speech acts among cooperative discussants’ within the framework of a critical discussion.¹⁰⁴ Moreover, the PD model builds upon a construction of an ideal model for argumentative discussion. �is model consists of rules and . For more on this subject, see also Frans H. van Eemeren, ‘�e Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics’, in Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (eds), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation, ), pp. –. For the relationship between pragma-dialectics and speech act theory, see Frans H. van Eemeren, ‘�e Study of Argumentation from a Speech Act Perspective’, in Jef Verschueren (ed.), Pragmatics at Issue: Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August –,  (PBNS, :; Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, ), pp. –. . �e short definition of argumentation was cited on p.  (in Section .). A more technical definition reads: ‘Argumentation is a speech act consisting of a constellation of statements designed to justify or refute an expressed opinion and calculated in a regimented discussion to convince a rational judge of a particular standpoint in respect of the acceptability or unacceptability of that expressed opinion.’ Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . For an explanation of the meaning of the term ‘standpoint’, see the paragraph on assertives, Section ., p. . . Even in the special case of interior dialogue, where only one person is involved, one can speak of the dialogical nature of the argumentation. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst note that ‘[s]elfconsultation in this way o�en takes place where it is necessary to anticipate the possible reaction of others, which makes the social nature of argumentation even more obvious.’ Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . See Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, pp. –. . �e definition reads: ‘By a critical discussion we mean a discussion between a protagonist and an antagonist of a particular standpoint in respect of an expressed opinion, the purpose of the discussion being to establish whether the protagonist’s standpoint is defensible against the critical reactions of the antagonist.’ Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: Differences between informal logic and the PD approach   text-based argument criteria product-oriented

- speech-based critical discussion rules process-oriented

conditions for an ideal exchange of arguments with the purpose of resolving a conflict of arguments. �e PD model has received some criticism. �ere are many different approaches within the field, and there seems to be some tension between the Amsterdam School and, for example, some representatives of the field of argumentation analysis in North America, informal logic.¹⁰⁵ �ere are, however, many features in common between the two approaches. Johnson finds them to be complementary theories and describes them with a simple comparison, see Table ..¹⁰⁶ Johnson also notes that these two should not be seen as rival theories but as different initiatives. In addition, informal logic is an approach to logic whereas the PD approach is a school of argumentation.¹⁰⁷ For twenty-six recent articles considering the PD approach from a wide variety of perspectives, see Peter Houtlosser and Agnès van Rees (eds), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (Festschri� Frans H. van Eemeren; Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, ). �at Van Eemeren et al. have presented the PD theory as an integrated, or comprehensive, theory for evaluating argumentative discourse has invited criticism. Of the critique levelled against the PD method, one recurrent subject needs to be addressed: the claim that the model does not account for rhetorical features in argumentation.¹⁰⁸ . ‘Informal logic is . . . an approach to the normative study of argumentation in ordinary language which remains closer to the practise of argumentation than formal logic.’ Van Eemeren, Crucial Concepts, p. . �is approach took shape in the early seventies in Canada and USA. �e most important publication of this type is the journal Informal Logic, edited by Blair and Johnson and published since . Whereas formal logic is concerned with formal propositions and their logical relationships, informal logic is concerned with the pragmatic use of logic in argumentation. Walton states that we should properly talk of ‘logical pragmatics’ as opposed to ‘logical theory’, Douglas N. Walton, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . . Ralph H. Johnson, ‘Informal Logic and Pragma-dialectics: Some Differences’, in Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds), Perspectives and Approaches: Proceedings of the �ird ISSA Conference on Argumentation (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), pp. – (). For discussion about the differences, see also David Hitchcock, ‘Critical Review: Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Frans H. van Eemeren, ed.’, Informal Logic () (), pp. –. . Johnson, ‘IL & PD’, pp. –. . See Andreea Deciu, ‘�e Debate Between René Descartes and Pierre Fermat: a PragmaDialectical Analysis’ (unpublished dissertation, University of Minnesota, ), pp. – and Anders Sigrell, Att övertyga mellan raderna: en retorisk studie om underförstådda inslag i modern politisk argumentation (Meddelanden från institutionen för nordiska språk vid Umeå universitet, ; Umeå: Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Umeå universitet, ), pp. –. Deciu’s critique

�e Method



�e method originates from within the fields of formal dialectics and linguistics. �is originally gave the theory a lopsidedness, at least from the point of view of someone familiar with rhetorical approaches. However, from the perspective of Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, the aim of dealing with argumentation dialogically was not realized in many rhetorical analyses of argumentation.¹⁰⁹ Originally, as the PD method was presented in the s, the main difference seems to be that the PD method views argumentation as a pursuit of convincing, while rhetorical approaches view argumentation as a pursuit of persuading. In the former the rational element is in the foreground, in the latter it is in the background. An overall analysis would require both perspectives to be combined – a need which, as the method developed and was more widely discussed, became apparent. In  Van Eemeren and Houtlosser began the work of integrating rhetorical insight into pragma-dialectics.¹¹⁰ �is work is presented in a number of articles¹¹¹ and the all-but-simple relationship between dialectic and rhetoric is also dealt with in a collection of papers.¹¹² As the method now stands, rhetorical considerations can be included in an analysis.¹¹³ Consequently, the critique levelled against the PD method in this respect is no longer pertinent.¹¹⁴ As the work progresses, the aim is that the PD method will provide tools that adequately account for rhetorical features of a text. �e terminology so far presented by Van Eemeren and Houtlosser is that of ‘rhetorical moves’ as part of a ‘strategic manoeuvring’ in resolving a difference of opinion.¹¹⁵ When rhetorical insight is is summarized by the suggestion that ‘the dialectical approach needs to be strengthened by a rhetorical view, which can account for a connection between . . . ideal standards and a rhetorical sensitivity to context-embedded discursive norms’ (p. ). Sigrell’s critique is summarized in the following statement: ‘�e importance of logos is overemphasized at the expense of ethos and pathos.’ (‘Betydelsen av logos överbetonas på bekostnad av ethos och pathos’, p. ). . For example, against the New Rhetoric of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca they give the following critique: ‘[they] appear at first sight to elect, in their New Rhetoric, for a dialogical approach to argumentation. On closer inspection, however, their contribution is not dialogical, because the (universal) audience that is supposed to guarantee rationality is composed of a sometimes imaginary company of passive listeners offering no verbal opposition at all. �is quasi-social treatment of argumentation predominates in literature on argumentation in which a rhetorical perspective is chosen.’ Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, pp. –. . Houtlosser and Van Rees, Considering PD, p. viii. . See the following, all by Van Eemeren and Houtlosser: Delivering the Goods in Critical Discussion (), William the Silent’s Argumentative Discourse (), Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse (), �e Rhetoric of William the Silent’s Apologie: A Dialectical Perspective (), A Procedural View of Critical Reasonableness (), Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof (), Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering (). . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, Dialectic and Rhetoric. . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, ‘Development of PD’. . �is depends, however, on one’s theoretical understanding of argumentation. David Hitchcock remarks that this extension to the method is not enough: ‘Since it remains subordinated to the critical rationalism which undergirds the rules for critical discussion, the pragma-dialectical accommodation of victory-oriented rhetorical manoeuvres will not satisfy those theorists of argumentation who construe argumentation as fundamentally a persuasive activity, to be judged by its effectiveness.’ Hitchcock, ‘Review of Advances in PD’, p. . . Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, ‘Delivering the Goods in Critical Discussion’, in



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

incorporated into the dialectical framework, an analysis with the PD method can adequately describe both aspects of an argument: on the one hand the proper use of the ‘art’ of rhetoric and the persuasive effect on the other. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser correctly point out that ‘Aristotle did not define rhetoric in terms of persuasive effect, but as the faculty for observing in any given case the available means of persuasion’.¹¹⁶ �e tension between these two sides of argumentation – between pursuing dialectical objectives and rhetorical aims – gives rise to what is described as ‘the management of the discourse that we call strategic manoeuvring, which is aimed at making the strongest possible case while at the same time avoiding any moves that are clearly unreasonable’.¹¹⁷ Since the text of Galatians includes many rhetorical features, it is indeed important to make this extension to the method in the direction of rhetorical analysis. �erefore I will make use of insights from rhetorical studies, especially from within New Testament exegesis, thus in a natural way connecting to the research history within the field. �ere are different ways in which to make use of PD theory in argumentation analysis, from a focus on the general traits of the argument under investigation to a detailed analysis of a text. Within exegesis it is usually fruitful to maintain a minute analysis throughout. Since our knowledge of Paul as a person, his addressees, and the context as well as cultural and historical circumstances is limited, it is worthwhile to try to extract as much from the text as possible. �e method is openended to such a degree that it is possible to adapt in different ways depending on the analyst and the object of analysis. �e nature of the text to a large extent determines what parts of the method will be emphasized in the analysis. �e following presentation of the PD model is divided into several parts, each describing an important aspect of the model: . metatheoretical premisses; . speech act theory; and . a model of a critical discussion. �e presentation of the model of a critical discussion is further divided into the distribution of speech acts, strategic manoeuvring, rules for critical discussion, and felicity and higher-order conditions.¹¹⁸

Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), pp. – (). . Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, ‘Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof ’, in Van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics ( Sic Sat, Amsterdam: Sic Sat & Newport News, VA: Vale Press, ), pp. – (). . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, ‘Advances in PD’, p. . �e relationship between rhetoric and dialectic is further described by Van Eemeren and Houtlosser as follows: ‘To enrich the PD method of analysis with rhetorical insight, we view rhetorical moves as operating within a dialectical framework. �is means that insight into strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse as it occurs in practice is incorporated in a resolution-oriented reconstruction.’ Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, ‘Delivering the Goods’, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, pp. –.

�e Method .



Metatheoretical premisses

�e PD approach utilizes four metatheoretical or methodological premisses concerning how one ought to set about studying an argument. �is concept is a distinct contribution of the PD approach, which has the purpose of integrating the descriptive and normative dimensions of argumentation.¹¹⁹ �e premisses are externalization, socialization, functionalization, and dialectification. Below follows a short description of what these concepts entail. �e analysis in Chapters  and  will illustrate their use in practice. Externalization �e purpose of externalization is to make the commitments of the language user (i.e. the protagonist or the antagonist in an argumentation) explicit. Especially in a tense argumentation it is necessary to identify the substance from expressive rhetoric.¹²⁰ �is clarification of the content of a speech act is made solely on the basis of what is expressed in the text. However, if implicit elements can be made explicit, they can be used since they should be seen as a de facto part of the argument. What is not included are speculations about underlying beliefs, motives etc. Externalization is achieved by identifying the specific commitments created by argumentative speech acts. Van Eemeren et al. point out that ‘[r]ather than treating “accepting” and “disagreeing” as internal states of mind, these notions can be externalized in terms of discursive activities. Acceptance can be conceptualized as the performance of a preferred response to the arguable act.’¹²¹ �ere is a tension between this approach and such rhetorical approaches that concentrate on explaining the effectiveness of argumentation by referring to ‘presumed psychological states of arguers and their audiences’.¹²² �is distinction is important and avoids the difficulties connected with trying to analyse an attitude. As Houtlosser points out ‘only standpoints carry an obligation to argue. Attitudes do not, despite the fact that standpoints are o�en inspired by attitudes and sometimes even based on attitudes. Advancing a standpoint creates certain commitments, having an attitude does not’.¹²³ (For more on standpoints, see the paragraph on assertives . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. . . �e process of externalization is aptly described already by Arne Næss, Endel elementære logiske emner (Oslo: Grøndahl & søns boktrykkeri, th edn, ), p. , although he calls it ‘translation’ and ‘neutralization’: ‘Når mann kjemper for en sak og i tale og skri� søker å få andre revet med, vil han blande fremstillingen av saken inn i oppfordringen til å støtte den. Innleggene blir farget av hans håp om å få publikum til å handle i en bestemt retning. Den som ikke vil la seg rive med uten etter en kritisk vurdering, må da vende sig til å oversette appellen til nøytral fremstilling. På grunnlag av det som eventuelt blir igjen av innlegget etter nøytraliseringen, vil han fatte sin beslutning.’ . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. , n. . . Peter Houtlosser, ‘Points of View’, in Frans H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ), pp. – (). In his suggestion on how to ‘derhetorize’ Paul’s argumentation, �urén seems to follow the same principle:



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

below, Section ., p. .) �is is not to say that the rhetorical nature of a text should be neglected. On the contrary, rhetorical moves are an important part of the dynamics of the text and should be duly analysed within the framework of strategic manoeuvring. Socialization In order to understand the arguments correctly, they have to be put into their social context. Socialization views language users in a dialogue situation:¹²⁴ ‘It reflects the collaborative way in which the protagonist in the fundamentally dialogical interaction responds to the – real or projected – questions, doubts, objections, and counter-claims of the antagonist.’¹²⁵ Although only recently discussed within PD theory, it is important that the rhetorical aims of the protagonists are taken into account. �is is necessary in order to understand the dialogical interaction in the argument. Ideally, the participants seek to resolve a dispute neutrally in a ‘collaborative way’. In reality, aims of the protagonists o�en lead to an emphasis on persuading the other part – not just a neutral quest for agreement. Persuasion is, however, a normal part of the dynamics of a dispute and becomes problematic only when it is used in a way which violates the rules for a sound exchange of arguments. When performing socialization by identifying participant roles, the aims of the participants need to be taken into account. When the speech acts are analysed, they must not only be seen as displaying the ways in which positions and ‘cases’ in support of positions are developed, but they must also be allowed to have meaning through argumentative roles, such as reflected by, for example, the status and aims of the participants. When analysing an older text such as one where the historical circumstances are unclear, the task of socialization may become more difficult. However, a complete understanding of the participant roles and aims or the specific context is not a necessary prerequisite for an analysis. Usually some information is available, either from historical sources or from the text itself. More knowledge about these matters may help the analyst to decide on the interpretation in arguments where several different interpretations are possible. With less knowledge, the analysis becomes more vague, for example if several interpretations have to be le� open or ‘Whether or not his theology in Galatians is contradictory and incoherent, it seems clear that Paul’s exceptional theological utterances cannot be explained away by referring to his state of mind. �e apostle must be held fully responsible for what he dictated.’ �urén, Derhetorizing, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . �is emphasis is made against the background of such logical approaches to argumentation which ‘totally ignore the language users involved in the argumentation’. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, pp. –. �e trend is toward more pragmatic, activity-based approaches, even in academic philosophy, see Stephen Toulmin, ‘Logic, Rhetoric & Reason: Redressing the Balance’, in Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds), Argumentation Illuminated (Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), pp. – (). . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. , and p.  in Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies.

�e Method



if the aims of the participants cannot be determined. However, even without any historical data an analysis can be carried out; the antagonism is then projected in the discourse (as in many cases of modern texts). Functionalization Functionalization concentrates on the function of the argumentation by treating it as a speech act.¹²⁶ A structural description of an argument is not enough; an understanding of how the different speech acts function in advancing or hindering the achievement of an agreement in the argument is vital as well. When the elements of argumentative discourse are analysed as parts of the actual speech acts, the purpose of the argumentation is taken into account: ‘A specification of what is “at stake” can be gained by organizing the analysis . . . around this context of disagreement, paying close attention to the identity and correctness conditions� ¹²⁷� the speech acts concerned may be deemed to have in view of their communicative function and interactional purpose. Starting from this functionalization, it can be determined which role the various speech acts may have in resolving a difference of opinion.’¹²⁸ �is perspective is lacking in most logical approaches, but has much to recommend it: ‘�e need for argumentation, the requirements of justification, the structure of argumentation all are [sic] adapted to the opposition, doubts, objections and counterclaims that have to be met, and this is reflected in the speech acts advanced.’¹²⁹ It is important that the original concept of functionalization¹³⁰ has been later supplemented with an analysis of the rhetorical aspect. �e same speech act can be viewed from different perspectives depending on how the functional/rhetorical role of the speech act is considered. Dialectification �e analysis examines argumentation as a rational means to convince a critical opponent and not as mere persuasion. In opposition to those descriptive analysts who try to describe the use of language as neutrally as possible, within pragmadialectics argumentation is examined as a critical discussion governed by a valid dialectical procedure for resolving differences of opinion. �is means that the use of speech acts in an argument is compared with an ideal model for critical discussion. �is comparison shows how the exchange of speech acts proceeds at resolving a difference of opinion. �e rules describe an ideal model for critical discussion (the rules are presented in Section ., pp. ff.). �ese rules are not in any way to be associated with rules for formal logic but are created within the . . . . .

Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . See below, Section ., which begins on p. . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, pp. –. Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. . In Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

framework of the PD method as an aid for analysing specifically argumentative discourse. Dialectification thus represents the normative component in pragmadialectics at its clearest. In summary, the four methodological premisses can be explained as follows: What this means [that argumentation is externalized, functionalized, socialized, and dialectified] can be explained by pointing out that the object of the study of argumentation is not an internal state of mind, but the verbal expression of attitudes and opinions (externalization); it does not derive its acceptability from some external source of personal authority or sacrosanct origin, but from its contribution toward the achievement of a specific objective (functionalization); it does not pertain to certain characteristics of a single individual, but to the interaction between two – or more – individuals (socialization); and, finally, it is not reduced to an extremely absolute or relative concept – as in a geometrical or an anthropological conception respectively –, but it is systematically connected with a critical disposition displayed in the pursuit of the resolution of a dispute (dialectification).¹³¹

.

Speech act theory

Speech act theory has become fundamental to many methods of modern text analysis – it is the best analytical instrument so far developed in descriptive interpretative pragmatics,¹³² it functions as ‘a bridge between utterances as verbal objects and utterances as social acts’.¹³³ �e advantages of speech act theory in an analysis of argumentation are both theoretical and practical. From a theoretical perspective, speech act theory is capable of taking ‘systematically into account that argumentation is carried out through the use of ordinary language’.¹³⁴ Speech act theory considers the practical consequences that different forms of language use may have. �is helps the analyst to make the object of analysis explicitly clear: ‘In this way it becomes clear which specific commitments people accept in their verbal behaviour, and this makes it possible to explain exactly what it means to conform to the philosophical principle that you should be prepared to undertake certain obligations in a discussion.’¹³⁵

. Van Eemeren, ‘Speech Act Perspective’, p. . . �is is how Van Eemeren and Grootendorst characterized the method in  (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. ). �e importance of the method has not since diminished. �e concept is even listed in general dictionaries; e.g. in Judy Pearsall (ed.), �e New Oxford Dictionary of English (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ): ‘speech act –noun (Linguistics & Philosophy) an utterance considered as an action, particularly with regard to its intention, purpose, or effect’. . Teun A. van Dijk, ‘Introduction: Levels and Dimensions of Discourse Analysis’, in Van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Dimensions of Discourse, vol. ii (London: Academic Press, ), pp. – (). . Van Eemeren, ‘Speech Act Perspective’, p. . . Van Eemeren, ‘Speech Act Perspective’, p. .

�e Method



�e foundation of speech act theory was laid down by Austin in How to Do �ings with Words (). A�er Austin’s untimely death, the theory was developed by Searle in Speech Acts (). Searle’s development is considered to be the ‘standard version’ of speech act theory. �e basic belief of Austin and Searle is that language is used to perform actions.¹³⁶ Not all utterances need to be either true or false in order to be meaningful. To give just two obvious examples provided by Austin: ‘When I say “I name this ship the Queen Elisabeth” I do not describe the christening ceremony, I actually perform the christening; and when I say “I do” (sc. take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife), I am not reporting on a marriage, I am indulging in it.’¹³⁷ Our understanding of utterances depends on social conventions, grammar, and language. Different circumstances give utterances different meanings and our knowledge of the ‘rules’ for particular language acts are important. �e question of sequential relationships between utterances is not considered in the theory of Austin and Searle, nor in most later developments and applications of the theory.¹³⁸ In order to use the theory in an approach to discourse, these issues need to be addressed. �e theory of Van Eemeren et al. is a development of speech act theory in this direction. �eir modifications extend the theory for use as an approach to discourse, specifically to argumentative discourse.¹³⁹ Although I refer, for convenience, to ‘speech act theory’ in order to avoid misunderstanding, it should be pointed out, as White has observed, that ‘there is no single unified theory, but a diverse array of approaches which emphasize and develop different features of Austin’s thought’.¹⁴⁰ An overview of different extensions to Austin’s original theory is not called for here. Within the PD approach Searle’s version is used, with slight extensions. An important part of speech act theory is the distinction between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary aspects of utterances. In an utterance, the locution is the propositional content, the illocution is the communicative force or function that is given to a certain propositional content, and the perlocution is the interactive dimension. Put it in another way, the locutionary effect is to perceive the speech act, the illocutionary effect to understand it and the perlocutionary effect to accept it – or vice versa, not to perceive, understand or accept the speech act.¹⁴¹ Searle further distinguishes between direct and indirect speech acts.¹⁴² For instance, with an ironical utterance a speaker means something more than what . Austin first used the terminology of ‘performative utterances’, or ‘performatives’, see J. L. Austin, ‘Performative Utterances’, in Philosophical Papers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), pp. –. �ese were later subsumed in the newly discovered ‘illocutionary act’. . Austin, ‘Performative Utterances’, p. . . Deborah Schiffrin, Approaches to Discourse (Oxford, UK & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, ), p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, pp. –. . Hugh C. White, ‘Speech Act �eory and Literary Criticism’, Semeia  (), pp. – (). . Searle, Speech Acts, p. ; Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, pp. –. . John R. Searle, ‘Indirect Speech Acts’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts (London: Academic Press, ), pp. –.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

he says, there is a difference between utterance meaning and sentence meaning. In such cases we identify the primary illocutionary act and the secondary illocutionary act in the same utterance,¹⁴³ or, in short, the primary and secondary speech acts. �ese occur frequently in Paul’s argumentation – in rhetorical questions and, for example, expressives. Speech act theory builds upon the assumption that a reader or a hearer may take it for granted that general rules of communication are respected. �is requires interpretation in order to bridge the gap between an utterance on a semantic level and the meaning of an utterance in a certain context. Botha gives the following example: On the semantic level, the utterance ‘You must have dinner with us!’ can only be understood as an invitation and not as a command, because of the rules of implicature.� ¹⁴⁴� . . . speech act theory makes it possible to explain the process of how certain meanings are arrived at. �is is not to say that these meanings were not arrived at previously, but speech act theory has the descriptive apparatus to describe the whole process which was previously only ‘sensed’ and ‘intuitively felt’ by literary critics. Lanser (:–) explains the benefits of this notion as the confirmation of the theory that language communicates both through and between words, and thus ‘provides a tool for acknowledging, naming, and studying the “gaps” in discourse – the unspoken assumptions and messages upon which meaning depends’.¹⁴⁵

Within pragma-dialectics, it is important that the analyst concern himself not with possible underlying thoughts, ideas, and motives but with expressed opinions and argumentative statements.¹⁴⁶ Naturally, some statements are based on underlying thoughts etc. that are important for understanding the statement. If reference is then made to such underlying factors, the reference must be directly related to the statement, i.e. the speech act in question. �e analysis of speech acts thus amounts to a close reading of the text, or a text-centred analysis, as the analysis focuses on what, for instance, Paul actually said, not on what he possibly thought or wanted to say. �e element of interpretation is, however, always present. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst note that it would be difficult to do without such psycho-pragmatic primitives, e.g. intention. However, one must then be alert to the danger of reification and avoid investing primitives such as intention with an existence of their own . Searle, ‘Indirect Speech Acts’, pp. –. . Implicature is a term invented and used by Paul Grice to denote the type of non-literal meaning that is conveyed when a conversational maxim is (supposedly) deliberatively flouted in order to comply with another maxim that is (supposedly) considered more important in the situation concerned while the Cooperative Principle is maintained. Paul Grice, Studies in the Way of Words (Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press, ), pp. –. . J. Eugene Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech Act Reading of John :– (NovTSup, LXV; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ), pp. –. �e reference in the quotation is to S. S. Lanser, �e Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. –. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. .

�e Method



and presenting them as independently operating forces. . . . �is means that in the study of argumentation it is only permissible to use psycho-pragmatic primitives which are directly related to statements.¹⁴⁷

�is is useful when attempting as neutral a reading as possible. In some cases several different – even conflicting – interpretations present themselves. If the analysis cannot bring clarity as to which alternative to choose, I suggest that the analyst must either formulate a more general and inclusive interpretation or choose two or more interpretations and continue the analysis with two or more alternative ‘scenarios’. To identify the different speech acts is an important part of the analysis. In the classification of Van Eemeren et al. there are five types of speech acts that can be performed in argumentative discourse: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives.¹⁴⁸ �is taxonomy is based on Searle’s.¹⁴⁹ Assertive speech acts Assertives relate to the truth, acceptability or justness of an opinion. �ey can be in the form of guaranteeing, supposing, denying or conceding. An example: ‘I assert that Chamberlain and Roosevelt have never met’ (the prototype, where the speaker or writer guarantees the truth of the proposition being expressed), or: ‘Baudelaire is the best French poet.’ From an argumentation analysis perspective, the general function of an assertive is to commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition.¹⁵⁰ An important subtype of assertives is the type that expresses an opinion or a standpoint. Consequently, identifying the assertives in an argumentation is crucial for determining which expressed opinions the language user (i.e. the protagonist or the antagonist) can be held responsible for. Within argumentation analysis there are different approaches to the notion of standpoint (within different theoretical frameworks also known as point of view, thesis, conclusion, claim, or debate proposition).¹⁵¹ �e PD approach connects the notion of standpoint with speech act theory and defines standpoint as ‘an (externalized) attitude on the part of the language user in respect of an expressed opinion’.¹⁵² �e crucial point is that the object of analysis is not directed at the language user’s intentions but at his externalizable commitments: standpoints advanced as (assertive) speech acts create certain commitments on behalf of the . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. . . In Searle’s taxonomy assertives are called representatives. John R. Searle, ‘A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts’, in K. Gunderson (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, ), pp. – (–). . Frans H. van Eemeren, ‘�e State of the Art in Argumentation �eory’, in Van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ), pp. – (–). . Houtlosser, ‘Points of View’. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . Explicitly this can be described with the help of a standard paraphrase: ‘My point of view in respect of O is that O is/is not the case.’ Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . ‘O’ here stands for ‘expressed opinion’.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

language user: ‘A positive standpoint expresses a positive committedness and a negative standpoint expresses a negative committedness to an expressed opinion.’¹⁵³ �e following insight is helpful in determining which statements convey the expressed opinion of the language user: every statement capable of having the specific consequence that it gives rise to a dispute in which the person making the statement has a conditional obligation to defend his statement, may be regarded as an expressed opinion. �is obligation to defend (the result of a certain committedness) we consider to be a general feature of assertives.¹⁵⁴

A consequence of this is that a�er the argumentation has been externalized, the expressed opinions have been identified as assertives. Performing this identification, though, is not always straightforward. In some instances the illocutionary force of a speech act may be difficult to establish. �e context will in many cases make the illocutionary force clear, but the risk of ambiguity can make it difficult to establish exactly what the other party can hold the language user to,¹⁵⁵ for instance when analysing rhetorical language. What is the illocutionary force of Paul’s rhetorical questions such as: ‘Did you experience so much for nothing?’ (Gal. .) or: ‘Who has bewitched you?’ (Gal. .). �ese questions of Paul cannot just be passed over since they convey some information about Paul’s understanding of the Galatian situation, i.e. they do contain an illocutionary force (as well as a perlocutionary force) – hence it should be possible to externalize them as assertives, but this depends on their function in context. One further qualification must be made concerning assertives. �e degree of certainty of an assertive is not crucial when identifying a speech act as an assertive. Since even a cautious supposition can be called into question, it qualifies as an assertive.¹⁵⁶ Naturally, a more forcefully expressed opinion in an assertive usually means that the argumentation is presented with greater force. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . Gerritsen notes that ‘[n]owadays, the concept of commitment is generally preferred over that of the speaker’s intentions’. Van Eemeren, Crucial Concepts, p. . Houtlosser notes that there are certain differences in the meaning of ‘standpoint’ in a PD perspective and in everyday life: ‘In everyday life, a standpoint need not necessarily be presented to others. It is, for instance, common practice for people to maintain that they hold a particular standpoint on a certain matter without ever having presented this point of view to others, or even without having expressed it. It is also not the case that in everyday life standpoints necessarily imply a burden of proof. People may think that they are entitled to maintain their standpoint even when they are not capable of supporting it adequately; witness familiar contentions such as “�is is my point of view and I have every intention to stick to it”.’ Van Eemeren, Crucial Concepts, p. , n. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . ‘As long as a language user commits himself, to even the slightest degree, to the acceptability of the propositional content, there is an assertive capable of becoming the precipitator of a dispute. �e assertives occurring in a rational discussion can thus vary from state (hypothetically or otherwise), suppose and (cautiously) propose, through assert, posit, postulate and claim, to assert confidently, state with certainty and guarantee. �e point at issue in a discussion is not the strengths of the belief expressed . . . , but the fact that by performing an assertive he has expressed a (cautious or firm) view with regard to an expressed

�e Method



Directive speech acts �e prototype is an order – for example, ‘Come to my room’ – which implies a special position of the speaker or writer vis-à-vis the listener or reader. It can only be an order if the speaker is in a position of authority over the listener, otherwise it is a request or an invitation. Other examples of directives are forbidding, recommending, begging, and challenging. An example from Gal. .: ‘From now on, let no one make trouble for me’, a directive that is forbidding. Commissive speech acts Commissives are speech acts by which the speaker or writer undertakes a commitment to do something or refrain from doing something. �is typically takes the form of a promise by which the speaker or writer explicitly undertakes to do or not do something: ‘I promise you I won’t tell your father.’ Other commissives are accepting, rejecting, undertaking, or agreeing. In Galatians we find, among others, the commissive, a promise from Gen. .: ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you’ (Gal. .). Expressive speech acts �rough expressives the speaker or writer expresses his or her feelings about something by thanking someone for something, revealing disappointment and so on. Other expressives include commiserating, apologizing, regretting, and greeting. In Galatians we find, for example, the following expressives: ‘I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you’ (.), ‘You foolish Galatians!’ (.), and ‘As for those who unsettle you, they had better go the whole way and castrate themselves!’ (.). Within pragma-dialectics, expressives do not play a direct role in advancing a critical argumentation. Declarative speech acts Declaratives are speech acts by means of which a particular state of affairs is called into being by the speaker or writer. If an employer addresses one of his employees with the words ‘You’re fired!’, he is not just describing a state of affairs, but he actually makes the words a reality.¹⁵⁷ �e performance of a declarative requires some sort of authority or power. For this reason Van Eemeren and Grootendorst declare that ‘declaratives can have no part to play in rational discussions’.¹⁵⁸ Although Paul argues with authority, he does not seem to use declaratives. A special exception is . (‘�ere is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus’), which is probably from an early baptismal liturgy. On a religious–existential level it declares equality ‘in Christ’. From a spiritual point of view a few other phrases could also be considered declaratives, such as: ‘But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!’ (.) and: ‘As for those who will follow this rule – peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God’ (.), but because of their function in the text they are better understood opinion and that this is a view to which he can be held or which can be called into question’, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. , italics as in the original. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

as expressives. Paul does, however, use some declaratives from the Old Testament, for example from Gen. ., ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law’ (.). A subtype, defined by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst,¹⁵⁹ is the usage declarative, which refers to language use. Among the examples are definitions, precisations, amplifications, and explications. �e speaker or writer uses these to indicate how a speech act that may be unclear to the listener or reader is to be interpreted. Typically this is done as a request by one party for the other to clarify: ‘What do you mean by . . . ?’ Since we do not know which of the issues or quotations that Paul deals with had been central for Paul’s addressees in a possibly preceding stage of the argumentation, it is difficult to identify usage declaratives in the text. �e only one that fits the characteristics is the one in .: ‘Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of many; but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ.’ �e usage declarative is the only exception to the rule that declaratives cannot occur in rational discussions.¹⁶⁰

.

A model of a critical discussion �e distribution of speech acts

In order to clarify the flow of the argumentation which is analysed, it is helpful to distinguish between different phases or stages that can be said to occur in argumentation. Van Eemeren et al. label these stages the ‘confrontation’ stage, the ‘opening’ stage, the ‘argumentation’ stage, and the ‘concluding’ stage. Ideally, an argumentation passes through these four stages.¹⁶¹ An argumentation is usually different in the beginning, at the middle, and at the end of an argumentation. An understanding of the different phases helps distinguish how the argumentation advances and any deviations from the ideal flow of the argument. An argumentation seldom unfolds stage by stage in an orderly manner, but at points can jump back to an earlier stage, for instance. In the argumentation stage, for example, some issue concerning the basis of the whole argument may need to be addressed, and this means a temporary jump back to the opening stage.¹⁶² . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, pp. –. . In the confrontation stage, the need for an argumentation arises: there is an opposition between a standpoint and non-acceptance of this standpoint. In the opening stage, the participators and their initial commitments are identified. During this stage the possibilities for an agreement are evaluated. If there is not sufficient common ground or if it for some other reason seems improbable that an agreement can be reached by means of argumentation, then a critical discussion is of no use. In the argumentation stage, the argumentation proper is carried out through the exchange of standpoints, defences, and critical responses to these standpoints. In the concluding stage, the outcome of the argumentation is evaluated. If either the protagonist has retracted his standpoint

�e Method



Table .: �e distribution of speech acts in a critical discussion  confrontation argumentation concluding concluding confrontation opening opening argumentation concluding

opening argumentation confrontation–concluding confrontation–concluding

       expressing a standpoint advancing an argument upholding or retracting of standpoint establishing the result  acceptance or non-acceptance, upholding of non-acceptance of a standpoint accepting of challenge to defend a standpoint deciding to start the discussion; agreement on discussion rules acceptance or non-acceptance of the argumentation acceptance or non-acceptance, upholding of non-acceptance of a standpoint  challenging to defend a standpoint requesting argumentation requesting for a usage declarative   definition, precisation, amplification etc.

Typically, different speech acts (‘moves’) occur at different stages of an argumentation. To specify which speech acts at the various stages contribute to the argumentation is an important part of the dialectical procedure. I include the table from Fundamentals of Argumentation �eory, see Table ..¹⁶³ Strategic manoeuvring An analysis of the strategic manoeuvring in an argumentation reveals how ‘the opportunities available in a certain dialectical situation are used to complete a particular discussion stage most favourably for the speaker or writer’.¹⁶⁴ �ese strategic choices depend on the stage of the discussion. �e aim at the opening stage, for example, might be different from the aim at the concluding stage. �e options available at each stage refer to topical potential, auditorial demand, and presentational devices.¹⁶⁵ Although these three aspects can be distinguished or if the antagonist has accepted the standpoint of the protagonist, the argument has been settled. If the parties cannot agree on the outcome of the argument, then it has not led to a resolution of the difference of opinion. �is presentation is a summary from Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, pp. –. See also Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, pp. –. . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. ; with minor corrections. See also Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, pp. – and Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, pp. –. . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, ‘Delivering the Goods’, p. . . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, ‘Delivering the Goods’, pp. –. See also, eidem, Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse ().



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

analytically, in actual practice they usually work together. �ese aspects run parallel with important classical areas of interest: topics, audience-orientation, and stylistics.¹⁶⁶ If the strategic manoeuvring is consistently implemented, there is reason to talk about a ‘rhetorical strategy’: We argue that a full fledged ‘rhetorical strategy’ is being followed if the speaker’s or writer’s strategic manoeuvrings in the discourse converge with respect to topical potential, audience demand, and presentational devices. Rhetorical strategies in our sense are methodical designs of moves, or ‘blueprints’, for influencing the result of a particular dialectical stage to one’s own advantage, which manifest themselves in a systematic, co-ordinated and simultaneous exploitation of the opportunities afforded by that stage.¹⁶⁷

A traditional historical-critical exegesis typically focuses on historical and semantic aspects. A�er the (re-)discovery of rhetoric as an approach to biblical texts, analyses have appeared that show a full swing of the pendulum to analyses mainly of pragmatic aspects of the text. But we need to consider both aspects fully – even a very rhetorical text has dialectical substance.¹⁶⁸ In a sense, the dialectical framework of the PD method lies closer to a traditional exegesis since the meaning of the text is given more weight in the analysis than its possible effect on an audience and all the authorial devices connected with that question. I find the inclusion of an analysis of strategic manoeuvring to be an important feature of the method in order for it to be truly useful for an overall understanding of a Pauline text. Rules for a critical discussion �e normative part of pragma-dialectics is made concrete in the proposal for a dialectical procedure in the form of a code of conduct for a critical discussion. �is code of conduct is stated in a set of rules that are constitutive for a critical discussion in terms of the performance of speech acts.¹⁶⁹ Van Eemeren et al. theorize that argumentation follows certain conventions and present ten rules based on theoretical and analytical assumptions.¹⁷⁰ When . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, ‘Advances in PD’, p. . . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, ‘Strategic Manoeuvring’, pp. –. . Van Eemeren and Houtlosser defend their emphasis on the dialectical aspect: ‘�e alleged rhetorical pervasion of argumentative discourse does not mean that the parties involved are interested exclusively in getting things their way. Even when they try their best to have their point of view accepted, they have to maintain the image of people who play the resolution game by the rules: they may be considered committed to what they have said, assumed or implicated. If a given move is not successful, they cannot escape from their dialectical responsibility by simply saying, “I was only being rhetorical”. As a rule, they will therefore at least have to pretend to be interested primarily in having the difference of opinion resolved.’ Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, ‘Strategic Manoeuvring’, p. . . �is code of conduct is first presented in Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, pp. –. . For more on this, see below the excursus on reasonableness in Section . (p. ).

�e Method



these ‘rules’ or ideal conditions are fulfilled, the chances for a successful resolution of a debate are high. �e more the discussants depart from or directly offend against these rules, the lesser the chances for a resolution of a dispute. �e set of ten rules, then, function as a ‘heuristic, analytical and critical framework’ for dealing with argumentative discourse.¹⁷¹ On the one hand, the rules help analyse speech acts by giving clues to what to look for in the argumentation. On the other hand, the rules provide a set of norms for assessing how actual discourse deviates from the course that most conveniently would lead to a resolution of the dispute.¹⁷² �ey are part of the analytical instrument, the PD method. It should be noted that as an ideal model it only reproduces aspects that are relevant to the resolution of a dispute.¹⁷³ In Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse the usefulness of this ideal model is described as follows: �e model does not prevent our seeing what argumentative practice is actually like. �is fact should be evident from the empirical analyses presented throughout, in which observed arguments are set up in contrast to what the model portrays as ideal. It is precisely in the contrast that some of the most interesting observations are to be made. �e model’s function is thus to help us to notice what is, from a certain point of view, most important about argumentative practice.¹⁷⁴

In many respects these rules resemble earlier suggestions to what conditions apply for a felicitous performance of a speech act. Especially the influence of Searle and Grice is apparent.¹⁷⁵ Van Eemeren and Grootendorst regard the integration of Searlean and Gricean insights into the ten rules for communication as an important step towards ‘a comprehensive theory of everyday communication and interaction’.¹⁷⁶ �e ten rules are as follows on Table ..¹⁷⁷ . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. . See also Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, p. , where the relationship between model and ideal is summarized thus: ‘�e model exists as an abstraction, a theoretically generated system for ideal resolution-oriented discussion. Actual practices are not described by such a model, but certain of their features can be given interesting explanations in terms of the model. �e model can provide a framework for interpreting and reconstructing the argumentative features of actual discourse, whether dialogic or monologic. It can provide a framework for the evaluation of argumentative conduct and can serve as a standard for guiding improvement in the practice of argumentation.’ . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . Van Eemeren, ‘Speech Act Perspective’, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, pp. –. . e.g. Grice’s Cooperative Principle, and the conversational maxims of Quality, Quantity, Relation, and Manner. Cf. Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, p.  and Grice, Way of Words, pp. –. . Van Eemeren, ‘Speech Act Perspective’, p. ; the connection between the ten rules and Searle and Grice respectively is explained on pp. –. . �is is the non-technical version of the rules, from Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. �e names of the rules are taken from chapters  and  in Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation. In  the rules were slightly revised, see Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, �eory of Argumentation, pp. – or Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, ‘A Pragma-dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion’, Argum  (), pp. –. �is more specific version of the rules is important from the point of view of argumen-



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: Rules for a critical discussion . �e freedom rule Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints. . �e burden-of-proof rule A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if the other party asks him to do so. . �e standpoint rule A party’s attack of a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party. . �e relevance rule A party may defend his standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint. . �e unexpressed premiss rule A party may not falsely present something as a premiss that has been le� unexpressed by the other party or deny a premiss that he himself has le� implicit. . �e starting point rule A party may not falsely present a premiss as an accepted starting point or deny a premiss representing an accepted starting point. . �e argument scheme rule A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defence does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied. . �e validity rule In his argumentation a party may only use arguments that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premisses. . �e closure rule A failed defence of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defence in the other party retracting his doubt about the standpoint. . �e usage rule A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and he must interpret the other party’s formulations as carefully and accurately as possible.

�e Method



Felicity and higher-order conditions In speech act theory one can specify the speech act rules or felicity conditions that are prerequisites for the communicative success of an individual speech act.¹⁷⁸ Van Eemeren and Grootendorst introduced a distinction between identity and correctness conditions, which both must be fulfilled for a ‘happy’ communication.¹⁷⁹ �e former require that a speaker undertakes commitments to expressed propositions (the propositional content condition) and that the propositions are attempts to convince a listener of the acceptability of a standpoint (the essential condition). �e correctness conditions are divided into preparatory conditions and responsibility conditions.¹⁸⁰ For argumentation, the preparatory conditions require that the speaker does not undertake a redundant or pointless attempt to convince someone of a standpoint (the efficiency rule). Following this, the preparatory conditions require that the speaker holds certain beliefs about the listener: that he is not already convinced of the standpoint, that he will accept the statements used in the argumentation, and that he will view the argumentation as an acceptable defence or refutation. �e responsibility conditions describe the speaker’s commitments, that he is sincere (that he believes that his standpoint is acceptable, that the statements used in the argumentation are acceptable, and that the argumentation is an acceptable defence or refutation).¹⁸¹ Considerations such as these can have a decisive bearing upon an argument. Within pragma-dialectics, in order for an argument to be felicitous, also two levels of higher-order conditions need to be fulfilled. If the rules themselves can be seen as ‘first-order’ conditions, then the psychological make-up of the discussants constitute the ‘second-order’ conditions, and, finally, the surrounding socio-political context constitute the ‘third-order’ conditions. In order for an ideal argumentation to take place, all three levels of conditions need to be such that they support an unhindered argumentation towards the resolution of the disagreement. For example in order for the first-order condition expressed in rule one to be fulfilled, the parties must have a second-order attitude that enables them to review their standpoints if necessary and to listen to the opinions of the other party; ideally, the participants should be disinterested in the outcome of the argumentation in the sense that they are willing to give up their own position if it proves to be defective. �e third-order conditions relate to the social situation: freedom of speech, intellectual pluralism, and political freedom, for instance. �is tation theory but to use them here would result in an unnecessary theoretical analysis. �e rules were first published in Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, p. . . See e.g. Searle, Speech Acts, pp. –; Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, pp. –. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts, pp. –. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, pp. –. For similarity with already Socratic ideals of argumentation as presented in Gorgias, see Matthew Gorman, ‘Does Socrates Engage in Socratic Argumentation?’, in Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale and Athena V. Colman (eds), Argumentation & Rhetoric: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation – Second Conference (only pub. on CD-ROM; St. Catharines, ON: Brock University, ).

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



assumes that the parties, ideally, should have a symmetry of status where neither party is dependent, subordinate, or inferior.¹⁸² Any imbalance in the second- or third-order conditions will probably reflect on an argumentation and, reversely, certain types of problems present in an argumentation can o�en be accounted for by deficiencies in the higher-order conditions. Deciu points out that the tension between practice and ideal is especially clear in the second-order condition that the parties should be motivated to engage in the debate and at the same time be disinterested in the outcome of their discussion. She calls this ‘highly counterintuitive’.¹⁸³ Deciu states that ‘[i]f they are motivated to carry on a debate, the parties should also be motivated to succeed; hence, they should not swamp objectivity, the two requirements, motivation and disinterestedness hardly go together’. According to Deciu, this leads to ‘some internal inconsistencies’ regarding the conditions for argumentation. She suggests that the method should consider ‘the parties’ own view of the conditions for argumentation, the way they shape and use them’.¹⁸⁴ �e introduction of the concept of strategic manoeuvring corrects this. It includes in the analysis an assessment of how the discussant(s) use the available means at each stage to carry the discussion forward in a way as favourably as possible for the writer or speaker.

.

Reconstructing argumentative discourse An analytic overview

Earlier, in Section . (on p. ), an understanding of the different stages that usually occur in an argumentation was presented. Also, the analysis needs a frame of stages or points that need to be attended to. Van Eemeren et al. suggest the following five points that the analyst should clarify: (a) the standpoints at issue in the difference of opinion; (b) the positions adopted by the parties, their starting points and conclusions; (c) the arguments adduced by the parties; (d ) the argumentation structure of the arguments; (e) the argumentation schemes used in the arguments.¹⁸⁵ For the purpose of this particular analysis I find it practical to present the analytical overview as follows, see Table .. In this overview the participant roles and the argumentative situation are added as the first point.¹⁸⁶ �e standpoints at issue, the arguments, and the argumentation structure are presented together . Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, pp. –. . Deciu, ‘Descartes–Fermat Debate’, p.  �e problem is also noted by Gorman, ‘Socratic Argumentation?’, p. . . Deciu, ‘Descartes–Fermat Debate’, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. ; similarly Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, p. , and Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, �eory of Argumentation, p. . . Similarly, ‘discussion roles’ are included in the analytical overview in Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, �eory of Argumentation, p. , where it has six points.

�e Method



Table .: Four points for an analytic overview    

Argumentative situation and participant roles Standpoints, arguments, and argumentation structure Argument schemes Argumentative strategy

(point ). As regards the starting points and the conclusions of the parties, the analysis in this thesis cannot yield a specific overview since these are mostly unknown. An explicit mention of these is therefore dropped.¹⁸⁷ �e argument schemes are dealt with in connection with Rule  (point ). Finally, I include the argumentative strategy in the overview (point ). �ese changes represent no alterations to the method as such, but put the necessary emphasis on matters that are important in this particular analysis. Of these points, the following aspects need to be further clarified below: standpoints and arguments, argumentation structure, and argument schemes. Standpoints and arguments Identifying standpoints and differences of opinion is of course crucial for the analysis. �e process is not necessarily straightforward since a discussion may contain any number of arguments and sub-arguments and much in the discourse may be implicit or expressed unclearly. Identifying which arguments are presented in support of which standpoints, and what structure and scheme are used, is also important. �ese identifications also help identify those speech acts that truly are important in the argumentation. As Van Eemeren et al. point out: A pragma-dialectical analysis is aimed at reconstructing all, and only, those speech acts that play a potential part in bringing a difference of opinion to an adequate conclusion. In accomplishing a systematic analysis, the ideal model is a valuable tool. By pointing out which speech acts are relevant in the consecutive stages of the resolution process, the model has the heuristic function of indicating which speech acts have to be considered in the reconstruction. Speech acts that are immaterial to the resolution process are to be ignored, implicit elements are to be made explicit, indirect speech acts are to be restated as direct speech acts, and inadvertent deviations from the resolution path are to be righted.¹⁸⁸

Because of the compact nature of the argumentation in Gal. .–., and because of the fact that most arguments are interconnected, it is necessary to reconstruct at least some of the arguments with great detail, to employ the strategy of a maximally argumentative interpretation. �is means that even utterances that may just be a remark or an explanation are interpreted as argumentation. To do . Similarly, starting points and conclusions are also not mentioned in the shorter version of the analytic overview in Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, p. . See also Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, �eory of Argumentation, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

so in unclear cases minimizes the risk of overlooking an argument that plays a role in the argumentation.¹⁸⁹ Especially since my object of analysis is a polemical letter from the first century, there is good reason to use this strategy: the writing process was slow, the writing material expensive, and the letter-style usually very compact. �ere is no reason to expect Galatians to include speech acts which are completely meaningless for the argument. It is therefore meaningful to go through the whole text speech act by speech act and to reconstruct as much of the argumentation as possible. A�er this is done, the crucial speech acts can be identified and put into the framework of ‘a resolution of a dispute’. A detailed analysis is justified by my aim, which is not only to describe the argumentation from the perspective of the interaction between Paul and his addressees, but also to describe the characteristics of the argumentation of Paul in Galatians. Ideally, we would first describe the standpoint(s) at issue, then the positions adopted by the parties, and also their material and procedural starting points. We would then examine the arguments adduced by the parties. In the case of our text, much of this information is not available at the outset but must to a large extent be extracted from the argumentation itself. Argumentation structure and argument schemes In the analysis, the arguments can conveniently be displayed by using the schematic presentation for complex argumentation structures suggested by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst.¹⁹⁰ �is graphical instrument is very flexible and facilitates a clear presentation of both simple and complex argumentation structures such as multiple argumentation, coordinatively and subordinatively compound argumentation, arguments with an unexpressed conclusion, and arguments with more than one unexpressed element. When applicable, arguments can be presented in chains.¹⁹¹ �e choice of argumentation structure is inferred from the text itself – any argumentation structure can be analysed and presented. In multiple argumentation, each argument functions as a separate argument in support of a standpoint.¹⁹² In coordinative argumentation, the arguments depend on each other and only together furnish adequate support of a standpoint.¹⁹³ When in doubt, the strategy of a maximally argumentative analysis is . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. . See e.g. the first figure in Chapter , Fig. ., p. . . �e following example is taken from Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –: ‘Postal deliveries in Holland are not perfect. You cannot be sure that a letter will be delivered the next day, that it will be delivered to the right address and that it will be delivered early in the morning.’ Here each of the premisses is in itself enough to support the standpoint. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. �is distinction is not always easy to make. For a discussion, see chapter  in Van Eemeren, Crucial Concepts. �e following example is taken from Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –: ‘Postal deliveries in Holland are perfect. You can be sure that a letter will be delivered the next day, that it will be delivered to the right address, and that it

�e Method



recommended. �is means that an interpretation of an argumentation as multiple argumentation is favoured over an interpretation of an argumentation as coordinative. �us the argumentation does not fall apart even if one of the arguments turns out to be inconclusive. A maximally argumentative analysis is very charitable towards the arguer.¹⁹⁴ Van Eemeren and Grootendorst divide argument schemes into three categories: argumentation where someone tries to convince another by pointing out that something is symptomatic, similar or instrumental to something else.¹⁹⁵ In assessing the scheme used, the primary interest is not in the logical validity but in the way in which the scheme advances the argument. �e use of particular argument schemes is closely connected with the argumentative strategy chosen. It is more a question of rhetoric than of logic. In a certain type of argument, certain types of speech acts presented in a certain way are more likely to be accepted than others. Argument schemes describe the relation between the expressed premiss and the standpoint in a single argument.¹⁹⁶ �e way in which these are related is important for the function of an argument as a defence or refutation – validity alone is not enough. �e relation can be symptomatic, analogous or causal.¹⁹⁷ In a symptomatic relation ‘a standpoint is defended by citing in the argument a certain sign, symptom, or distinguishing mark of what is claimed in the standpoint’.¹⁹⁸ �e general argument scheme for an argumentation based on a symptomatic relation is: Y is true of X because Z is true of X and Z is symptomatic of Y. In an analogous relation ‘a standpoint is defended by showing that something referred to in the standpoint is similar to something that is cited in the argumentation’.¹⁹⁹ �e general argument scheme for an argumentation based on a relation of analogy is: Y is true of X because Y is true of Z and Z is comparable to X. In a causal relation ‘a standpoint is defended by making a causal connection between the argument and the standpoint’.²⁰⁰ �e general argument scheme for will be delivered early in the morning.’ Here none of the premisses is by itself enough to support the standpoint. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. A useful test-question is: ‘Does the support of a premiss depend on some other premiss(es)?’ If so, the argument is probably coordinatively compound. If this is difficult to determine, a maximally argumentative analysis should be adopted. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. . �is must not be confused with logical reasoning patterns. Both argument schemes and logical argument forms are general and abstract patterns with an infinite number of possible substitution instances. Garssen notes that ‘[w]ith an argument scheme, however, the transfer of acceptability is based on more than just the formal characteristics of the scheme that is used’. Bart Garssen, ‘Argument Schemes’, in Frans H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ), pp. – (p. , n. ). . �e presentation below is based on Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, pp. –. See also Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, pp. – and chapter  in Van Eemeren, Crucial Concepts. . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, pp. –. . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

an argumentation based on a causal relation is: Y is true of X because Z is true of X and Z leads to Y. A subtype of causal argumentation is pragmatic argumentation in which the standpoint recommends or advises against a certain course of action because of favourable or unfavourable consequences. A general note on the four points mentioned above: these, as well as the analytical procedure as a whole, can seldom be performed in a linear manner. As the analysis advances, some earlier stages may become clearer, making the process more circular than linear. In practice, the work o�en advances from a general analysis and evaluation to a more specific one, which in turn gives reason to correct and elaborate the general understanding of the argumentation. In the reconstruction process the normative approach adds ‘surveyability’ and discernment to the analysis. �is is especially clear in the transformations, which help clarify complex discourses.²⁰¹ Transformations In order to be able to analyse a text it has to be modified into a form suitable for analysis. �is is achieved through the following four transformations: deletion, addition, permutation, and substitution. Deletion entails identifying the elements of the discourse that are immediately relevant to the process of resolving the difference of opinion, and then omitting elements that are irrelevant to this purpose such as elaborations, immaterial interruptions, and sidelines. As mentioned above, I will initially analyse all of the text and only then perform deletions in order to understand Paul’s main argument. Addition entails a process of completion which consists of supplementing the given discourse with those elements immediately relevant to the resolution of the dispute, but le� implicit. Again, since it is difficult to see directly which elements are immediately relevant and which are not, it is useful to reconstruct most of the arguments, although not all, with some detail. �e level of detail has to be decided in casu. �e flexibility of the graphical presentation used by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst gives the analyst free decision over how detailed the analysis should be. Since the reconstruction of unexpressed premisses plays a significant role in argumentation analysis, I will briefly present some of the theory and practice involved in unexpressed premisses and in the pragmatic optimum. Unexpressed Premisses All the logical elements in an argument are seldom stated explicitly. It would be unnecessary, tedious, and, in most cases, counterproductive to do so. In an argumentation analysis, however, unexpressed (also called missing or implicit) premisses play an important role. �ere are two traditional approaches necessary to comment on; these can be called the logical

. Van Eemeren, ‘Normative Reconstruction’, p. .

�e Method



Fig. .: An example of a standard syllogism All native-born Americans are citizens. Jones is a native-born American. �erefore Jones is a citizen.

enthymeme and the rhetorical enthymeme. �e logical enthymeme is a syllogism²⁰² with one of the elements (usually the so-called minor premiss) le� implicit thus rendering it logically invalid. By explicating the unexpressed premiss (or sometimes, the conclusion) according to the rules of deductive logic, the argument can be rendered logically valid. Copi supplies the following example: the conclusion, ‘Jones is a citizen’ can be justified by mentioning the one premiss, ‘Jones is a nativeborn American’. �e missing premiss is easily supplied from the Constitution of the United States. For the completed argument in standard syllogistic form, see Fig. .. �e second traditional approach is based on Aristotle’s treatment of the enthymeme in his Rhetoric. Aristotle points out that the rhetorical enthymeme is something quite different from dialectical arguments. In rhetoric the purpose of the argument is different than in dialectics. In the former the focus is on conveying a certain message to the audience, in the latter the focus is on the logical aspects of the argument. Gerritsen summarizes the understanding of the traditional rhetorical enthymeme as follows: ‘An enthymeme is a form of rhetorical argumentation that is directed at a particular audience, in a particular situation, and with a particular goal. In enthymemes, the speaker exploits the fact that knowledge or information can be conveyed to that audience without explicitly putting it into words.’²⁰³ In the s and s it became clear to some researchers that traditional logical approaches were not sufficient. Especially the growing interest in analysing everyday communication showed that a logical approach was not useful enough: real-life arguments do not follow the rules or form of formal logic. �e theory for the traditional rhetorical enthymeme, on the other hand, does not apply to the whole variety of arguments that occur in argumentation.²⁰⁴ �e solution developed within PD theory operates with a distinction between the logical minimum and the pragmatic optimum in order for the method to apply adequately to real-life arguments. Pragmatic Optimum When reconstructing an unexpressed premiss, the logical minimum can be supplemented from the text using an ‘if . . . then’ construction. . ‘A syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premisses. A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of three categorical propositions which contain exactly three terms, each of which occurs in exactly two of the constituent propositions.’ Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (New York: Macmillan Publishing, th edn, ), p. . . Susanne Gerritsen, ‘Unexpressed Premises’, in Frans H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ), pp. – (). . See chapter  in Van Eemeren, Crucial Concepts for more on this subject and for a bibliography.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

To give an example, someone argues as follows: ‘Dutchmen are tall. Frans is certainly a real Dutchman.’ �e logical minimum would be: ‘If Dutchmen are tall, then Frans is a certainly a real Dutchman.’ Such a reconstruction usually does not add anything useful to the analysis. Furthermore, it ascribes a breach against the communication rule stating that one should not make unnecessary speech acts. Such a logical analysis – based on a formal validity criterion – is thus not enough. �e analyst must also perform a pragmatic analysis that is based on standards for reasoned discourse.²⁰⁵ In order to achieve this, the context needs to be taken into account and a premiss that prevents a violation against the rules of communication selected, the pragmatic optimum. In the example above, the pragmatic optimum is: ‘Real Dutchmen are tall.’ In this example the reconstruction of the pragmatic optimum is straightforward, but in some cases there may be several alternatives. �e context must then be the decisive factor. In uncertain cases a strategy of minimal complementization should be preferred, i.e. to choose a premiss that is as close to the logical minimum as possible and thus avoid ascribing too much to the language user by selecting a premiss that may contain information not included or intended by the language user.²⁰⁶ Permutation entails the ordering or rearranging of elements in the original discourse in such a way that the process of resolving the difference of opinion is set down as clearly as possible. Substitution entails an attempt to produce a clear and explicit presentation of elements that can be instrumental in resolving the difference of opinion. Ambiguous or vague formulations are replaced by well-defined and more precise standard phrases, and different formulations of elements with the same function are represented by the same standard phrase. Evaluation and fallacies A�er the argumentation has been analysed according to the analytic overview, it can be evaluated. �is entails identifying any fallacies, and evaluating any problems with the strategic manoeuvring. Although the concept of fallacies is fundamental to any analysis of argumentation, there is no uniform approach to the subject since opinions differ both on the nature and on the classification of fallacies. In  C. L. Hamblin demonstrated . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. For further information on how to determine the pragmatic optimum, see especially Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. Contextual information is o�en decisive for the analysis – especially for determining the exact content of an unexpressed premiss, see Van Eemeren, Crucial Concepts, pp. –. Since the PD method includes an assessment of the higher-order conditions (see above, Section ., p. ), and since I take not just the portion selected for the present study but the entire letter into account, context will be adequately factored into the analysis. �e theory of unexpressed premisses is considered a difficult subject within argumentation analysis, and no single approach has been generally adopted.

�e Method



the need for a revision of the so-called Standard Treatment which is based on Aristotle’s list of thirteen types of fallacy.²⁰⁷ A useful introduction to the subject is provided in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings,²⁰⁸ which also includes an article presenting the PD approach to fallacies.²⁰⁹ �e PD approach to fallacies is based on the ten rules for a critical discussion (presented in Section ., on p. ), and are dealt with as deviations from these rules. �is means that the standard definition of a fallacy as an argument that seems valid but is not, is abandoned. Instead, a fallacy is defined pragmatically as ‘a speech act which prejudices or frustrates efforts to resolve a difference of opinion’.²¹⁰ For a detailed description of how the PD approach to fallacies relate to the ten rules of argumentation I refer to the literature and to the analysis in Chapter . To take one example, violations against rule one, the freedom rule (see p. ), will here have to suffice. Unless a difference of opinion is clearly expressed, it is difficult to resolve it. Any attempts to hinder the free exchange of standpoints or doubt on standpoints hinders the resolution of the dispute. For instance, if one party declares a standpoint or even a subject of discussion as sacrosanct or taboo, the freedom rule is violated. To restrict the other party’s freedom is equivalent to dismissing him as a serious discussion partner. �is can be achieved by pressuring him to be pro or against a certain standpoint (argumentum ad baculum,²¹¹ argumentum ad misericordiam²¹²) or by discrediting him in the eyes of the public (argumentum ad hominem²¹³).²¹⁴ �e PD approach can be considered both broader and more systematic than traditional approaches (e.g. the Standard Treatment).²¹⁵ However, it only considers . C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies (London: Methuen, ); Aristotle, Aristotle on Fallacies /�e Sophistic Elenchi (with a trans. and commentary by Edward Poste; London: Macmillan, ). . Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto (eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, ). . Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, ‘�e Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies’, in Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto (eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, ), pp. –. �e article is reproduced, with slight modifications and a helpful table, in Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, pp. –. . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. . �e PD approach to fallacies is presented in Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, ‘Approach to Fallacies’, and Van Eemeren et al., Handbook. . ‘Fallacy of the stick’: any threat that aims at restricting the other party from freely putting forward his standpoint or criticism. . Appeal to pity : to put pressure on the other party by playing on his emotions. . An argument that is not directed at the intrinsic merits of someone’s standpoint or doubt but at the person himself. �is type of fallacy can be divided into three subgroups: the direct personal attack, i.e. the abusive variant (e.g. ‘He’s an idiot’), the indirect personal attack, i.e. the circumstantial variant (e.g. ‘Coming from him, such an idiotic opinion is not surprising’), and the tu quoque variant, ‘you also’, (e.g. ‘He preaches that all should follow the rule, he himself obviously excluded’). . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, pp. –. For an overview of fallacies in connection with the ten rules, see Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, ‘Approach to Fallacies’, pp. –.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

as fallacies such speech acts which hinder argumentation (with the goal of a resolution of a dispute). As discussed above, the analysis of Gal. .–. will be made in detail, and, consequently, all fallacies occurring in the text of analysis will have to be dealt with. �e soundness of an argumentation can be analysed for logical inconsistency and for pragmatic inconsistency. A logical inconsistency arises when statements contradict each other in such a way that they cannot possibly all be true (A is B and A is not B). A pragmatic inconsistency does not lie on the logical level, but in the real-world consequences of the argumentation. Van Eemeren et al. give the following example: ‘ “I’ll pick you up in the car” does not in a strict sense logically contradict the statement “I don’t know how to drive,” but in everyday conversation, it is unacceptable for such a promise to be followed by this statement.’²¹⁶ �e evaluation of argumentation must be based on both an overall evaluation of the consistency of the argumentation as a whole and of a detailed analysis of the single arguments. Especially in the PD approach, the importance of breaking down all complex arguments into single arguments is stressed. For single arguments, three requirements need to be met in order for the argument to be considered sound: all the statements must be acceptable, the reasoning must be valid, and the argument scheme must be employed appropriately. �e acceptability of an argument is dependent on the context of the argument in question and on the the parties involved. �e truth of factual statements is o�en easy to verify (‘Mrs Tarja Halonen was the first woman to become president of the Republic of Finland’), but faceted arguments tied with norms or values are much more difficult to evaluate for their acceptability (‘French is the most beautiful language in the world’). For an argument to be valid, the underlying argumentation needs to be logically valid or able to be made logically valid by explicating an implicit premiss. �e standard logical argument forms, modus ponens (if A, then B; A, therefore B) and modus tollens (if A, then B; not A, therefore not B), are among the forms for valid reasoning. An argument scheme is employed appropriately if the argument scheme is appropriate and if it is correctly applied. Which argument schemes that are considered appropriate vary depending on the context. However, some schemes are in most cases inappropriate such as argumentum ad populum (using an inappropriate symptomatic argument scheme by presenting the standpoint as right because everybody thinks it is right), and argumentum ad consequentiam (using an inappropriate causal argument scheme by rejecting a descriptive standpoint because of its undesired consequences).²¹⁷ In other cases, the situation determines whether the use is appropriate or not. For example, in arguments from authority, in order for the argument to be sound, the authority needs to be accepted by both parties as genuine and relevant for the argument in question. Otherwise we have . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, pp. –. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –, –.

�e Method



an inappropriate use of the symptomatic argument scheme, a case of argumentum ad verecundiam. Once the appropriateness has been established, the application of the scheme needs to be evaluated. To this end a set of critical questions which test the scheme in question can be employed (the schemes were presented above, on p. ). In evaluating the use of a symptomatic argument scheme (Y is true of X because Z is true of X and Z is symptomatic of Y), the most important critical questions to ask are: ‘Are there not also other non-Y’s that have the characteristic Z?’ and ‘Are there not also other Y’s that do not have the characteristic Z?’ To illustrate we can take the example from above (p. ), where we have an appropriate symptomatic argument scheme where the standpoint ‘Frans is a real Dutchman’ is defended by citing in the argument the distinguishing mark which is claimed in the standpoint: ‘Real Dutchmen are tall’. �e form of the argument is as follows: ‘real Dutchman’(Y) is true of ‘Frans’ (X), because ‘tall’ (Z) is true of ‘Frans’ (X), and ‘tall’ (Z) is symptomatic of ‘real Dutchman’ (Y). �e critical question is: Are there not also other real Dutchmen that do not have the characteristic ‘tall’? In fact there are also average length and below average length Dutch citizens, who are nevertheless ‘real Dutchmen’. �e argument is thus flawed. �e most important critical question to ask about argumentation based on analogy (Y is true of X because Y is true of Z and Z is comparable to X) is: ‘Are there any significant differences between Z and X?’ �e similarities should be evaluated on an abstract level (unlike in the case of a literal comparison): ‘by which general principle are the two connected and does this principle indeed apply?’²¹⁸ �e most important critical question to ask about argumentation based on causality (Y is true of X because Z is true of X and Z leads to Y) is: ‘Does Z always lead to Y?’ �e PD approach to argument schemes has been criticized for being too general.²¹⁹ With only three categories, very different types of argument end up within the same category. �e rationale for distinguishing between three argument schemes is that each scheme corresponds to special assessment criteria (the critical questions). �e theory has been empirically supported in that Garssen has shown that there is a ‘correspondence between the critical reactions and the standard critical questions accompanying the pragma-dialectical argumentations’.²²⁰ �e PD approach lies close to the US tradition,²²¹ where, however, reasoning by example is considered a separate scheme, whereas in PD theory it is a subcategory . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. . . Hitchcock, ‘Review of Advances in PD’, p. . . Garssen, ‘Argument Schemes’, p. . . Garssen, ‘Argument Schemes’, pp. –, . For a description of how argument schemes are understood in the US tradition, see A. J. Freeley, Argumentation and Debate: Critical �inking for Reasoned Decision Making (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, ).



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

of the symptomatic scheme. Kienpointner’s attempt to create a complete typology of different types of argument resulted in fi�y-eight argument schemes.²²² Even if such a typology increases the exactness of the analysis, it inevitably distances the analysis from empirical reality. Strategic manoeuvring was presented above as a question of how ‘the opportunities available in a certain dialectical situation are used to complete a particular discussion stage most favourably for the speaker or writer’ (p. ). Optimally, both discussants make use of all options available to be as persuasive as possible within the boundaries of the critical ideal. However, the balance can shi� in either direction. Neglecting to be persuasive is just bad strategy but neglecting the critical ideal amounts to a fallacy. In PD theory all fallacies can be regarded as derailments of strategic manoeuvring.²²³ Excursus: reasonableness As mentioned above some criticism has been raised against the PD theory. Some of this is resolved with the incorporation of the concept of strategic manoeuvring, which allows for an assessment of rhetorical moves; pragma-dialectics is indeed not a ‘mechanistic technique which does not pay attention to the context’. �is and other points of critique raised by, for example, Sigrell do not, to my mind, do the method justice.²²⁴ �e heaviest critique regards rationality, namely that . Manfred Kienpointner, Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, ). . Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, ‘Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance’, in Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser (eds), Dialectic and Rhetoric: �e Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (Argumentation Library, ; Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ), pp. – (). . See Sigrell, Att övertyga, pp. –. Sigrell points out four problems as follows (the enumeration is mine, summarizing Sigrell’s discussion of the matter): () Technically it is o�en difficult to distinguish between coordinative and multiple argumentation. �e difference between one argument alone leading to a standpoint and a premiss that only together with another premiss leads to a standpoint is fluid. () Structurally, focusing on the end-claim may distort the message, which may lie in some of the intermediate subclaims. () �eoretically, the critique of rhetoric which is inherent in the PD approach leads to an understanding of validity, truth, and knowledge which produces a mechanistic technique that does not pay attention to context. () �eoretically, the understanding of rationality is problematic. �e question on which the PD approach fails is: ‘What kind of premisses should in different situations be regarded as acceptable grounds for a standpoint?’ Contrary to the case within PD theory, emotions and contextual factors should be included as important elements in what should be considered rational. Regarding the difficulty of distinguishing between coordinative and multiple argumentation, the difficulty persists regardless of what method one uses. For an overview of the technique of ‘argument diagramming’ and the problem of ‘linked’ (coordinative) and ‘convergent’ (multiple) arguments, see Douglas N. Walton, Argument structure: a pragmatic theory (Toronto studies in philosophy, Toronto & Buffalo & London: University of Toronto Press, ), pp. –. Nevertheless, it is o�en helpful to distinguish between coordinative and multiple argumentation. In unclear cases both alternatives should be considered. For a thorough examination of the problem, see Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Analysing Complex Argumentation: �e reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, nd edn, ). Snoeck Henkemans finds the PD theory to be at an advantage over monological approaches; Henkemans, Complex Argumentation, pp. –. Regarding the focus on the correct claims in

�e Method



the method presents too limited a view on rationality, and that the theoretical basis is too narrow on this point, resulting in an analytical instrument that is too blunt.²²⁵ Although I find critique such as this to be imprecise, an excursus on the matter is called for. �e philosophical and theoretical background to pragma-dialectics is well accounted for.²²⁶ Pragma-dialectics does not opt for a geometrical perspective on reasonableness whereby one demonstrates how things are with logic. Also, it does not opt for an anthropological perspective where the standards prevailing among the cultural community in which the argumentation takes place is decisive. Both Toulmin and Olbrechts-Tyteca reacted against modern, formal logic. According to Toulmin, the soundness of an act of argumentation depends on different criteria within different fields (e.g. scientific, medical, and political) or forums. Toulmin argues: ‘While certain very broad rules of “rational procedure” apply to arguments in all these forums, many of the more specific rules of procedure (or “due process”) that govern arguments in one area or another are relevant only to, say, the proceedings in a law court rather than a scientific meeting, or the other way around.’²²⁷ �us Toulmin adopts an anthropological perspective where rationality is group-dependent.²²⁸ Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca consider an argument to be sound if it is successful with ‘the ensemble of those whom the speaker wishes to influence by his argumentation’.²²⁹ To equate soundness with effectiveness makes their theory relativistic–anthropological. �e universal audience,²³⁰ whose agreement the speaker should try to attain, is similar to Toulmin’s forum of experts in that both concepts are problematic, since the make-up of these groups is very abstract.²³¹ �e perspective on reasonableness is critical–rationalist in pragma-dialectics. By adopting a dialectical discussion procedure,²³² a model is used which is neither the structure of a serial argument, a PD analysis does offer the necessary tools. A�er determining the smallest argumentative units one continues to put them together in order to display the larger argumentative structure. By way of deletions and permutations of serial arguments, it is possible to present the argument in such a way that the main claims are illuminated. . Sigrell, Att övertyga, p. . . See especially Van Eemeren, ‘Five Estates’ and Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, ‘Rationale’. David Zarefsky recently concluded that pragma-dialectics ‘is probably the most robust approach to argumentation theory and practice among contemporary researchers’. David Zarefsky, ‘�e Ten Rules of Pragma-Dialectics and Validity in Argumentation’, in Peter Houtlosser and Agnès van Rees (eds), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, ), pp. – (). . Toulmin et al., Reasoning, pp. –. . For a critique against Toulmin’s conception of reasonableness, see Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, ‘Rationale’, pp. –. However, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst note that Toulmin ascribes a more critical function to argumentation in An Introduction to Reasoning () than in �e Uses of Argument (). . Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric, p. . . Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric, pp. –. . Cf. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, ‘Rationale’, pp. –. . As described above in Section . (p. ) and . (p. ). Van Eemeren and Grootendorst attribute the idea of a dialectical model for reasonableness to Popper and Albert. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, ‘Rationale’, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

restricted by the problems of an anthropological–relativistic perspective nor by the problems of a geometrical perspective.²³³ �e pragma-dialectical rules for the resolution of a dispute conform to two criteria: problem-solving validity and conventional validity.²³⁴ �e theory behind the rules relates to ordinary discussion in everyday language (as opposed to the highly formalized rules of schools of dialogical logic and formal dialectics). �e rules incorporate the classical fallacies and provides a practical code of conduct for the resolution of a dispute. �e rules are neither based on philosophical ideals (cf. logical approaches) nor on ideal values which are connected to historical circumstances (cf. Toulmin and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca). Van Eemeren and Grootendorst summarize: ‘�e claim of acceptability which we attribute to these rules is not based in any way on metaphysical necessity, but on their suitability to do the job for which they are intended: the resolution of disputes.’²³⁵ �e authors of the  study note that in situations where the higher-order conditions fail entirely, such as in the example given on religious heckling,²³⁶ the PD ideal may be judged inapproriate as a standard by which to evaluate these confrontations.²³⁷ �e authors note that a challenge for PD theory is to give an account of ‘argumentation occurring under less-than-ideal conditions and conducted by less-than-ideal participants’ and that a concept of ‘argumentative strategy’ could meet this need.²³⁸ Four years later the method was indeed extended in this direction. Nevertheless, the critique against the PD theory that ‘argumentation cannot be viewed in an idealized way’ is still raised against the normative ideal.²³⁹ However, much of this critique does not adequately consider the later developments of PD theory. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, ‘Rationale’, p. . . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, ‘Rationale’, p. . �e problem-solving validity refers to the suitability of the rules to do the job for which they are intended and the conventional validity refers to their intersubjective acceptability. . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, ‘Rationale’, p. . Hayes criticizes the rationale offered for pragma-dialectics. He argues, on the one hand, that also the pragma-dialectical rules need empirical evidence and, on the other, that there is a need for principles ‘both on an abstract level of axioms and first principles and at the mundane, concrete level of sense-experience and factual knowledge.’ Calvin Hayes, ‘Popper’s Critical Rationalism and the Rationale for Pragma-Dialectics’, in Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale and Athena V. Colman (eds), Argumentation & Rhetoric, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation – Second Conference (only pub. on CD-ROM; St. Catharines, ON: Brock University, ). My impression is that Hayes does not take the purpose of the rules fully into account; the ‘decalogue’ is not an attempt at a general theory of fallacies, but relates to fallacious moves in a resolution of a dispute. Incidentally, a research project aimed at testing the conventional validity of pragma-dialectical rules based on their intersubjective acceptability, is under way; see Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, ‘Development of PD’, p. , and for some recent results, in Dutch, Bart Garssen and Francisca Snoek Henkemans (eds), De redelijkheid zelve. Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren (Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers, ). . Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, pp. –. . ‘What this suggests, then, is that there are substantive epistemological limits to the scope of the problem validity and intersubjective validity of critical discussion as a method of dispute resolution.’ Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Reconstructing Discourse, p. . . Michael A. Gilbert, ‘Ideal Argumentation’(), pp. – ().

�e Method



�is brings us to the question of whether moral and religious reasoning would require a different ideal. In a study on the place of reason in ethics, Toulmin asks: ‘What kind of argument, what kinds of reasoning is it proper for us to accept in support of moral decisions?’²⁴⁰ He notes that the kinds of reasoning in science, ethics, and religion are different. ‘When we are discussing matters of religion,’ Toulmin says, ‘we must seek less for a rational demonstration than for evidences of their truth’, and that we should not expect a literal answer to a spiritual question.²⁴¹ When put before a choice, one can ask: ‘Why ought I do so and so?’, and for several stages literal answers can be given, but at some point these answers are exhausted and only a spiritual answer remains. Toulmin provides the following example:²⁴² ‘Why ought I to give back this book?’ ‘Because you promised.’ ‘But why ought I to, really?’ ‘Because it would be sinful not to.’ ‘And what if I were to commit such a sin?’ ‘�at would be to cut yourself off from God’, etc.

Where does this leave us? On the one hand, we have a method based on ‘rational evaluation criteria’;²⁴³ on the other, we have religious reasoning whereby the ultimate answer is characteristically spiritual. I suggest that the spiritual nature of Paul’s matters do not relieve him of rationality, and that Paul himself does not argue as if it did. Even though the ultimate argument is spiritual, being based on revelation, the intermediate steps need not be. I think Moores has described this well: For Paul the truth of the gospel of Christ was not to be understood by dodging the logical riddles with which it confronts us. He does not speak as if the illumination guaranteed by the Holy Spirit dispenses with the need for reflection. Rather he speaks as if, sharpened and directed by the Holy Spirit, the human capacity for exercising critical judgement plays a formative role in our grasp of the gospel.²⁴⁴ . Stephen Toulmin, An Examination of �e Place of Reason in Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . . Toulmin, Reason in Ethics, p. . . Toulmin, Reason in Ethics, p. . Describing this type of reasoning, Toulmin notes that ‘ethical reasoning first does for the questioner all that can be asked of it, exhausting the literal answers to his question, and making it clear how far there is any literal sense in his asking what he “ought” to do. In each case, when this is finished, it is clear that something remains to be done: that moral reasoning, while showing what ought (literally) to be done, has failed to satisfy the questioner. Although he may come to recognise intellectually what he “ought” to do, he does not feel like doing it – his heart is not in it. . . . his question comes alive again as soon as one takes it “spiritually”, as a religious question. . . . therefore, religious answers may still be appropriate, even when the resources of ethical reasoning are exhausted.’ Toulmin, Reason in Ethics, pp. –. . Van Eemeren et al., Handbook, p. , n. . . Moores, Rationality in Paul, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

�is is very different from a traditional view, according to which preaching does not require a ‘high degree of precision’, but only needs to evoke the ‘right atmosphere’.²⁴⁵ On the contrary, Paul clearly makes an effort to be convincing to reason. �is does not exclude a rhetorical ambition to uphold a suitable ‘atmosphere’. Pragma-dialectics provides a rational ideal against which any argumentation can be mirrored. �is aids the analyst in describing the argumentation accurately. �e model makes it possible to describe deviations from the ideals but does not dictate what further conclusions should be drawn from this. Even if the analysis uncovers rational flaws, the argumentation can still be effective, useful, and acceptable by a certain audience. For instance, in religious reasoning we must accept that the final argument is spiritual. �is gives biblical argumentation a character which may not agree with standard notions of rationality. But for the purpose of a critical analysis, I find the pragma-dialectical framework to be more useful than abstract notions of the standards of reasonableness among a ‘universal audience’ or a ‘forum of experts’. But are, then, pragma-dialectical rules reasonable? Is it plausible that discussants would want to uphold these ideals? Van Eemeren and Grootendorst give the following answer: We think real people are, in principle, not only perfectly capable of observing the discussion rules as formulated, but also act upon these rules when they try to resolve a dispute by means of a discussion. But, of course, not always, and not always completely without interference by unreasonable elements. Nobody is a saint and reasonableness is a matter of degree.²⁴⁶

. Næss, Logiske Emner, p. . . Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, ‘Rules for Argumentation in Dialogues’, Argum  (), pp. – ().

Chapter 

A .

�e analytical procedure

I will begin the analysis with some observations on the higher-order conditions (Section .). �ese then serve as an interpretational background for the detailed analysis that follows. As shown in the Introduction, I have divided the text of Gal. .–. into ten units. I will begin the analysis of each unit with a division of the text into phrases. �is division is made on the basis of the needs of the analysis so that references to phrases in the text can be made more easily. �ese units are in a few cases identical with a speech act, but in most cases the speech act is made up of several units combined. It is most practical to use the traditional division of the text into verses and only to extend it with letters of the alphabet. �is is practice among many commentators, but my divisions do not necessarily follow the usual way in which the text is divided into phrases. I divide the text into units adapted for the analysis. A�er the division, a few preliminary remarks are in order before the analysis. In these remarks, I discuss features of the text which are important for a correct analysis, such as necessary remarks concerning the Greek.¹ Other important preliminary considerations are such standard exegetical considerations as relevant cultural conventions relating, among other things to epistolography and to historical matters. Only those features which are important for the analysis are dealt with. In order to begin with a correct general perspective on the text, an identification of the speech acts is helpful at this stage. A detailed analysis will follow the divisions and preliminary remarks. All standpoints and premisses are gathered in a table at the end of each section – including those from the text which have not been part of a figure. �e important ones are highlighted (set in italics) and those irrelevant for the resolution of the dispute are deleted (put in brackets). A�er the analysis, a section on strategic manoeuvring deals with the rhetorical moves in the passage and another section presents fallacies and violations of rules that on the basis of the analysis can be . �e Greek text is from Kurt Aland et al. (eds), Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellscha�, th edn, ) and the English translation is based on �e New Revised Standard Version Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), revised against the Greek by the author.





Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

said to occur in the unit. Finally, each unit will end with a conclusion on the results of the analysis. In Chapter , the results are summarized in an analytic overview.

.

Higher-order conditions

In the case of Galatians, it is obvious that higher-order conditions affect the argumentation. �e socio-political context of the argumentation is not neutral, nor is there an even balance of authority between Paul and the Galatians. An understanding of the higher-order conditions, however incomplete, helps us to make more correct interpretative choices in the analysis.² Generally speaking, Roman culture at the time of Paul was a good milieu for argumentation. �ere was a living tradition of public speaking and debating, and it was considered appropriate and honourable to defend one’s own standpoints in a debate.³ Naturally, much of this oratory was political and took place mainly among the upper social strata, but public speaking and debating was a distinct feature of the society and an activity well known to all. �is is not to say real freedom of speech existed. Nor can we characterize the atmosphere as one of true intellectual pluralism or as one of political freedom – not even during the best of times. Many subjects were out of bounds and the political climate was at times very volatile. �e subject of religion was of course especially delicate. �e socio-political context of Paul’s argument with the Galatians is in many ways very different from public political displays of oratory. Paul works from within a subculture. �e Jewish population at large did not belong to the free class of citizens, nor could they practice their religion as freely as those adhering to the Roman cults.⁴ It is difficult to reconstruct the precise historical context of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. �ere are, however, indications in the letter itself which together with information from other Pauline letters, Acts, and historical extra-biblical documents, allow us to sketch a general picture sufficient for an understanding of what important factors affected the correspondence of the Galatians. At the time of writing, probably sometime between AD  and ,⁵ Christianity . Higher-order conditions were presented in Section . on p. . . �us differing from cultures where public display of unanimity is avoided. Debating takes other forms in non-Western cultures, which raises additional interpretational questions to interpreters from such cultures. . Some Jews were Roman citizens (as was Paul) but the privileges ensuing from this were minimal. Jews were at times slightly favoured in comparison to some other religions (i.e. they were tolerated and not persecuted), but at all times they were viewed with suspicion by most Romans. . �e discussion concerning the dating of Galatians is quite extensive. �e main suggestions range from AD  at the earliest to AD  at the latest. �e dating as such has little relevance for

Analysis



was still very much a sect within the Jewish religion. �is undoubtedly affected the higher-order conditions considerably. �e situation is further complicated by the fact that there were different factions within the Christian movement. On the one hand, there were the most notable ‘party of James’ or the ‘Jerusalem apostles’ who considered the gospel as something for the Jews, and on the other hand there was Paul, who preached (mainly) for the Gentiles. �e question of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the emerging Church was a decisive question, not only for Paul, but for the future of Christianity. At the time of his writing, Paul had most probably already visited Peter and the other apostles in Jerusalem and presented his case to them concerning his mission to the Gentiles. �ey had then reached an agreement that Paul would be free to preach to the Gentiles. �is would then be the visit referred to in Gal. .–. �e issue was, however, not completely settled – at least not by all – and the Galatians were influenced towards a ‘Judaizing’ understanding of the gospel. �is meant that some regulations of the law would be applicable not only to Jews, but also to the Gentiles who turned to the gospel. �e most concrete expression of such Judaizing tendencies was the call for circumcision for the Gentiles. Paul clearly opposed this, considering the gospel of Christ something new that created a fellowship freed from much of the Jewish insignia because they were no longer needed ‘in Christ’. When considering the second-order conditions, the situation is probably far from ideal. Paul writes as an apostle ‘sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father’ (Gal. .). An argumentation which begins with such a phrase promises not to pay too much respect to the freedom rule, the argument scheme rule, or the closure rule (see p.  for the rules). On the other hand, Paul’s authority – although clear to himself – does not seem to have been undisputed by at least some of his addressees. �is is indicated by the effort Paul makes to establish his authority, his ethos, in Galatians –. Still, from Paul’s point of view, his addressees are subordinate at least when it comes to religious interpretation. If someone preaches something other than Paul, ‘let that one be accursed!’ (.). In Paul’s view there is no other gospel than his, only ‘some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ’ (.). Our knowledge of the Galatians themselves is limited.⁶ It is also unclear within the letter if Paul is making reference to an outside group of preachers my analysis. Whether Galatians was written before or a�er the Jerusalem council (which can be dated to / or /) is, however, important. I join the majority opinion when opting for a later date for the Jerusalem council as well as for the dating of Galatians. For a discussion, see Longenecker, Galatians, pp. lxxiii–lxxxviii. About the relationship between Galatians and Acts, see also Schlier, Galater, pp. – and Mußner, Galater, pp. –. For an earlier dating, see also Hans Conzelmann, Geschichte des Urchristentums (Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament, das Neue Testament Deutsch, Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk, Ergänzungsreihe, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, rd edn, ), pp. –, –. . See e.g. the Einleitung in Schlier, Galater.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

(from Jerusalem, for instance) or to some teachers or dissidents from within the Galatian congregations. In fact, it is not certain that Paul is making reference to any known person or persons at all, but that his remarks about ‘some’ people (τινές, .) etc. are general, directed at any such Galatian church member that fits the description (i.e. those who entertain ‘another gospel’). Nevertheless, many theories have been put forth regarding the situation in Galatia, and especially regarding the identity of Paul’s ‘opponents’.⁷ Various attempts at mirror-reading Galatians in order to reconstruct the exact situation have failed.⁸ Because of the scarce information about the historical situation, it is difficult to speculate how the Galatians perceived themselves in relation to Paul. �e argument does indicate that at least some of them felt equal to him when it came to religious interpretation and leadership. Since Paul on an earlier occasion (or two) had visited the Galatians as an apostle,⁹ some – maybe most – of them still perceived Paul as an apostle, a teacher. It is unclear if some of the Galatians had already given in to the ideas of law observance and had let themselves be circumcised. If so, this group would probably be quite small since Paul feels that, through the letter, he can still make a difference, and that it is not yet too late for the Galatians to avoid being ‘foolish’ (.–). Although Paul does approach the Galatians from a position of authority, there are also many extenuating circumstances that alleviate his rather harsh ethos as a rebuking apostle. First, Paul is a ‘brother’ to the Galatians, i.e. they basically share the same faith and want to be followers of Christ (see .–). Secondly, Paul’s past, as one who gave up a good position within the Jewish community in order to follow Christ (.–), and as one who has a testimony of a spectacular encounter with the Lord himself (.–, .–), gives him credibility as a servant of Christ. �irdly, as one that had been persecuted, carrying ‘the marks of Jesus’ on his body (.), it is improbable that he would have less than noble motives for his ministry. Lastly, Paul’s mission had been accepted by the ‘pillars’ in Jerusalem (.–) – that is, he was not just working on his own but had support from highly regarded followers of Christ.

.

�e stages of the argumentation

In the case of Galatians, there is no clear-cut progression of the four argumentation stages. Again, the fact that we have only Paul’s presentation of the argumentation . For an overview, see Longenecker, Galatians, pp. lxxxviii–c. . Most notoriously so in Bernard Hungerford Brinsmead, Galatians: Dialogical Response to Opponents (SBLDS, ; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, ). For the problems of mirror-reading, see John M. G. Barclay, ‘Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT  (), pp. –. . For the different hypotheses on Paul’s visit(s) to the Galatians, see the Introduction in Longenecker, Galatians.

Analysis



makes it difficult to reconstruct its progression. Although Paul at points seems to refer to facts or circumstances known, and maybe discussed, at an earlier stage, much of the argumentation remains implicit.¹⁰ Galatians contains several passages in which Paul interprets the real or imagined sentiments and arguments of his addressees. However, also an implicit discussion includes the stages of argumentation: the need to establish the difference of an opinion, to set out the rules for the discussion, to argue the case, and, finally, to assess the resolution, are all necessary parts of it.¹¹ As is usual in real-life argumentation, there are at points references to subjects which belong to another discussion stage than the one in which the reference is made. �ere is, however, clearly a progression of the argumentation in the letter and a general move from the opening and confrontation stages towards the argumentation and concluding stages. �e largest portion of the letter belongs to the argumentation stage – this can be deduced from the large number of assertives, and in a sense the whole letter refers to this stage. Since we do not have any other material to work with, the other stages can only roughly be sketched based on the information in the letter. In the following, I attempt to sketch out the confrontation, opening, argumentation, and concluding stages (for an explanation of these, see Section ., p. ). It is not certain when the confrontation stage actually took place. �ere may have been an argument – a confrontation – in some of the Galatian congregations about the matters under discussion in Paul’s letter. On the other hand, it is possible that the confrontation only arises with Paul’s letter and that the Galatians did not perceive their situation as problematic. �e third alternative is a combination of both: some Galatians or some Galatian congregations experienced a conflict between the different views of the matters at hand while others did not. In any case, the time span between the time when Paul got to know about the situation and the time of writing of the letter cannot have been long;¹² the situation described by Paul is that the Galatians are about to change their religious views. It is not clear how much Paul knew about the situation in the Galatian congregations – one explanation as to why some of Paul’s remarks are rather vague is that he did not have enough information to be more specific.¹³ Another possibility is that the situation was in flux, differed between congregations, and Paul wanted to use formulations that would make sense to all the recipients, even though their situation may have been somewhat different. No matter what the situation was among the Galatians, Paul’s letter makes a confrontation clear. A�er receiving the letter, there probably was a situation of confrontation within the congregations, . An implicit discussion is one in which only one of the parties carries the discussion; Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. . . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. . . With Betz, Galatians, p. . . Cf. the theory of Willi Marxsen, Einleitung in das Neue Testament: eine Einführung in ihre Probleme (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, ), pp. –, .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

even within those that possibly had not considered their situation problematic before. In a sense, the argumentation already began with Paul’s visit to the Galatian congregations. At the beginning of the letter, there are some elements that clearly belong to the opening stage, and these go back to the roles assigned at an earlier stage in the relationship between Paul and the Galatians. Paul reinforces in the letter these roles and devotes a considerable part of the letter to strengthen his ethos vis-à-vis the Galatians: Paul carries the role of an apostle, claiming the authority of someone ‘sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father’ (.). Paul’s gospel is the only gospel and anyone proclaiming anything else is accursed (.). Paul makes reference to some who are guilty of this: ‘some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ’ (.). Paul does not shy at criticizing the Galatians, whom he depicts as ‘confused’ since they show signs of ‘turning to a different gospel’ (.). �us the Galatians need Paul’s advice. �e question has been presented whether Paul thought he could influence the Galatian situation. �e wording in the letter indicates that he believed he could, that the situation was not final, that there was an opportunity for an argumentation, and that at least some of the Galatians would agree with him. Concerning the internal rules of this discussion, it is quite clear from the very outset that this is no ideal critical discussion: Paul wants his addressees to succumb to his wishes. However, via the letter Paul tries to achieve his goal, not through ordinary declarative preaching, but through argumentation. Even if Paul’s ethos would have been very strong, success in the matter was not a given: Paul thus needed to convince his addressees through all means available; in rhetorical terms this meant combining logos, ethos, and pathos. As an apostle, Paul is a teacher and his argumentation contains a great deal of tuition. Mixed with the elements with an opening stage function, we find elements that clearly have a confrontation stage function. In the first sentence, a�er the customary greeting and benediction (.–), Paul rebukes the Galatians for ‘deserting the one who called you’ and for ‘turning to a different gospel’. Together with the repeated assurance that anyone proclaiming a different gospel is accursed, this is quite a strong confrontation. �e next passage that indirectly belongs to the confrontation stage is Paul’s account of his rebuke of Cephas (.–). �is story predates Paul’s encounter with the Galatians and thus does not belong to the confrontation stage of their particular argumentation, but the confrontation with Cephas illustrates Paul’s independence and how he is willing to defend his gospel against anyone who deviates from it, be it another apostle or even an angel: Paul is not afraid of confrontation. Paul uses this passage to strengthen his ethos and as such it belongs to the opening stage of the argumentation. �e argumentation stage proper, which begins with .–, also contains clear elements of the confrontation stage: Paul blames the Galatians for being foolish and bewitched (.),

Analysis



and for being in danger of ending with the flesh, thus nullifying their experiences (.–). Finally, there are some elements of the confrontation stage at the end of the letter. Paul warns those who ‘confuse’ the Galatians that they will be punished (.) and utters the strong wish that they would ‘castrate themselves’ (.). A few further remarks show the tension between Paul and his antagonists, but they can be regarded as part of the argumentation stage or opening stage as well (.– and .–). Paul makes a considerable effort to convince the Galatians that his mission is trustworthy and his intentions unselfish, purely in accordance with the gospel revealed to him by God and, consequently, in the best interests of the Galatians (.–.). In this way Paul is different from those who succumb to peer pressure (.–). Later in the letter, in the middle of Galatians , Paul again makes appeals to the Galatians which portray him as a role model. �ey should become as Paul is (.) and believe him now as they did earlier when they welcomed him as an angel of God (.). Paul refers to the Galatians as his ‘little children’ (.) whom ‘they’ (i.e. Paul’s antagonists) want to use for their own unworthy causes (.). At the beginning of Galatians , Paul clearly states that the message of those who ‘prevent’ the Galatians from ‘obeying the truth’ (.) is of suspicious origin and that these people will have to ‘pay the penalty’ (.). At the end of the letter Paul makes a vague reference to those who think they are something, although they are nothing (.) , whereas Paul carries branded marks of Jesus on his body (.). Furthermore, the antagonists have unworthy motives and are inconsistent in their actions (.–). Naturally, these descriptions stem from Paul’s subjectivity. �e concluding stage of the argument is beyond our knowledge. We do not know how many of the Galatians or of the Galatian congregations complied with Paul’s wishes. At the end of the letter there is an indication of Paul’s understanding of how the argument should end. In the penultimate sentence, Paul forbids the Galatians to make any ‘trouble’ for him ‘from now on’ (.). Together with the way Paul perceives his role in contrast to the role of anyone with a different message, this indicates that Paul on his part considers his case to be conclusive: the Galatians accept the content of Paul’s letter, are convinced of his message, and thus do not need to bother Paul on these matters any more. Although the argumentation between Paul and the Galatians does not subscribe to the ideals of a critical discussion, the PD perspective shows that the argumentation follows some of the general traits of an argumentative discussion. How this discussion is carried out in detail will become clear as we now turn to analyse the argumentative section of the letter. �e brief sketch of the argument presented above will be useful in the analysis as a framework. In unclear cases it can help us determine the best interpretation.

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

 .

Gal. .–, the Galatians’ reception of the Spirit Division and preliminary remarks

.a ῏Ω ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, .b τίς ὑµᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, .c οἷς κατ’ ὀϕθαλµοὺς ᾽Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράϕη ἐσταυρωµένος; .a τοῦτο µόνον θέλω µαθεῖν ἀϕ’ ὑµῶν· .b ἐξ ἔργων νόµου τὸ πνεῦµα ἐλάβετε .c ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; .a οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε, .b ἐναρξάµενοι πνεύµατι .c νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε; .a τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; .b εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ. .a ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑµῖν τὸ πνεῦµα .b καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάµεις ἐν ὑµῖν, .c ἐξ ἔργων νόµου .d ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως;

.a You foolish Galatians! .b Who has bewitched you? .c before whose eyes ‘Jesus Christ the Crucified’ was clearly portrayed. .a �e only thing I want to learn from you is this: .b Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law .c or by believing what you heard? .a Are you so foolish? .b Having started with the Spirit, .c are you now ending with the flesh? .a Did you experience so much for nothing? .b – if it really was for nothing. .a Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit .b and work miracles among you .c by works of the law, .d or by your believing what you heard?

.a �is is a reproach, an expressive, with the content, ‘You, Galatians, are foolish!’, and since it was a commonplace address among preachers of Paul’s day,¹⁴ we should not read too much into it and say, for example, that it reveals Paul’s disappointment, aggression, deep concern, exasperation or perplexity.¹⁵ Rather, we should ask what the function of this speech act is. Expressives are not allotted any function in a critical discussion, especially not in the argumentation stage. �is is because expressives do not forward the argumentation, but usually clearly hinder it. Why then begin the argumentation stage with a notably negative expressive? In the context of a long letter, .a clearly has the function of signalling the beginning of a new section. A�er the rather long section that preceded, Galatians –, the expressive may also function as a kind of wake-up call, now that the main substance of Paul’s argument is to be presented. It would have taken between seven and twenty minutes to read Galatians –,¹⁶ and such a conspicuous expressive would probably have caught the attention of every listener and directed their interest to the following crucial part of the letter: the force of the speech act . Betz, Galatians, p. . For examples, see Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch–stoische Diatribe: Mit einem Geleitwort von Hans Hübner (FRLANT, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ), pp. –, –, , ff., ff. . Contra many traditional expositors, see Section ., p. . . It is impossible to estimate the length of a reading precisely. �e difficulty is not due to needing to know how long it takes to read the letter or a portion of it, but how long it took in the context of Galatian congregational meetings. �e readings were probably quite different from those text-readings we solemnly listen to, for example in cathedrals in Northern Europe where nobody would interrupt by exclamation, question, or interjection of any kind.

Analysis



signals that this section is important. Consequently, we should not come to the conclusion that Paul truly was ‘exasperated’ or similar. �e following verses show that the content of the expressive, that the Galatians are foolish, is conditional. �e rest of vv. – is cast in the form of questions, resulting in five questions in as many verses. �is is an interesting way of advancing an argument, through rhetorical questions – i.e. questions that demand no answer. In this case the questions can be described as accusatory rhetorical questions. Also, these should be externalized since several important themes are dealt with in these questions. Rhetorical questions are indirect assertives, which can thus be externalized as claims (cf. the notion of primary and secondary speech acts presented on p. ). According to �urén, the function of these rhetorical questions is to ‘provoke interaction by the audience’.¹⁷ In addition to this, the questions also advance the discussion by conveying information about Paul’s argument. �e passage thus has a dual function: the rhetorical nature of the questions provoke ‘interaction by the audience’ while they simultaneously convey information about Paul’s argument. Because of this, it is important to attempt to externalize the questions in order to clarify what the content of them is. .b �e content of this question is: ‘someone has bewitched you’, an indirect assertive. Originally, the term is related to magic and to ‘the evil eye’.¹⁸ Here we have a commonplace figurative use of βασκαίνω. We therefore should not say that Paul is suggesting that the Galatians had come under the influence of magic or magicians.¹⁹ Du Toit considers this to be an ‘obvious example of vilification’.²⁰ Betz, on the other hand, understands the phrase as ironic.²¹ �e content of the assertive is in any case negative: Paul makes clear his disapproval of the influence the Galatians are under. Although the assertive is in the form of a question, Paul can be held to the opinion that the Galatians are under a harmful influence. .c In the Greek, clauses .a, .b and .c are connected: .c is an attributive clause to ‘you’ in .b. .c is an assertive. �is phrase is only indirectly a part of the actual argument; it enforces the connection between what Paul preached to the Galatians and what they should believe. �e phrase is figurative in that Jesus Christ was in fact not exhibited before the eyes of the Galatians. �e meaning is rather that Paul (or some other preacher) preached about Jesus Christ as publicly crucified in a way that made the preaching vivid, creating a mental image before the eyes of the Galatians. .a It is unlikely that Paul really wants to learn something from the Galatians – he is the tutor. Furthermore, this is not the only thing Paul is discussing, . �urén, ‘Paul Angry?’, p. . . Betz, Galatians, p. . . Contra Martyn, see Section ., p. . . André B. Du Toit, ‘Vilification as a Pragmatic Device in Early Christian Epistolography’, Biblica  (), pp. – (). �is technique can be found throughout Galatians. �urén notes that ‘almost every device presented in du Toit’s article on vilification can be found in Galatians’. �urén, ‘Paul Angry?’, p. . . Betz, Galatians, p. . Oepke understands the remark as sarcastic, Oepke, Galater, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

so a substitution is necessary to clarify. In addition, this question is rhetorical. Paul is actually asserting his view. .a: ‘the most important issue in this matter concerning you is this’, an assertive. .b: ‘you have received the Spirit by believing what you heard’, .c, ‘and not by doing the works of the law (have you not?)’. Casting the assertive in the form of a question facilitates interaction with the audience. .a Again a reproach (as in .a), but here as an indirect assertive: ‘you are foolish’. However, giving it in the form of a rhetorical question indicates that there is an element of uncertainty (which becomes quite clear with .c–b); with .a the expressive .a is shown to be conditional. �e foolishness of the Galatians is not conclusively established. If the Galatians really end ‘with the flesh’, then they are certainly ‘foolish’. An externalization of .a and .c would then be: ‘if you now end with the flesh, then you are foolish’. .b–c Assertives: ‘you have started with the Spirit. If you now do X, then you will end with the flesh’. Also .b+.c is a rhetorical question, in substituted form, though, an assertive: ‘although you started with the Spirit, you will end with the flesh, [sc. if you do X]’. In the preceding text, Paul refers to works of the law and how a person cannot be justified through such works (.–). �e action X could thus be substituted with ‘try to be justified through the works of the law’. Earlier Paul mentioned circumcision (.), and the subsequent part of the letter raises this as the main issue. Also, the phrase ‘ending with the flesh’ could well refer to circumcision. It is thus probably correct to substitute X with ‘circumcise yourselves’, which in the context can be described as: ‘try to be justified through the works of the law’. �ere seems to be no reason to see .c as sarcastic.²² .a–b .a actually says two things: .a , ‘you experienced much’, and .a , ‘was it for nothing?’ .b repeats .a and clearly shows that .a may or may not have been ‘for nothing’. Only ‘if [something]’, then ‘it really was for nothing’. As in .b, the reference is to circumcision. Again, the rhetorical question externalized is an assertive: ‘if (you circumcise yourselves), then your experience was for nothing’. �e Greek (εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ) shows that Paul hopes that the negative alternative is not the case. �e reference to experience is connected to the statement that the Galatians began with the Spirit. �e ‘if ’ refers to .c and all three phrases (.c, .a, and .b) show the element of uncertainty: it is not yet clear (to Paul) whether or not it was ‘for nothing’, i.e. in vain. .a–d �e pericope ends with what is, in effect, a series of further rhetorical questions repeating what has already been said in the preceding verses. Substituted with the underlying claims they are: .a, ‘God supplies you with the Spirit’, .b, ‘and God works miracles among you’, .d, ‘by your believing what you heard’, .c, ‘and not by your doing the works of the law’ – a series of assertives. �e change of tense from the aorist to the present in v.  has attracted several theories. Martyn sees in this a change of reference: in v.  Paul refers to the genesis of the Galatian churches, whereas v.  refers to the continuous action of God.²³ But certainly . Contra Martyn, Galatians, p. . . Martyn, Galatians, p. .

Analysis



the present participles can include both past and present. In my view it is too uncertain an indication to build any interpretation on. A�er this preliminary analysis with a few transformations and externalizations, we see that the passage contains one expressive, whereas the rest are indirect assertives in the form of rhetorical questions. Detailed analysis Galatians .– opens up the argumentative stage proper of the letter. We have already observed that the expressives call the addressees’ attention to the importance of what will be presented in the following section. Right at the outset, Paul states his main argument in vv.  and  and also the possible consequences of making the wrong decision concerning the matter at hand in v. . A�er vv. – Paul can then proceed with arguments and examples in support of his statements. On the subject of Paul’s method of arguing, its similarity to the diatribe has o�en been pointed out. In his classic dissertation, Rudolf Bultmann makes some important remarks on the argumentation of the diatribe type, especially on the use of rhetorical questions: Über die Argumentationsweise der Diatribe braucht nicht viel gesagt zu werden, da Beweisführung nicht eigentlich die Sache der Diatribe ist, sondern persönliche Überführung. Es handelt sich für den Redner nicht darum, philosophische Sätze zu gewinnen, sondern er arbeitet mit feststehenden. Diese hat er zwar manchmal, besonders wenn sie Paradoxien ehthalten, seinen Hörern zu beweisen. Stets aber ist die Hauptsache, den Hörer zur praktischen Anwendung der betreffenden Wahrheiten zu bringen. Und beim Argumentieren liegt dem Redner nicht so sehr am gründlichen, langsamen Nachdenken der Hörer, sondern er will, daß ihnen das Gesagte unmittelbar eindruck macht und einleuchtet. Sie sollen nicht im langsamen Gang der Entwicklung jetzt zu diesem und jetzt zu jenem Satz gelangen, sonder sie sollen stets mit einem runden Ja oder Nein antworten. Das bewirken die vielen rhetorischen Fragen, die den Hörer überfallen, ihn nicht zum ruhigen Besinnen kommen lassen, sondern ihm sein Ja und Nein abzwingen, so daß er schließlich überrascht ist, an ein Ziel geführt zu sein, das er anfangs gar nicht erwartet hatte.²⁴

Bultmann’s observation on the use of rhetorical questions seems to apply to .b–d. Looking at these verses, Paul’s argumentation does indeed seem to be influenced by the diatribe style of preaching, and thus Bultmann’s observations are important here. �is is a much more natural explanation than to understand these questions as an instance of the rhetorical method of interrogatio as a part of a speech of genus iudiciale.²⁵ . Bultmann, Die Diatribe, pp. –. . Similarly Jürgen Becker, Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser und Kolosser: Übersetzt und erklärt von Jürgen Becker und Ulrich Luz (NTD, /; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ), p. . Contra Betz, Galatians, p. ; Longenecker, Galatians, p. .

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: Circumcision not required, .b–d, part /  It is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. �

. & .� Reception of the Spirit does not re- [Circumcision is a work of the law.] quire any works of the law. �

.. & ..� �e Galatians received the Spirit [�e Galatians’ experience is typical with no works of the law required. of how one receives the Spirit.]

Especially when we advance to the more dialogical portion of the argument (from v. ), the conventions of the diatribe may in part explain the logical problems of the argumentation. Paul gives only one argument in vv. – in support of his claim: the Galatians’ own experience – as interpreted by Paul –, illustrated in Figs . and ..²⁶ �is is Paul’s main argument in the passage. If Paul succeeds in this appeal to the experience of the Galatians themselves, he has the strongest kind of proof: the Galatians cannot deny their own experience. �is is not to say that an opponent could not have made a different use or interpretation of the Galatians’ experiences. In any case, Paul’s standpoint is that any ‘works of the law’ did not play a role in the Galatians’ reception of the Spirit. �is, however, is not the dispute proper as we will see in v. : the argument is not about the past, but about the present and the future. In Fig. . the first argument scheme is causal: because reception of the Spirit does not require any works of the law – and circumcision is a work of the law – it is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. �e second argument scheme is symptomatic: since the Galatians received the Spirit with no works of the law – and their reception of the spirit is typical of how one receives the Spirit – reception of the Spirit does not require any works of the law. In Fig. . the argument scheme is analogous: the Galatians’ present situation is comparable to their situation when they first received the Spirit.²⁷ �e figures draw attention to the techniques of association and dissociation.²⁸ . �e figures are rather self-explanatory. It is important to note, however, that unexpressed elements are indicated by a prime, � , and put in brackets, [ ]. An unexpressed premiss is linked to an explicit premiss with an ampersand, &. Premisses in coordinatively compound arguments are connected with an overbrace. For further details, see Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, pp. –. �e practice of putting unexpressed premisses in brackets is here also used in those few figures which do not follow the schema suggested by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst. . Siegert, Argumentation, p.  presents the argument in the following way, which, despite the fact that his presentation is in the form of two premisses followed by a conclusion separated by a line, is in bad form: the explicit premiss, ‘Habt ihr aus Gesetzeswerken oder aus Glaubensverkündigung den Geist empfangen?’; the unexpressed premiss, ‘[Aus Glaubensverkündigung.]’; and the unexpressed conclusion, ‘[Also sind Gesetzeswerke nicht mehr nötig.]’. . For general remarks on association and dissociation, see Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric, pp. –; for the use of the techniques in Gal. .–, see Kra�chick, ‘Ethos &

Analysis



Fig. .: Works of the law not required, .b–d, part /  God does not require any works of the law from the Galatians. �

. & .� God initially gave the Spirit with [If God initially gives the Spirit without no works of the law required. the need for any works, then he does not require such works subsequently.]

�e argument is presented in a manner that portrays the Galatians’ situation as one in which there are two opposing options: one good, one bad. �is is a simple yet powerful presentational device. �e good option is associated with the Spirit, and the bad option is associated with the flesh. If these associations are chosen so that the Galatians would agree with the superiority of the Spirit and the inferiority of the flesh, there is a good basis for the argument. �e challenge is then to continue the argument so that the chain of associations leads the argument in the direction Paul wished for. However, the next step is already disputable: the Spirit is associated with faith and the flesh with works (of the law). Any Judaizer would readily have contested these associations. �e underlying idea in the argument of Fig. . (that if God does not require works of the law in connection with the initial giving of the Spirit he will never require such works) can also easily be disputed. In fact, .� is the weak link in the argument. What if one agrees with Paul that works of the law were indeed not necessary for the initial reception of the Spirit but believes that they are necessary later – for example, for the continuing reception of the Spirit? �is is a question inherent in .. Paul does not, however, give any arguments as to why the original belief in the gospel would guarantee a continuing reception of the Spirit – he only presents his opinion using the indirect speech act of a rhetorical question. We have here a rhetorical move aimed at leading the addressees to accept Paul’s argument. It is interesting that I have not found any commentator that questions the premisses in vv. –. Betz talks about the reference to the Spirit as ‘the strongest of all possible defense arguments – undeniable evidence’.²⁹ G. Walter Hansen describes the situation similarly: ‘�eir [the Galatians’] past (vv. –) and present (v. ) experience of the Spirit is a well-known, indisputable fact.’³⁰ But is this really so? �e reference to the Galatians’ experience is probably to some sort of ecstatic experience (speaking in tongues, prophecy etc.).³¹ But can we also be certain that Pathos’, pp. ff.; and for the use of dissociation and antitheses by Paul generally, see Siegert, Argumentation, pp. –. . Betz, Galatians, p. . . G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ), p. . . �is is not clearly stated in the passage, but is probable from references in Acts (., , ; ., ; .; .–), and from Gal. ., where Paul calls the Galatians pneumatics (οἱ πνευµατικοί), the technical term, see Betz, Galatians, p. .

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: No other gospel, .a–c (& .–)  �e Galatians should not accept any other, different, teaching. �

. & .� �e Galatians are foolish if they accept [One should not be foolish.] any other way of preaching Christ. �

.. & ..� It is foolish to accept another way of [One is foolish if one accepts preaching Christ. something foolish.] �

... & ...� �ere is no other correct way of preach[It is foolish to accept that ing Christ. which is incorrect.]

the Galatians, and any opponents of Paul’s, would have considered this strong evidence for his case? Paul has undeniably constructed a rhetorically compelling argument, but it certainly is not ‘undeniable’, nor is Paul’s description of the situation an ‘indisputable fact’. It is entirely possible to find other explanations as to why (and maybe even to how and when) the Galatians received the Spirit. So to be accurate, when discussing vv. – we should keep in mind that Paul argues from his interpretation of the Galatians’ experience. Naturally, Paul’s interpretations and explanations are intended to be convincing, and he has succeeded so well that even modern interpreters are convinced.³² �is is an example of the care needed in analysing rhetorical argumentation. Apart from the main argument presented above, vv. – also contain some minor arguments. .c is somehow supporting .a and .b. �e meaning seems to be that the Galatians are to be blamed; they are foolish to let themselves be ‘bewitched’ even though Jesus Christ had been so clearly presented to them. �e source of this influence are the ‘some’ (τινές) who have ‘bewitched’ the Galatians. �e reference may be to those preaching ‘another gospel’, already mentioned in Gal. . and ., also as τινές. �is other gospel is incompatible with the preaching they had received earlier (see Fig. .). �e connection shows the importance Paul gives to the matter at hand: the Galatians’ situation is directly linked to the main content of Paul’s message: Jesus Christ crucified. �e argument schemes are causal: since premisses .� , ..� , and ...� , then standpoints , ., and ... �ese are instances of pragmatic argumentation, advising against a certain course of action.³³ �e chain could be extended further down and in the end the acceptance of the argument depends on acceptance of Paul’s gospel and his mission. Another argument is found in .a, .b, and .c. As Betz points out, this . �urén notes this problem with regard to Paul’s argumentation generally, �urén, ‘Paul Angry?’. . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, pp. –.

Analysis



Fig. .: �e Galatians’ foolishness, .a–c  �e Galatians are foolish. �

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� .a � � � � � � � �.b & �e Galatians started �e Galatians are endwith the Spirit. ing with the flesh.

.(a–b)� [One is foolish if one starts with the Spirit and ends with the flesh.]

Fig. .: Nullification of experiences, .a–b  �e Galatians’ spiritual experiences are nullified if they circumcise themselves. �

. & .� A work of the law nullifies [Circumcision is a spiritual experiences. work of the law.]

is an antitheton with parallels in . and .–.³⁴ By attributing different things to opposing ends, one good, one bad, Paul can present the Galatians’ situation as absurd: one may start with the flesh and move on to the Spirit, but to go the other way makes no sense; it is ‘foolish’ (see Fig. .). �e argument scheme is symptomatic: the Galatians’ behaviour is typical of foolish behaviour. .b and .c bring the urgency of the matter to the fore. �e choices in question are not yet final; there is still an option. .c shows this clearly: ‘are you now [in doing so and so] ending with the flesh?’ ‘Flesh’ is of course an opposite to ‘Spirit’, but at the same time the ultimate reference is to circumcision. �us the action that this pericope refers to is circumcision (that this is the action that is referred to has to be inferred from other passages in Galatians – I shall return to this). �e content is: ‘if you circumcise yourselves, you are foolish’, and a support to the argument is that it does not make sense to start with the Spirit and end with the flesh. In .a and .b, Paul stresses the importance of the Galatians’ choice (see Fig. .). �e use of rhetoric is obvious with the use of affected language. However, this may be intentional on Paul’s part, so we cannot conclude that Paul was in actual fact strongly agitated.³⁵ �e argument scheme is causal. �e words ‘experience’, and ‘nullify’ need to be elucidated. �e experiences are probably ecstatic ones that are in connection with preaching and the reception of the Spirit. �e point is that this all occurred because of faith, not because of any works of the law. �at these experiences are nullified (are ‘for nothing’, εἰκῇ) . Betz, Galatians, p. . . Betz sees strong emotions in .: ‘Paul acts as if he is at the end of his wits. He exclaims seemingly in despair and also in anger: “have you experienced such things in vain?”.’ Betz, Galatians, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

seems to mean that circumcision somehow renders void – in the opinion of Paul – the gospel which is of faith without works of the law. For Paul, an understanding of the gospel which includes works of the law is equal to ‘another gospel’ (Gal. .). �e question in v.  concludes the series of questions in vv. –. Paul does not give the answers directly, but most commentators agree that the answers are self-evident. For instance, commenting on the question in v. , Mußner states, ‘Die Antwort, die wiederum nicht gegeben wird, könnte nach allem nur lauten: ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως.’³⁶ What seems to escape such commentators, though, is that the reason that this is the ‘only’ answer may be more a result of Paul’s argumentative strategy than of the actual facts or the view of the other party. Next, we should ask to what commitments can we hold Paul responsible, and what is the preferred response to his arguments. First of all, the main commitment is clear: ‘You have received the Spirit by believing what you heard and not by doing the works of the law’ (v. ). �is statement is then connected to vv. –, ‘if you now circumcise yourselves [i.e. end with the flesh], then it [i.e. “all”] was of no use’. All standpoints and premisses are presented in Table .. In addition to those standpoints and premisses included in the figures, the table also includes all other standpoints and premisses in the text. Of all the standpoints, , , , , , , � , and � are probably undisputed and can be deleted. All other standpoints and premisses may have been contested. �e most important standpoints are  and . – are synonymous and implicit in other standpoints, e.g. , and can be deleted. – can also be deleted because they are self-evident.  and  can be deleted because they are included in  and  respectively.  and  are not part of the argument and can be deleted.  is included in  and can be deleted. Important for the argument are –, –, , and � . Standpoints and expressed premisses are presented together because expressed premisses in many cases are also standpoints, which is clear, for instance, in figures with two or more levels (chains) of argumentation. Unexpressed premisses rarely function as standpoints and are therefore listed separately. �ey also differ from the other list in that they have been recovered through the analysis (addition). Standpoints and expressed premisses are either direct quotations from the text or externalizations of the text. Furthermore, the list shows three categories: standpoints and premisses which probably were unproblematic in the argumentation, i.e. such that they would probably be accepted by both parties, or such that they are unimportant for the dispute or redundant. �ese are put within brackets to show that they are deleted from the further analysis due to their irrelevance to the dispute.³⁷ Secondly, there are statements which were more or less probably disputed or would have been disputed had the other party expressed their opinion . Mußner, Galater, p. , ‘�e answer, which, again, is not given, could only be, “by believing what you heard”.’ . On deletion, see Section ., p. .

Analysis



Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .–     [] �e Galatians should not accept any other, different, teaching. (Fig. .) [] �e Galatians are foolish if they accept any other way of preaching Christ. (Fig. .) [] It is foolish to accept another way of preaching Christ. (Fig. .) [] �ere is no other correct way of preaching Christ. (Fig. .) [] �e Galatians are foolish. (Fig. .) [] Someone has bewitched the Galatians. [] Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified before the eyes of the Galatians. [] �e most important issue in this matter concerning the Galatians is this: Did the Galatians receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what they heard? [] �e Galatians started with the Spirit. (Fig. .) [] �e Galatians are ending with the flesh. (Fig. .)  �e Galatians’ spiritual experiences are nullified if they circumcise themselves. (Fig. .)  If the Galatians now circumcise themselves, they are ending with the flesh.  A work of the law nullifies spiritual experiences. (Fig. .) [] �e Galatians experienced much. [] �e experiences of the Galatians may now be for nothing. [] God supplies the Galatians with the Spirit and works miracles among them.  God supplies the Galatians with the Spirit and works miracles among them by their believing what they heard and not by their doing the works of the law.  It is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. (Fig. .)  Reception of the Spirit does not require any works of the law. (Fig. .) [] �e Galatians received the Spirit with no works of the law required. (Fig. .) [] God initially gave the Spirit with no works of the law required. (Fig. .)  God does not require any works of the law from the Galatians. (Fig. .)   [� ] Circumcision is a work of the law. (Figs . & .) [� ] One should not be foolish (Fig. .) [� ] One is foolish if one accepts something foolish. (Fig. .) [� ] It is foolish to accept that which is incorrect. (Fig. .) � �e Galatians’ experience is typical of how one receives the Spirit. (Fig. .) � If God initially gives the Spirit without the need for any works, then he does not require such works subsequently. (Fig. .) [� ] One is foolish if one starts with the Spirit and ends with the flesh. (Fig. .)



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

on them. �ese statements and premisses are part of the dispute and are set in normal (Roman) type. �irdly, the more important statements and premisses from the second group are set in italics. �ese are the actual elements which must be considered when the argumentation as a whole, in Chapter , is summarized and evaluated. �e preferred response from the Galatians would be that they agree with Paul on the following points: () yes, we did receive the Spirit by believing what we heard and not by doing the works of the law; () we now understand that circumcision would be a step in the wrong direction: from the Spirit to the flesh; () we understand that the consequence of turning from the Spirit to the flesh would be to discredit our previous experiences. �ese are the main responses. Consequently, the Galatians should accept that they have been under a negative influence (‘bewitched’), and ‘foolish’. �e former could in fact give them someone to blame: ‘Yes, we were lead astray by those who bewitched us!’ Paul hopes that the Galatians do not give in to circumcision. �e main issue in Gal. .– is thus the question of how or why the Galatians received the Spirit and what the consequences would be if they now circumcised themselves. Paul’s position is clear, but the exact difference of opinion between Paul and the Galatians cannot be extracted from this short passage. �e argument structure is that of a multiple mixed dispute. Galatians .– only indicates a part of the dispute; Fig. . (p. ) shows the basic structure of the whole argument between Paul and the Galatians. Both parties put forward arguments and both parties question the arguments of the other party (whether real or projected). Strategic manoeuvring �e expressive introducing the argumentative section has been the subject of many theories. How could such a derogative exclamation further the argumentation in a manner favourable to Paul? As mentioned above, the exclamation together with the following text, cast in the form of mostly accusatory rhetorical questions, can have the function of alerting the Galatians to the beginning of an important part of Paul’s message and to provoke interaction by the audience. It is a bold presentational device which presupposes a strong enough position on behalf of the one making use of it. Paul obviously considers himself to be in such a position. �e main theme in Galatians – is Paul’s authority and his ethos, which he tries to strengthen in the eyes of the Galatians in that section. In . Paul presents the main issue and .– explains the reason for Paul’s strong language in .–: if the Galatians give in to circumcision, then it was all ‘for nothing’ (εἰκῇ). It is worth noting that although the section seems strong to us, it may not have been all that surprising to those who were familiar with Paul’s style. When referring to τίς in .b, Paul echoes the τινές from . and . and presents an escape for the Galatians: yes, they had been foolish, but this was

Analysis



because of those who had bewitched them. By vilification of Paul’s antagonists he invites the Galatians to disassociate themselves from these shadowy characters³⁸ and to associate themselves with Paul. Paul’s language (a presentational device) is an inverted attempt at creating communion (an auditorial demand) by shi�ing the blame towards false teachers (a topic in the argument). �e topical potential of the matter at hand is wide-ranging. It should be safe to assume that the matter was important not only to Paul, but also to the Galatians. If it would not have also been considered important by a large group among the Galatians, Paul’s strategy would have had little chance of being successful and thus he would probably not have used such a strategy. It seems, then, that Paul can take advantage of the importance the Galatians themselves give these existential–theological matters. If a matter is important enough, the wording can be quite strong without fear of rejection. If Paul is right, he can call the Galatians ‘foolish’, and they will even accept this label. It is interesting to see how Paul connects with the Galatians’ earlier experiences, thus making use of the auditorial demand. As discussed above, Paul may well make more out of their experiences than is warranted by the facts – a clever rhetorical move. �e unit exhibits a confident use of rhetorical moves: the use of rhetorical questions is an effective beginning of the argumentative section. �e questions are clearly intended to lead the addressees towards certain opinions. Another presentational device is the association Spirit–initial experience–good and flesh– current possible situation–bad. Fallacies and violations of rules³⁹ Galatians .– clearly and polemically sets the main theme of the argumentative section of .–.. �e following verses are more dense with argumentation, but already in vv. – Paul makes the crucial point that the Galatians should not circumcise themselves. �is standpoint is backed by an interpretation of the Galatians’ experiences, according to which they received the Spirit through faith and not by doing any works of the law. Rule  �e introductory exclamations (.a–b) do not promote an open dialogue characterized by mutual respect. Instead, they connect to the remarks in the beginning of the letter about the Galatians deserting ‘the one who called you’ (.), turning to a different gospel (.), and to those proclaiming a different gospel as being accursed (.–). Rules – Here, as through the whole letter, we have no certainty as to what possible arguments preceded these particular ones. However, in some places there . Du Toit notes that τινές in the use of Paul probably has a strong negative force ‘aimed at a deliberate blurring of the faces of opponents in order to portray them as negative, shadowy characters’. Du Toit, ‘Vilification’, p. . . �e rules were presented on p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

is a strong sense that some of the subjects under discussion have a prehistory in the relationship between Paul and the Galatians. In .– the Spirit is one such theme. . gives rise to the hypotheses that some among the Galatians held the view that ‘doing the works of the law’ was the reason why God supplies the Spirit and works miracles, whereas, according to Paul’s teaching, the Galatians’ faith is the reason. Still, it is possible that the emphasis on the Spirit comes from Paul. In any case, it is certainly too much to say that Paul’s opponents taught that ‘Lawobservant exegesis of the scriptures is the means by which one can be assured of a steady supply of the Spirit and of its wonder-working power’.⁴⁰ �e passage has also inspired an important explanation as to what the conflict between Paul and the opponents was about. Both Betz and Longenecker suggest that the opponents in Galatia did not present themselves as opposing Paul, but as supplementing his message towards completion.⁴¹ . can be seen as indicating this. �e opponents may have claimed that Paul’s message was the first part, but that law-abiding was also necessary for salvation and as a part of a Christian lifestyle. �is theory should be kept in mind during the analysis of the remainder of Gal. .–.. Due to our limited knowledge of the situation we cannot here determine if rules – have been violated or not. Rule  Expressives and rhetorical questions are not good ways of advancing an argumentation. Accordingly, in PD theory expressives have no place in the argumentation stage. However, from a rhetorical perspective they are a common part of persuasion even though they are from a dialectic point of view of very little value. �e accusations that the Galatians are ‘foolish’ and ‘bewitched’ do not advance Paul’s argumentation with arguments relating to his standpoints. By beginning the argumentative section in this manner, Paul shows that his style of argumentation is clearly a mixture of facts, emotions, and opinions – quite far from the ideal situation of an orderly and neutral exchange of standpoints with premisses. Rules – All seven unexpressed premisses presented in the analysis above are such that Paul certainly would have defended them if necessary. As noted above, the main argument can be disputed, but Paul presents his interpretation of the Galatians’ experiences as an undeniable fact. Although subsequent commentators rarely question Paul’s presentation, the Galatians may have done so. It may be that Paul’s interpretation of the Galatians’ experience is not an accepted starting point and that some of the Galatians would have considered it a false presentation of their experiences. In the following verses we see that Paul’s argument does not rest solely on his interpretation of the Galatians’ experiences, but on several arguments from different perspectives. Still, it is important to note that this opening argument – which is o�en considered the strongest one by commentators – is open for dispute. . Martyn, Galatians, p. . . Betz, Galatians, p. ; Longenecker, Galatians, p. .

Analysis



Rule  For an argument scheme to be sound it needs to be appropriate and correctly applied, as stipulated by the rule (see further the elaboration on this in Section ., p. ). Section .– contains five causal, one analogous, and two symptomatic argument schemes. �e first argument scheme with a symptomatic premiss (Fig. ., p. ) is about the relationship between the reception of the Spirit and the need for any works of the law. Paul argues that, based on the experience of the Galatians, works of the law are unnecessary. �e Galatians’ experience of the reception of the Spirit need not be questioned, or that circumcision is a work of the law, but Paul’s conclusion is problematic. Is such a general conclusion warranted based only on this particular experience of the Galatians? As we can see in Fig. ., the problem here is that the example given by Paul refers to the initial reception of the Spirit, whereas the standpoint relates to the broader question of law-observance and reception of the Spirit generally in the lives of the Galatians. �e example does not seem to be general enough to warrant the rule in the claim. �erefore the application of this scheme should be seen as problematic. �e other symptomatic argument scheme (Fig. ., p. ) is sound: it would be typical for someone foolish to begin with the Spirit and end with the flesh. In the analogous argument scheme (Fig. ., p. ), if the unexpressed premiss .� holds true and the initial reception of the Spirit is typical for how the Spirit is received generally, then there is no reason to suppose a need for any works of the law from the Galatians. However, it could be argued that God’s initial gi� of the Spirit without the need for any works does not necessarily mean that such works would not be required later on. �e critical question is: Are there any significant differences between the situation of the Galatians’ initial reception of the Spirit and their current situation? According to Paul’s argument, the initial reception is characteristic of reception of the Spirit. Others could argue differently, that a�er the initial reception of the Spirit, works of the law should become part of the Galatians’ lives. �e scheme is thus problematic: Paul has not shown that the Galatians’ experience is part of a general rule of how the Spirit is received. We also have reason to believe that the premiss (.� ) would not have been an accepted starting point for all parties (Rule ), rendering the argument problematic even irrespective of the problem with the argument scheme. �e one causal argument scheme in Fig. . (p. ) and the three in Fig. . (p. ) are all appropriate and correctly applied. In Fig. . (p. ) the causal argument scheme is problematic: Does a work of the law always lead to a nullification of (initial) spiritual experiences? If the Galatians had been told by others that circumcision would complete their step into Christianity, Paul’s argument would seem strange. Why should a work of the law nullify their spiritual experiences? Rule  Checking the logical validity is an important step in evaluating the overall nature of an argumentation; does the conclusion follow from the premisses and



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

are they consistent?⁴² In .– Paul argues that the Galatians received and still receive the Spirit (and experience miracles) because of their faith, and not because of their ‘doing the works of the law’. �e problem in this argument is that even though the presence of faith would certainly be a necessary condition for the reception and works of the Spirit, it may not have been considered a sufficient condition by the antagonists for the continuing reception and works of the Spirit. Even though Paul would have wished it, from the premisses he supplies it does not logically follow that faith is the only condition for the continuing reception of the Spirit and experiences of miracles. Paul states his standpoints and premisses, but he does not yet in .– succeed in presenting convincing argumentation for his case. �e problematic premiss is .� in Fig. . (p. ). Rule  Rule  is not yet relevant since this is the beginning of the argumentation stage. However, the style of argumentation in .– does not give the appearance of flexibility. On the contrary, Paul seems quite determined to argue his standpoints: .– gives the impression that Paul is not willing to retract any of his standpoints no matter what the arguments of any opponents would be. Rule  �e word ‘bewitched’ in .b has caused difficulties for commentators. It may also have been unclear for the original recipients of the letter. In what sense are the Galatians being bewitched? �e word is useful in conveying a sense of danger or an unwanted state among the Galatians – no one wants to be bewitched, regardless of the exact meaning of the word. �e vagueness in the use of the word may therefore be a rhetorical feature. Paul conveys that he knows the influence the Galatians are under to be bad for them – it is like being bewitched. It seems to be a deliberate choice of an unclear formulation which is not part of the argument proper, but part of Paul’s strategic manoeuvring. Results �at the rhetorical questions create commitments for Paul has previously been overlooked. �e questions have either only been regarded as ‘rhetorical’, i.e. demanding no answer and having no other function than in relation to the interaction between writer and addressee, or as an example of the rhetorical method of interrogatio. However, this type of argumentation was common among diatribe preachers of Paul’s day and is better explained through such influence than as a rhetorical interrogatio.⁴³ In argumentation analysis it is acknowledged that indirect speech acts can also carry an argumentation forward. In .– this is in fact the case: right at the onset of the argumentation stage Paul makes his main points clear through rhetorical questions: – the Galatians received the Spirit by believing what they heard and not by works of the law; . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication & Fallacies, p. . . Contra Betz, Galatians, p. ; and Longenecker, Galatians, p. .

Analysis



Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  It is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. () – God does not require any works of the law from the Galatians. () – Reception of the Spirit does not require any works of the law. () – God supplies the Galatians with the Spirit and works miracles among them by their believing what they heard and not by their doing the works of the law. () – If God initially gives the Spirit without the need for any works, then he does not require such works subsequently. (� ) – �e Galatians’ experience is typical of how one receives the Spirit. (� )  �e Galatians’ spiritual experiences are nullified if they circumcise themselves. () – A work of the law nullifies spiritual experiences. () – If the Galatians now circumcise themselves, they are ending with the flesh. ()

– if the Galatians now circumcise themselves, they will end with the flesh and their experiences will have been for nothing; and – God supplies the Galatians with the Spirit and works miracles among them by their believing what they heard and not by works of the law. Selecting only those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated by Table .. �e table includes all the main arguments (which were emphasized) and also all the minor arguments (which were neither deleted nor emphasized). Of all the standpoints in the section,  and  are clearly the most central. In this summary-table, the relationship between individual standpoints and premisses is not indicated. �e analysis shows that Paul’s evidence is not at all ‘undeniable’,⁴⁴ but carefully selected and presented in such a way that it at first glance may seem to be conclusive, although it is not. Some exegetes too hastily interpret Paul as being emotionally agitated here. On the contrary, the section exhibits a use of rhetorical moves designed to steer the addressees’ opinions in Paul’s direction. It is therefore impossible to know how much emotion, if any, one should read in the text. �is has only been noted by a few exegetes.⁴⁵ As mentioned above (in Section ., p. ), three requirements need to be met in order for an argument to be considered sound: all the statements must be acceptable, the reasoning must be valid, and the argument scheme must be employed appropriately. In some cases an argument is clearly unsound (e.g. if the argument scheme amounts to a fallacy), in others it is difficult to determine exactly how problematic it is. �e main difficulty is in determining whether all the statements are acceptable or not. Since this needs to be determined in context, which is sometimes difficult to do, it is better to label such an argument . Contra Betz, Galatians, p. ; Hansen, Abraham, p. ; Mußner, Galater, p. . . e.g. by �urén, ‘Paul Angry?’; �urén, Derhetorizing, p. .

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



as ‘problematic’ than as ‘unsound’, lest we be overly critical. Consequently, I will use these three rather broad categories to characterize each argument: sound, problematic, and unsound. Considering this, the analysis shows that Paul’s argumentation is problematic at points. Of the eight arguments analysed, five can be regarded as sound,⁴⁶ and three as problematic.⁴⁷ �e problems are concentrated to Rules – (most of the discussion was carried out in connection with Rule ). Among the problems we find a tendency either to consider a non-absolute premiss to be absolute (Fig. .), a violation against the starting point rule (Figs . & .), or to consider a non-conclusive argument to be conclusive (Fig. .), a violation against the argument scheme rule.

.

Gal. .–, Abraham’s faith

Division and preliminary remarks .a Καθὼς Ἀβραὰµ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ ϑεῷ, .b ϰαὶ ἐλογίσϑη αὐτῷ εἰς διϰαιοσύνην· . Γινώσκετε ἄρα ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάµ. .a προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραϕὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεὸς, .b προευηγγελίσατο τῷ Ἀβραὰµ .c ὅτι ἐνευλογηϑήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη· . ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάµ. .a ῞Οσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόµου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν. .b γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ἐπιϰατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐϰ ἐµµένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραµµένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόµου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. .a ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόµῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον, .b ὅτι ὁ δίϰαιος ἐϰ πίστεως ζήσεται· .a ὁ δὲ νόµος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, .b ἀλλ’ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. .a Χριστὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόµου .b γενόµενος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κατάρα, .c ὅτι γέγραπται· ἐπιϰατάρατος πᾶς

� �

. Figs . (. ), ., and .. . Figs . (.. .), ., and ..

.a Just as Abraham ‘believed God, .b and this was reckoned to him as righteousness’ . recognize, therefore, that those who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham. .a And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, .b proclaimed the Promise beforehand to Abraham, .c saying, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’ . �erefore, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham who believed. .a For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; .b for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not stay with everything that is written in the book of the law, to do it.’ .a Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; .b for ‘�e righteous shall live by faith.’ .a But the law does not rest on faith; .b on the contrary, ‘�e one who does these things shall live by them.’ .a Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law .b by becoming a curse for us .c – for it is written, ‘Cursed is

Analysis ὁ ϰρεµάµενος ἐπὶ ξύλου, .a ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰµ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ, .b ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύµατος λάβωµεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως.



everyone who hangs on a tree’ – .a in order that through Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, .b so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

.a �e pericope begins with a quotation from Gen. .. �e quotation consists of two statements, assertives: .a (Abraham believed God) and .b (Abraham’s faith in God was reckoned to him as righteousness). . �e quotation is followed by the standard formula ‘so, you see’ or, better, ‘recognize, therefore, that’⁴⁸ (γινώσκετε ἄρα ὅτι), introducing Paul’s claim in the verse, which is an assertive. .a–c A slight transformation to clarify: .b ‘the Scripture declared the Promise beforehand to Abraham:’, .c, ‘all the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’, .a, ‘thus the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.’⁴⁹ �e clauses .a and .b are assertives. �e ‘blessing of Abraham’, is taken from Gen. . (LXX, though slightly modified).⁵⁰ �e content of the promise in .c is that, ‘all the Gentiles shall be blessed in Abraham.’ By itself, in its original context, this is a promise, a commissive, but here it functions as a part of the preceding clause. .–b A series of assertives. We note that the text consists only of assertives. Assertives are typical of the argumentation stage where they advance the argumentation. In this section, however, their function is simply to express standpoints. �is function of an assertive is typical of the confrontation stage (see Table ., p. ), which indicates that this section still continues the introductory nature of the argumentation stage that we noted in the preceding section of .–. Detailed analysis of .– �e pericope is characterized by many quotations from Scripture. �e quotations are centred around Abraham. It is impossible to know exactly why Paul quotes precisely these Old Testament passages but, if not the passages as such, at least the issues they deal with are important for Paul’s argumentation. �e question of Paul’s use of the Old Testament should thus be briefly addressed at this point. �ere are thorough studies on the subject,⁵¹ and the relationship between the . Betz, Galatians, p. . So also Mußner, ‘erkennt also’, Mußner, Galater, pp. , . Longenecker suggests, ‘you know, then, that’; Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Mußner states that this ‘foreseeing’ of the Scriptures is an evident fact and that the participle προϊδοῦσα must be understood causally: ‘weil die Schri� diesen Rechtfertigungsvorgang der Heiden voraussah, deshalb hat sie dem Abraham “im voraus verkündet”.’ Mußner, Galater, p. . . �e whole verse in LXX reads: ‘καὶ εὐλογήσω τοὺς εὐλογοῦντάς σε καὶ τοὺς καταρωµένους σε καταράσοµαι καὶ ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ϕυλαὶ τῆς γῆς.’ . See Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation technique in the Pauline Epistles and contemporary literature (SNTSMS, ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ); E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of �e Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, ); see also



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

text available to us and the text from which it possibly is quoted is o�en discussed. In the analysis below I will supply the LXX form of Paul’s Old Testament quotations and also mention any significant departures from the LXX when relevant. If there are any deviations that suggest a special intent in Paul’s use of the quotation, this will be noted. In this analysis, however, there is generally little need to comment on the exact original form of any quotation: the way a quotation functions in the argument at hand is of primary interest. �us it is of little significance with what possible introductory formula Paul introduces the quotations, or if the quotation is verbatim, somewhat modified, or a free allusion. If the modification is unique, however, then this does give reason to believe that the quotation is especially important in Paul’s argument. But because of the impossibility of knowing whether the specific form of the quotation originates with Paul, the LXX, the MT, or an early Christian tradition (supported by Paul or by his contracting party), this information must also be used with care. It is not unusual for scholars to identify some phrase or quotation as having its origin with Paul’s ‘opponents’ or such, but these identifications are usually too uncertain to build any analysis upon. A more fruitful approach than an analysis of Paul’s ‘opponents’ through some sort of mirror-reading, is the one seeing Paul as engaging in a critical dialogue against some Jewish tradition(s). In Gal. .–. we seem to have such an instance in the question of the relationship between Abraham’s faith and his deeds. Our knowledge of Judaism has become so much more complex during recent years that it is no easy task to identify what tradition Paul might stand in opposition to here. Because of this, it is not meaningful to let any but the most probable suggestions influence the analysis. In summary, it is possible that Paul’s argument arose in opposition to a tradition with a different understanding of these matters, a tradition that was discussed, adhered to or propagated for within the Galatian congregations. If this tradition emphasized a different understanding of some of the Old Testament quotations which occur in .–, then Paul’s argument may be just the kind of response that is described in Rule . �ere are six quotations.⁵² �e first introduces the theme: .a ‘Abraham believed God’, and .b ‘Abraham’s faith in God was reckoned to him as righteousness’. Betz describes this as the ‘proof text for the entire argument in .–’.⁵³ �e quotation is used as grounds for the claim in . ‘those who believe are the descendants of Abraham’. Setting the argument in a form with premisses followed by conclusion and separated by a line, it reads as in Fig. ..

Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans .–: An Intertextual and �eological Exegesis (London: T & T Clark, ). . Gen. . (Gal. .); Gen. . (Gal. .); Deut. . (Gal. .); Hab. . (Gal. .); Lev. . (Gal. .); Deut. . (Gal. .). For a description of the differences between the form in which these passages are quoted by Paul and their LXX form, see Stanley, Language, pp. –. . Betz, Galatians, p. .

Analysis



Fig. .: �e text of .– Abraham believed God. Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. �ose who believe are the descendants of Abraham.

Fig. .: Hansen’s understanding of .– Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. [As God dealt with Abraham, so he will deal with all men.] �ose who believe are the descendants of Abraham.

�is presentation shows an imbalance in the argument. Mußner notes that we would rather have expected another conclusion, namely: ‘Erkennt also, daß der Mensch aus Glauben gerechtfertigt wird und nicht aus Gesetzeswerken.’⁵⁴ Hansen recognizes that ‘[v]erses  and  taken together form an argument by enthymeme’, and notes that ‘[t]he conclusion (ἄρα) in v.  is derived from the implicit premiss that as God dealt with Abraham, so he will deal with all men’.⁵⁵ �e enthymeme suggested by Hansen then reads as in Fig. .. Hansen does not display the enthymeme schematically and the figure shows his description to be unbalanced as well, since the premisses do not directly support the conclusion. �e problem seems to be that two arguments have been mixed in vv. –: one about righteousness and Abraham, one about the Gentiles. By isolating the single constituent arguments, we can expand the argumentation from its compressed form. First, the connection between Abraham’s righteousness and the righteousness of the Gentiles rests upon an unexpressed claim that faith is reckoned to one as righteousness. Secondly, this principle is applied to the Gentiles. �irdly, Paul creates a connection between those who share the same faith and righteousness as Abraham – they are his (spiritual, true) descendants. Paul simply omits some of the intermediate stages of the argument. �e first two points can be illustrated with Figs . and ., and the third with Fig. .. Paul takes Abraham as an example and then applies his experience to the Gentiles. �e argument scheme for the underlying premiss, in Fig. ., that faith in Fig. .: Abraham’s faith, .a–b  Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. �

. & .� Abraham had faith in God. [Faith in God is reckoned to one as righteousness.]

. Mußner, Galater, p. , ‘Recognize, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by works of the Law.’ . Hansen, Abraham, p. .

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: �e Gentiles’ faith, .a–, part /  �e Gentiles’ faith is reckoned to them as righteousness. �

. & .� Abraham’s faith was reckoned [�e Gentiles are reckoned righteous to him as righteousness. in the same way as Abraham.]

God is reckoned to one as righteousness (.� ), is causal : since Abraham had faith in God, his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. Although the argument seems straightforward, one needs to ask, on the one hand, whether Abraham’s experience really is an indication of an underlying rule and, on the other, why such a rule would hold true also for Gentiles. In Fig. ., the Gentiles’ situation is compared to that of Abraham. �e technique here is to present ‘the controversial as something that has similarities with something that is not controversial in order to show that what applies to what is already accepted also applies to what is not yet accepted’,⁵⁶ i.e. an argument based on comparison. �e analogous argument scheme may be problematic since it is not clear that Abraham’s faith is directly comparable with the faith of the Gentiles. In the second step of the argument Paul draws the Gentiles closer to Abraham by including them in the designation ‘sons of Abraham’. Elements  and .(a–b)� in Fig. . represent my interpretation of what Paul meant by being ‘a descendant of Abraham’. Since there can be no question of a physical descent on behalf of the Gentiles, Paul must have had a spiritual lineage in mind. What is meant by ‘those who believe’ in . are Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians who believe in God and because of their faith are reckoned righteous.⁵⁷ Verses  and  indicate that Paul has the Gentiles especially in mind. If we explicate this, the argument can be presented as in Fig. .. Standpoint  means, in biblical language, that ‘Christian Gentiles are descendants of Abraham’ or ‘Christian Gentiles are Sons of Abraham’. Jewish Christians are then clearly included at the end of the pericope, in the ‘we’ of v. . �e argument scheme here is symptomatic and perhaps problematic because of the same reason as in Fig. .: faith is not necessarily a characteristic that is reckoned to Gentiles as righteousness in the same way as it was for Abraham. Although this presentation of the argument clarifies the logic, it also shows that the crucial unexpressed claim, ‘faith in God is reckoned to one as righteousness’ (� , Fig. .), is not very well supported. Based on the Scriptures, Paul’s understanding of this matter is, in fact, far from evident. Still, Paul uses the Scriptures to back . Garssen, ‘Argument Schemes’, p. . . Abraham’s faith was a faith ‘in God’. In the figures the phrases ‘Abraham had faith in God’ and ‘Abraham believed God’ are meant to be equivalent. Basically, the Christian Gentiles’ faith is also a faith in God although more specifically a faith in Christ. Paul’s point seems to be that in some sense Abraham’s faith was a precursor to faith in Christ at least in the sense that it did not rest on works of the law.

Analysis



Fig. .: �e Gentiles are Abraham’s sons, .a–, part /  Christian Gentiles are sons of Abraham, spiritually. �

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � .a � � � � � � � � � .b & Abraham’s faith was �e Gentiles’ faith is reckoned to him as reckoned to them as righteousness. righteousness.

.(a–b)� [To have a faith which is reckoned to one as righteousness is to be a son of Abraham, spiritually.]

up precisely this premiss. �e other unexpressed element, .(a–b) � , which is a spiritualization of the idea of ‘sons of Abraham’, is much easier to accept.⁵⁸ �e claim concerning righteousness through faith, however, needs support. Paul tries to achieve this by a series of further claims, the first of which states that, .a ‘the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith’. �is interpretation of Scripture is based on the ‘blessing of Abraham’. It is, however, not clear how ‘all the Gentiles shall be blessed in you’ can be taken as saying that justification only comes through faith – it could as well refer to Abraham’s works.⁵⁹ To say that ‘by faith’ cannot include works of the law, does not agree with our knowledge of Judaism.⁶⁰ Nevertheless, Paul uses the quotation as saying the former, not the latter. In the argument, the problem is solved by Paul’s suggestion that the promise proclaimed by Scripture was in fact the gospel. �is is deduced from the interpretation that it was Abraham’s faith that incurred God’s blessing. Since only the gospel entails the notion of blessing through faith – according to Paul – the blessing must have been the gospel. �us ‘those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.’ (see Figs . and .). �e argument schemes in Fig. . are causal and premisses .� and ..� are problematic since the gospel is not defined in the Scriptures as in the premisses in Paul’s argument. Also, in Fig. . the argument scheme is causal, and it is problematic. What does it mean that God blesses the Gentiles ‘as he blessed Abraham’? It does not necessarily mean that the Gentiles’ faith is the (only) basis for the blessing. �at God’s blessing should here be understood as synonymous with righteousness is clear – it can easily be deduced from vv.  and , where righteousness is connected with the blessing of Abraham. �e argumentation is not without problems. First, the backing of the claim that faith is reckoned to one as righteousness is rather weak; the statement from Gen. . cannot convincingly be claimed to foresee the gospel and the notion of . Mußner, Galater, p. . . Cf. Hansen, who states that, ‘Paul’s definition of faith implies that he did not understand ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην as his opponents probably did, to mean that Abraham’s faith was reckoned to be equivalent to Abraham’s righteous behavior – defined in terms of distinctively Jewish customs (nationalistic righteousness).’ Hansen, Abraham, p. . . See Betz, Galatians, pp. –.

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: �e blessing of Abraham, part / (.a–)  �e Scriptures foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. �

. & .� �e Scriptures declared the [�e gospel entails that God gospel beforehand to Abraham. justifies the Gentiles by faith.] �

.. �e Scriptures said to Abraham, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’

&

..� [�e blessing of the Gentiles in Abraham refers to the gospel.]

justification through faith ( in Fig. .). If the idea that the blessing of Abraham was equivalent to the gospel is not accepted, then it does of course not – in this particular argumentation – follow that the gospel would also include the Gentiles (.� in Fig. .). Furthermore, it is by no means clear that Abraham’s faith can be contrasted with his deeds. �at Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness is not equivalent to saying that he was justified through faith – especially since Abraham’s faith in Gen. . is closer to ‘faithfulness’ than a ‘theological’ faith.⁶¹ In fact, no Jew would have accepted the notion of faith and works of the law as opposite.⁶² It seems that Paul is exploiting a verbal parallel;⁶³ the ‘blessing of Abraham’, v. , does not originally say what Paul reads into it. �e presupposition that the Scriptures ‘foresaw’ that God would justify the Gentiles through faith is not stated in Deuteronomy or anywhere else. Abraham was not an example in the sense Paul presents him. �e reference to Abraham is perhaps best understood as an argument by analogy: Just as Abraham believed, so also we now believe. Just as Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness, so now our faith is reckoned to us as righteousness. At the same time it bears the characteristics of an argument by appeal to tradition and authority. Now, a�er an analysis of vv. –, we notice a tendency to leave some premisses unexpressed: in only four verses, we have been able to discern and reconstruct five arguments of the type with one conclusion or statement and two or three premisses, one of which is unstated. Since the arguments are intertwined, as in .–, it is not always easy to determine how the different elements are related. . See, e.g. Mußner, Galater, pp. –. . Mußner, Galater, p. . . Cf. the view of Betz on Paul’s use of proofs in this pericope. Betz assumes that the main criteria for selecting a proof in Paul’s time did not stress the logically argumentative value of the proof, but only that ‘a proof could demonstrate by some agreed method that one’s ideas and notions were attested by or contained in the passage referred to as evidence. �e basic skill, therefore, was to find passages in the Scriptures which had the same terminology one was using in the argument.’ Betz, Galatians, pp. –. �e same view is earlier held by several scholars, e.g. Mußner, Galater, p.  (with bibliographical references, see n. ).

Analysis



Fig. .: �e blessing of Abraham, part / (.a–)  God blesses the Gentiles who believe. �

. & .� God has promised to bless the Gen[Abraham’s faith was the tiles as he blessed Abraham. basis for his blessing.]

Contrary to earlier suggestions, however, I do not consider it helpful to describe any of the arguments in vv. – as enthymemes. �e rhetorical practice of using an argumentation with unexpressed premisses is sometimes useful, because a reader – and especially a hearer – does not always make the effort to reflect on what the unstated premiss is.⁶⁴ It is thus possible to present arguments that seem convincing, but which rest on premisses that – if they were to be clearly stated – would not be readily accepted. �e same applies to all arguments with unstated premisses, or even conclusions, be they enthymemes or not. With this in mind, I continue the analysis of the remainder of the section, vv. –. If a claim is somewhat weak, it can be strengthened by negative arguments to present any alternative in as bad a light as possible. Paul’s claims need more backing, and this is given by a few negative assertions about the law and living by it. �is section, vv. –, is notoriously difficult to interpret. �e thesis is stated thus: ‘For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse’, .a, and it is backed up with a quotation from Deut. .: .b ‘for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law”.’ Many commentators have noticed a problem with this claim and its backing: that it is a hopeless non sequitur.⁶⁵ In fact, the backing seems to contradict Paul’s claim: are not those who ‘rely on the works of the law’ the same people that ‘observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law’? In that case, should not those who do rely on the law actually be blessed, and those who do not, be cursed? Traditionally, many commentators have assumed an unexpressed premiss in the argument: no one is able to keep the law completely⁶⁶ (see Fig. . on p. ). It . In order to understand the effect Paul’s argumentation could have had on its addressees, we must take into account the fact that Paul’s letters were read aloud. Paul possibly considered this when dictating his letters. Still, this hardly influenced Paul’s level of argumentation too much, since he knew that his letter to the Galatians would be read many times, and at least by some with great interest in the smaller details. . Young, ‘Who’s Cursed?’, p. . �e problem is also dealt with in David Hill, ‘Salvation Proclaimed: IV. Galatians :–: Freedom and Acceptance’, ExpTim  (), pp. –; T. L. Donaldson, ‘�e “Curse of the Law” and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians .–’, NTS  (), pp. –; Christopher D. Stanley, ‘ “Under a Curse”: A Fresh Reading of Galatians .–’, NTS  (), pp. –; and Normand Bonneau, ‘�e Logic of Paul’s Argument on the Curse of the Law in Galatians :–’, NovT XXXIX (), pp. –. See also Betz, Galatians, pp. –. . Cf. Oepke, Galater, p. : ‘Daß kein Mensch dem Gesetz vollkommen gerecht wird, setzt er



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Fig. .: Young’s understanding of .a–b statement : As many as function from the Mosaic covenant and its requirements are under a curse, unexpressed condition: if they abandon any of that covenant’s Laws, textual proof : because the Torah itself pronounces a curse on anyone who does not adhere to all its requirements.

has, however, been pointed out that this view does not agree with our knowledge of the historical realities, and it has consequently been convincingly refuted,⁶⁷ in my opinion. As Young states: ‘there is no hint in Deuteronomy, in Paul, nor in Judaism that the Law required an impossible perfection. To suggest that any human shortcoming immediately attracted the Law’s curse is really an unlikely proposal once the historical realities are considered.’⁶⁸ Young points out that what incurs the law’s curse are not any inevitable infringements, but a ‘purposeful abandonment of any of the covenant’s demands.’⁶⁹ Young presents the solution in Fig. ..⁷⁰ We notice that the text in Young’s suggestion is somewhat modified in comparison with the text of v. . �is need not be a problem, if the modifications – externalizations – are correct. Young’s schema clearly shows that the idea of the argument is that it is fruitless to try to function from the Mosaic covenant and its requirements and at the same time abandon any of that covenant’s laws. �e logic of the argument is clear, but there seems to be one point where Young departs from the text of v. . In Young’s schema, the curse is avoided by not abandoning any of the covenants main requirements, whereas in Paul’s argument the curse is avoided by not relying on ‘the works of the law’ in the first place (literally not ‘to be of the works of the law’, ἐξ ἔργων νόµου εἶναι). It would not have been strategically wise for Paul to present the case as Young does: Paul would hardly want to say that the curse is avoided by not abandoning any of the covenants main requirements – this is the kind of argumentation Paul opposes! Paul does not stillschweigend voraus.’ Longenecker agrees and refutes opposing views: ‘And such an understanding, while not a common Jewish view . . . , was present in a number of rabbis and Jewish writers of Paul’s day’. Longenecker, Galatians, p. . Longenecker refers to H. J. Schoeps, Paul: �e �eology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (trans. H. Knight; Philadelphia: �e Westminster Press, ), p.  and Richard N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, ), pp. –, , . Proponents of this view are also, among others, Luther, Calvin, Lightfoot, Eichholz, Beyer, Burton, Schoeps, Guthrie, Hill, Holtzmann, Lietzmann, Bligh, Hübner; Mußner, Galater, p. ; Wilckens; Räisänen, Paul & Law, p. ; Ebeling; and Bring. . See Young, ‘Who’s Cursed?’, pp. –; Martyn, Galatians, pp. –; Kjell Arne Morland, �e Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel (EmSEC, ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ), pp. –; Sanders, Jewish People, pp. – ; for further references, see also Mußner, Galater, pp. –. . Young, ‘Who’s Cursed?’, p. . . Young, ‘Who’s Cursed?’, p. . . Young, ‘Who’s Cursed?’, p. .

Analysis



Fig. .: ‘Under the curse’, part / (.a–b)  (From the perspective of the law,) a Christian is under the curse of the law. �

. & .� �e law pronounces a curse on all who [A Christian does not observe do not observe and obey all the things and obey all the things written written in the book of the law. in the book of the law.]

Fig. .: ‘Not under the curse’, part /, (.a–b)  (From the perspective of the redemption of Christ,) a Christian is not under the curse of the law. �

. & .� �e redemption of Christ entails free- [A Christian enjoys the benefits dom from the curse of the law. of the redemption of Christ.]

say that ‘they’ (ὅσοι) are under a curse if they abandon the law’s requirements. Instead, he says that they are under a curse because they do rely on the works of the law: ‘all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse’. �is is not a hypothetical situation, but these people, ‘they’, do exist (according to Paul). �us the law cannot offer a path to righteousness, no matter how much one would follow ‘all the things written’ in it. I do, however, agree with Young’s point that Paul also argues that Christians should not ‘function from the Mosaic covenant and its requirements’ because it is a fact that Christians do not adhere to one of its requirements – circumcision – and the law thus leads to a curse. �is argument can be represented as follows: see Figs . and .. �e premisses stand in a causal relationship to the conclusions and the argument schemes are correctly applied. Consequently, three supporting sub-arguments can be found against relying on the works of the law. As I understand it, the text indicates that Paul’s primary point is that the law inevitably leads to a curse, regardless of how well it is followed. But, secondly, the reason for the law’s inability to justify does not lie in an impossibility to adhere to all of its requirements, nor in any original inherent inadequacy of the law itself,⁷¹ but in the fact that a Christian knowingly chooses not to observe all of the law’s requirements, specifically the requirement of circumcision. �irdly, the reason for making such a choice lies in the alternative, faith, an alternative that is incompatible with a life where one relies on the works of the law. Since the way of faith is an alternative opened up by Christ (‘who redeemed us from the . In this particular argument, that is. Later Paul does imply inherent shortcomings in the law itself, see .–.

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: �e fallacy in .a–b a. All who do not observe and obey all the things written in the law are cursed. b. �erefore: All who rely on the works of the law are cursed.

Fig. .: No one is justified by the law, .a–b  It is evident that no one is justified before God by the law. �

. & .� �e one who is righteous [To live by faith excludes being will live by faith. justified before God by the law.]

curse of the law’), the abandonment of the requirements of the law does not result in a curse. But a choice to continue to live under the law leads to a curse since the new alternative – faith in Christ – according to Paul now is the only thinkable one. All of this is not stated in .a, but becomes clear in the continuation of the argument, in .b–. Again, part of the difficulty with the argument lies in its compactness. Several difficult thoughts are intertwined in a few short phrases. No matter which of these three aspects one emphasizes, the purpose of the quotation from Deuteronomy is to support the argument that the law cannot provide a path to righteousness. However, from an analytical point of view, the support is weak. It is not feasible to interpret Deut. . as saying that since it is impossible to keep the law, everyone is under a curse. Such an interpretation would render the phrase meaningless in the context of Deuteronomy. What Paul does is focus on the word ‘curse’ and then sharpen the message of the quotation. Whereas the quotation states that those who do not keep the law completely are cursed, Paul says that those who rely on the works of the law are cursed also. �is is a fallacy of incorrect transfer of properties between parts and wholes, more specifically the incorrect transfer of a property from the parts of a whole to the whole (also called the fallacy of composition); see Fig. .. Here it is supposed that since some of those who rely on the works of the law do not observe and obey all the things written in the law, all the others are cursed as well. A property of an individual part (those who do not observe and obey all etc.) is incorrectly turned into a property of the whole (all who rely on the law). Consequently, in this case the choice of Old Testament quotation seems to have been governed more by the appearance of a connection between ‘curse’ and ‘law’ than between a well-thought-out argumentative support. �e next claim then bluntly states that, .a, ‘now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law’, and the claim is backed up with Hab. ., ‘for “�e one who is righteous will live by faith.”’ Once again, it is not really clear why this is ‘evident’ (δῆλον) – the argument is based on a problematic causal premiss that is only loosely connected to the conclusion, see Fig. .. �e unexpressed premiss .� , on which the argument stands, cannot be said to be included in the original claim in Habakkuk. Here in Gal. . ‘faith’ seems

Analysis



Fig. .: Works versus faith, part / (.a–b)  �e law does not rest on faith. �

. & .� �e law rests on works. [�at which rests on works cannot rest on faith.]

to mean faith in Christ – Paul interprets Habakkuk to suit his theology, not that of Habakkuk or other Jewish sources.⁷² �e argument in Fig. . would require us to accept that premiss . from Habakkuk is an expression of a general rule (premiss .� ) which warrants standpoint . However, since faith means different things in these two contexts, we find behind the causal arguments a fallacy of false analogy. Paul gives the impression that ‘faith’ means the same thing in both contexts and uses a statement which supports one standpoint in one context to support a different statement in another context. �is is strategic manoeuvring, the use of a presentational device. Since it is easy to mistake ‘faith’ to mean exactly the same thing in both contexts, the argument is seemingly a good one. We also note that works of the law are placed in opposition to faith, the former are connected with a curse, the latter with justification – a clear use of the techniques of association and dissociation, also a presentational device. �e argument continues with two quotations from Scripture and four accompanying claims. First, Paul states that, ‘the law does not rest on faith’, v. , thus eliminating the quite possible interpretation of Hab. . that living by faith does not exclude doing the works of the law. Nevertheless, Paul emphasizes that, ‘on the contrary, “�e one who does these things [i.e. the works of the law] shall live by them”.’⁷³ In this way Paul contrasts works and faith: it is either the one or the other (Figs . and .). �e premisses are causal and both problematic: do works of law necessarily exclude faith? Commenting on these verses, Oepke notes that Paul likes to let a negative statement follow a positive one, and then end by returning to a variation of the initial statement, following the schema a–b–a.⁷⁴ With the concluding verses (– ) of the pericope, Paul now indeed returns to the positive statement in vv. – about the blessing of Abraham. �ere is a way to avoid the curse of the law, because ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us’, .. . �e slight modification of the quotation in comparison with both the LXX and MT shows the intent of the modification. �e LXX reads, ‘�e righteous shall live by my [i.e. God’s] faithfulness’ (ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως µου ζήσεται), and the MT reads, ‘�e righteous shall live because of his faithfulness.’ . Lev. ., LXX. Paul does not follow the LXX precisely. �e full quotation reads, ‘and you shall observe all my commandments and all my decrees and do them ; the man who does them shall live by them. I am the Lord your God’ (καὶ ϕυλάξεσθε πάντα τὰ προστάγµατά µου καὶ πάντα τὰ κρίµατά µου καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτά, ἃ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς· ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑµῶν). . Oepke, Galater, pp. –.

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: Works versus faith, part / (.a–b) � [One cannot live by both the works of the law and by faith.] �

. & .� Whoever does the works of [To live by the works of the the law will live by them. law excludes living by faith.]

Fig. .: �e curse and Christ, part / (.a–c)  Christ was cursed. �

. & .� Cursed is everyone [Christ hung on a tree.] who hangs on a tree.

By itself the statement is enigmatic and the scriptural backing, ‘for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”’, does not clarify it. It is easy to read familiar dogmatics about atonement into v. , but how much is really called for in this context? Betz concludes that the passage in Deut. .⁷⁵ ‘proves for Paul that Christ’s death on the cross fulfilled Scripture’.⁷⁶ Although much more cannot be said with certainty, it may be that Paul quotes here an early Christian confession.⁷⁷ In order to make sense, the ‘becoming a curse for us’ must in fact express the idea of a ‘meritorious death of the righteous and its atoning benefits.’⁷⁸ Although the passage in Deut. . speaks of criminals generally, the special character of Jesus, as the Son of God, gives a basis for seeing his death as uniquely meritorious. �e idea of atonement is not explicitly discussed in the immediate context of .–, nor the concept ‘Son of God’, but elsewhere in Galatians (., .f., .f., .f.), and can be supplied without introducing anything foreign to the argument (Figs . and .). �e argument scheme in Fig. . is causal; in Fig. . it is symptomatic. In both figures the argument scheme is correctly applied and the arguments are sound. Paul now ends the argument by stating the purpose of Christ’s death. It is, ‘in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith’ (.). �e content of the ‘blessing of Abraham’ is ‘the promise of the Spirit’,⁷⁹ which now is available . �e passage in Deut. . in the LXX reads, ‘for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse’ (κεκατηραµένος ὑπὸ θεοῦ πᾶς κρεµάµενος ἐπὶ ξύλου). . Betz, Galatians, p. . . So Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Betz, Galatians, p. . Similarly Mußner, Galater, p. . . Mußner correctly points out that the genitive in ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύµατος is that of substance, ‘damit wir die Verheißung empfangen, die im Pneuma besteht’. Mußner, Galater, p. .

Analysis



Fig. .: �e curse and Christ, part / (.a–b)  Christ carried our curse, i.e. he became a curse for us. �

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� .a � � � � � �.b & .(a–b)� Christ was cursed. Christ was the [When the Son of God is curSon of God. sed he can carry our curse.]

‘through faith’. �e last clause connects with the beginning of Galatians , v. , ‘Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?’ Now that the whole section has been analysed, let us take a look at all the standpoints in vv. –, including the implicit premisses. Again, these are not the only possible reconstructions of the arguments. Some of the premisses could have been formulated differently. However, if the analysis seems probable, it should be close enough to do the text justice and to be useful for further exegesis; see Table .. �e following are probably to be seen as unproblematic, i.e. premisses that would have also been accepted by Paul’s addressees: –, , , –, , – , and � –� . Most of these are taken directly from or based on Scripture, and as such they would hardly have been contested by Paul’s antagonists. �is is not to say that they would not have been interpreted differently. Of these, all except  and , which are important for the argument and not redundant, can be deleted. From Paul’s interpretation stem the following standpoints and premisses which would probably have been contested: , –, –, , –, and � –� . Of these, , , , , and � can be deleted as redundant or less important for the argument. �e most important ones – those which concern the argument proper and are important to include in a general overview of it – are –, , , , � –� , and � . Concerning the unexpressed premisses, these are all consistent with Paul’s argument. Explicating the unexpressed premisses does in fact make Paul’s argument clearer – there does not seem to be any conflict between what is expressed and that which is unexpressed. It thus seems that this mode of argumentation is not chosen because some of the premisses le� implicit would be more difficult to accept than those that are explicit. Taking a closer look at the unexpressed premisses shows that, although consistent with Paul’s argumentation, they are not all unproblematic. Premiss � is quite clear in the light of the argument of the letter as a whole: Paul opposes the idea that Gentile Christians would need to be circumcised, and thus he advocates a conscious departure from ‘all the things that are written in the book of law’. Naturally this premiss can be questioned by those who hold an opposing view: that Christians do need to adhere to all the requirements of the law, and especially (or alternatively, at least) the one of circumcision.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .–  []    [] [] []  []  [] [] [] [] [] []   [] [] [] [] [] [] � � � � � � [� ] � � � � [� ] [� ]

    Abraham’s faith in God was reckoned to him as righteousness. (Figs ., . & .) Abraham had faith in God. (Fig. .) �e Gentiles’ faith is reckoned to them as righteousness. (Figs . & .) Christian Gentiles are sons of Abraham, spiritually. (Fig. .) �e Scriptures foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. (Fig. .) �e Scriptures declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham. (Fig. .) �e Scriptures said to Abraham, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’ (Fig. .) God blesses the Gentiles who believe. (Fig. .) God has promised to bless the Gentiles as he blessed Abraham. (Fig. .) (From the perspective of the law), a Christian is under the curse of the law. (Fig. .) All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. �e law pronounces a curse on all who do not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law. (Fig. .) (From the perspective of the redemption of Christ), a Christian is not under the curse of the law. (Fig. .) A Christian enjoys the benefits of the redemption of Christ. (Fig. .) �e redemption of Christ entails freedom from the curse of the law. (Fig. .) It is evident that no one is justified before God by the law. (Fig. .) �e one who is righteous will live by faith. (Fig. .) �e law does not rest on faith. (Fig. .) �e law rests on works. (Fig. .) Whoever does the works of the law will live by them. (Fig. .) Christ was cursed. (Figs . & .) Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. (Fig. .) Christ carried our curse, i.e. became a curse for us. (Fig. .) Christ was the Son of God. (Fig. .) Christ redeemed the Gentiles in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to them so that both Jews and Gentiles might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.   Faith in God is reckoned to one as righteousness. (Fig. .) �e Gentiles are reckoned righteous in the same way as Abraham. (Fig. .) To have a faith that is reckoned to one as righteousness is to be a son of Abraham, spiritually. (Fig. .) �e gospel entails that God justifies the Gentiles by faith. (Fig. .) �e blessing of the Gentiles in Abraham refers to the gospel. (Fig. .) Abraham’s faith was the basis for his blessing. (Fig. .) A Christian does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law. (Fig. .) To live by faith excludes being justified before God by the law. (Fig. .) �at which rests on works cannot rest on faith. (Fig. .) [�e implicit conclusion:] One cannot live by both the works of the law and by faith. (Fig. .) To live by the works of the law excludes living by faith. (Fig. .) Christ hung on a tree. (Fig. .) When the Son of God is cursed he can carry our curse. (Fig. .)

Analysis



Premisses � –� are based on Hab. . and amplified by Paul in such a way that they create a dichotomy between living by faith and living by the law. As stated above, to say that ‘by faith’ cannot include works of the law does not agree with our knowledge of Judaism. �ese premisses are such that they may have been contested by those among the Galatians who did not agree with Paul. Strategic manoeuvring As noted above, the analogy of Abraham has many dissimilarities which reduce its argumentative value. �is indicates that the appeals to the authority of Abraham and the implied tradition of righteousness by faith may be rhetorical moves (argument by appeal to tradition and to authority). For instance, it can be argued that the reference to Abraham is not evidentially relevant ; it is, however, topic relevant since it does deal with the key concepts of faith and righteousness. Abraham as an example of a faith not based on works of the law seems to be a clever argumentative construction created in order to support Paul’s thesis of a righteousness based on faith alone. �e same holds true for the many quotations from Scripture: they are probably intended to add authority to Paul’s argument, especially through the quotations centred around Abraham. At the same time they make good use of the auditorial demand, since the Scriptures, the law, and Abraham were certainly discussed among the Galatians generally and among Paul’s antagonists especially. �e statement of v. : ‘in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith’, primarily concludes vv. –, but also vv. – and vv. –. By making references which stretch beyond the immediate context, Paul binds different units and sub-units together. As a result, the text becomes more like a web than a loose collection of opinions, teaching, admonitions etc. �e conclusion begs two comments. First, it is noteworthy that nowhere in the gospels is it stated that the purpose of Christ’s death would be that ‘the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles’. Clearly this was Paul’s understanding of the matter. �e statement may be included here as a way of creating a background: If Paul can trace his claims back to Abraham, it strengthens the whole argumentation, making good use of the topical potential. �e parallel to Abraham is cleverly chosen, because the interpretation does not immediately strike us as a strained one – a well-planned rhetorical move. Secondly, Paul equates the blessing of Abraham with the promise of the Spirit. �ere is no support or warrant indicated. Earlier it was noted that the blessing of Abraham was equated with the gospel. As Paul sees it, the gospel is inextricably connected with the promise of the Spirit and so the two can apparently be used synonymously – another rhetorical move to support Paul’s argumentation. As mentioned above, it is possible that the Old Testament quotations, which Paul makes use of, are suggested by some earlier stage in the argumentation, either between Paul and his addressees or within the Galatian congregations. Regardless



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

of this, it is probable that Paul directs his argumentation against some Jewish tradition or traditions that have a different understanding of the things under discussion. By making claims that seem conclusive and are based on a tradition which is traced all the way back to Abraham, Paul can give the impression that the tradition he represents is firmly attested to in the Scriptures and therefore authoritative also for the Galatians. �e passage shows a use of the techniques of argumentation by association and by dissociation as presentational devices: works of the law are juxtaposed with faith. �ose who abide by the former are under a curse, and those who – like Paul – abide by the latter share in the righteousness of Abraham. Fallacies and violations of rules Before we turn to a comparison of the argumentation with the rules for an ideal dispute, it should be pointed out that argumentative shortcomings do not necessarily reduce the persuasive effect of a discourse. But if one embarks upon an argumentation where the authority of the premisses used is clearly pointed out and it then turns out that these premisses are poor support for the argument made, the credibility of the argumentation (and of the arguer) may suffer, and thereby also lessen the persuasive effect. Rule  �ere are no violations against Rule  in .–. Rule  We do not know if someone has asked Paul to defend his standpoints or if he does so on his own initiative. Nevertheless, Paul advances standpoints and defends them with several arguments, probably at least in part in anticipation of objections he would expect from the other party. �ere seem to be no violations against Rule . Rule  We do not know exactly what possible standpoints have been advanced among the Galatians, and which Paul now attacks. It may even be that the whole problem in .– from a Galatian perspective could be considered a fallacy of false dilemma: it is not certain that the Galatians perceived their situation as problematic before they received Paul’s letter. In that case we have a violation against the standpoint rule. Even if the Galatians experienced some internal theological conflict, it is not certain that they conceived such problems in the same way as Paul did. �e idea that permeates the whole passage, the dichotomy between law and faith, may not have been a relevant formulation of the problem from a Galatian perspective, and, as shown above, this dichotomy could – again from a Galatian perspective – be regarded as a fallacy of false dichotomy: law and faith need not be as mutually exclusive as Paul asserts. Rule  As noted in the analysis above, the connection Paul creates to Abraham can be seen as more of a rhetorical construct than a factual connection and be taken as a fallacy of false analogy. It is, however, possible that the Old Testament

Analysis



quotations which Paul makes use of are suggested by some earlier stage in the argumentation, either between Paul and his addressees or within the Galatian congregations. In such a case the passages are relevant, but there may still be a violation against the relevance rule since Paul, for instance, uses a passage about Abraham to defend his standpoint about faith. As we have seen in the analysis, the passage about Abraham can be argued not to be truly relevant for the argument. Rule  �e analysis resulted in the recovery of several unexpressed premisses. Paul’s argumentation is at times exceedingly compact, and the practice of recovering unexpressed premisses clarifies the argument. One rhetorical use of unexpressed premisses is not to state a premiss explicitly because the hearers or addressees would not easily accept the unexpressed premiss, if it were clearly stated. �is would be a violation of Rule . In .–, if one does not accept the premisses about the dichotomy between law and faith (see Figs ., ., and .), one will not be able to accept the conclusions. However, the explicit elements (premisses and conclusions) already state pretty clearly Paul’s position. In fact, several of the premisses which are implicit here are explicitly stated elsewhere, and nowhere in Galatians does Paul present anything contrary to these premisses. �us it is unlikely that Paul would deny any of these unexpressed premisses. �e choice of an enthymemic argumentation thus seems primarily to be a stylistic feature of Paul’s argumentation. However, in some other arguments of Paul’s this style may have clearer argumentative advantages than in this particular passage. �e advantage of uncovering the premisses in this case is thus mainly that it clarifies the argumentation, as with the case of the double argument in vv. –, which turned out not to be an enthymeme as had been suggested earlier. �us, there do not seem to be any violations against the unexpressed premiss rule. Rule  In the beginning of the passage, in .a–b, Paul indicates as a fact that it was Abraham’s faith that was reckoned to him as righteousness. �is statement is then used as a premiss for the following arguments. �ere is reason to believe that this premiss was not an accepted starting point between Paul and the other party. Similarly, the statement .a may not have been agreed upon. An indication of this is the space in the passage Paul allocates for defending these two ideas. As noted in the analysis above, several crucial premisses, such as , , and � , are such that they may have been in dispute with those who did not agree with Paul. Still, Paul presents them as facts. If this is so, we have here violations against the starting point rule. One could raise the question as to whether the analogy with Abraham is a false analogy: () Abraham’s faith was not faith in Christ; and () the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is not identical with the righteousness reckoned to those who believe in Christ; and most importantly, that () in Genesis  the intention is not to contrast Abraham’s faith with his deeds. Based on the original context, Abraham’s faith cannot as easily be separated from his deeds as it is in Paul’s argument. �is means that the connection that Paul makes in v.  (‘those who



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

believe are the descendants of Abraham’) is easy to contest: Abraham does not represent such a division between faith and deeds as wanted by Paul.⁸⁰ Rule  �e predominant argument scheme is causal. �ere are also a few examples of premisses with a symptomatic relationship with the conclusions, and one with an analogous argument scheme. Most argument schemes can be taken to be appropriate, but many of them are not correctly applied – they do not stand the test of the critical questions (as described in Section ., p. ). Here, and in the following eight sections of analysis, it would take up too much space to present a complete examination of each figure using the critical questions. An illustration of the process was given in the analysis of the previous section (p. ). Suffice it to say, on the basis of the analysis in connection with each figure, that in the following causal schemes the causality can be questioned: Figs ., ., ., ., and ., and that in the symptomatic scheme in Fig. . the characteristics of the sign need not imply the standpoint. �e analogous scheme in Fig. . is also problematic. In addition, many of the premisses can be contested, making the arguments as a whole problematic. For instance, from the statement ‘the one who is righteous will live by faith’ (.b) it does not necessarily causally follow that ‘no one is justified by God by the law’ (.a, see Fig. .). Is it really the case that Christian Gentiles are spiritually sons of Abraham? (Fig. .). In fact, many of the conclusions are formulated in a more conclusive way than is warranted by the premisses. �e tactic of trying to make a standpoint appear to be a statement of fact, and the argumentation merely an explanation, creates the impression that the standpoint needs no defence.⁸¹ Paul does seem to regard several claims as conclusively defended. But almost all Paul’s standpoints can be contested by someone who does not share his conviction about the relationship between faith and works of the law. Especially the unexpressed premisses � , and � –� (� is an implicit conclusion) may very well have been under dispute. Paul’s defence is not conclusive in such a way as to justify such rigid statements as we find in .–. �e arguments in the following figures are problematic: ., ., ., ., ., ., and .. We here seem to have violations against Rules  and . Rule  As the analysis above has shown, most of Paul’s arguments can be presented in a way that makes sense even if the logic is sometimes quite strained. However, we should assume that some of the difficulty in interpretation is due to the fact that the original situation is mostly lost to us, and we should always try to find a plausible explanation even for the most difficult of Paul’s arguments. Nevertheless, we should not overestimate the ability of Paul’s addressees: if an argument is exceedingly difficult for us to understand, then in most cases it probably was . Cf. Mußner on vv. –: ‘Ein Jude kann der “Logic” des Apostels kaum zustimmen. Warum soll allein der Weg des Glaubens zur Rechtfertigung führen und nicht die von Gott selbst verordneten Werke des Gesetzes? Auf diese Frage muß der Apostel Antwort geben; er tut es in den folgenden Versen. Seine Gedankenführung ist dabei teilweise recht sprungha�, was der Auslegung Schwierigkeiten bereitet.’ Mußner, Galater, p. . . Cf. Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. .

Analysis



for the original addressees also. Some of the figures with explications of the argumentation rest on premisses which in themselves are interpretations which can easily be contested. �is means that, although the argument in itself is valid, it is convincing only to those who accept the premisses. Verse  contains a clear violation against Rule , which I consider to be an example of the fallacy of incorrect transfer of properties between parts and wholes, as mentioned above. Rule  �e pericope also shows a tendency towards an authoritarian style of argumentation. �is creates an interesting tension in the text. On the one hand, Paul states his claims as conclusively defended. He has made an interpretation that should then be accepted by all. �e style of the argumentation makes it improbable that Paul would have retracted his standpoints, had they not been accepted among the Galatians. On the other hand, Paul really seems to try to make good arguments that are convincing – to argue with claims that are supported with several premisses, for instance from the Old Testament. Rule  �e opening premiss, .a–b, is not clear in the sense Paul presents it. How is Abraham’s faith comparable with the faith of the Galatians? How is Abraham’s righteousness comparable with that of the Galatians? �e same ambiguity is a problem with .b, .b, and .c. However, it is precisely this ambiguity with the Old Testament quotations that makes it possible for Paul to use them in a sense that fits his argumentation. In some cases, the quotations fit his arguments better, in other cases they are easy to contest. �e use of ambiguous texts seems deliberate on Paul’s part – an ambiguous text is easier to incorporate as a premiss than an exact and precise one. As mentioned above, an important quality in the supporting texts Paul has chosen is that they contain the key-words of Paul’s argumentation. �e exact logical value or clarity of the texts is in most cases clearly secondary. Results Selecting only those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated by Table .. �e table includes all the main arguments (which were emphasized) and also all the minor arguments (which were neither deleted nor emphasized). Of all the standpoints in the section, , , and � are the most central ones. �e analysis of the beginning of the section, vv. –, is a good example of the benefits of the use of a proper method of argumentation analysis in comparison with a traditional or a rhetorical exegetical argumentation analysis. �e analysis shows that the argument should not be explained as an enthymeme (as in Figs . & .).⁸² Instead, the analysis indicates that two arguments have been combined and two premisses le� implicit. �e analysis shows that Paul includes his own interpretation in the argument in such a way that the argument seems at first glance to be based on fact, not on opinion. A compact mode of argumentation . Contra Mußner, Galater, p. ; Hansen, Abraham, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  �e Gentiles’ faith is reckoned to them as righteousness. () – Abraham’s faith in God was reckoned to him as righteousness. () – �e Scriptures foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith. () – God has promised to bless the Gentiles as he blessed Abraham. () – �e Gentiles are reckoned righteous in the same way as Abraham. () – �e gospel entails that God justifies the Gentiles by faith. (� ) – �e blessing of the Gentiles in Abraham refers to the gospel. (� ) – Abraham’s faith was the basis for his blessing. (� ) – Faith in God is reckoned to one as righteousness. (� )  Christian Gentiles are sons of Abraham, spiritually. () – To have a faith that is reckoned to one as righteousness is to be a son of Abraham, spiritually. (� )  To live by faith excludes being justified before God by the law. (� ) – One cannot live by both the works of the law and by faith. (� ) – To live by the works of the law excludes living by faith. (� ) – All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. () – �e law does not rest on faith. () – �e law rests on works. () – �at which rests on works cannot rest on faith. (� )

favours such an approach since (a majority of) the addressees do not necessarily have the time or ability to question unexpressed premisses. �e argument also shows that Paul’s use of Scripture can be tendentious: here he uses Gen. . to support a view that the text does not necessarily support. �e same is true for his use of Gen. .. All in all, the analysis shows that Paul makes maximal use of the selected Old Testament quotations to support his argument about Abraham’s faith and the promise of salvation through faith for the Gentiles. On closer inspection, it is clear that the quoted passages do not necessarily support all of Paul’s conclusions. �e main thrust in the passage is that of a contrast between faith and works of the law. Although Paul makes the argument that only Abraham’s faith rendered him righteous, Paul’s backing for this argument is not conclusive. Clearly the other party was advocating some works of the law, but there is no reason to believe that they depreciated the value of faith. �erefore, Paul’s argument is probably not in itself enough to persuade anyone, which indicates that Paul’s strategy is one of cumulative ‘evidence’: that by stacking small, more or less convincing arguments, the cumulative effect would be in favour of Paul’s argument. Another tendentious use of Scripture is found in v. : Paul’s interpretation that the blessing of the Gentiles in Abraham can only mean that the Gentiles will be justified specifically because of their faith only is not warranted in the quotation of Gen. ., as has been noted in earlier studies.⁸³ Based on this interpretation, . See the above references to Betz, Galatians, pp. –; Hansen, Abraham, p. .

Analysis



Paul deduces that the promise to Abraham must have been the gospel, which then in turn must include the Gentiles. �e whole chain of argument is rather loose at points. Concerning v. , the result of a difficult interpretation need not be stated with too much complication: the main point is clearly that if one relies on the works of the law, one is under a curse, therefore the Galatians should not rely (or consider relying) on the works of the law. �e suggestion that the law is impossible to keep, and that this would be a part of Paul’s argument, is improbable both for historical and for argumentative reasons: it would render Deut. . meaningless. As shown, an analysis of Paul’s argument does not require such an interpretation. �e driving idea in the passage is the dichotomy between faith and works of the law. To contrast Abraham’s deeds with his faith serves Paul’s argument, but it is not very well warranted by the source material, Genesis. Again, Paul’s choice of quotes from Scripture is clearly influenced by verbal parallels at least as much as the contents of the passages. Already in the previous section, .–, we saw indications of the use of rhetorical moves. In this passage there are strong indications of several such moves: appeal to tradition and to authority and the techniques of association and dissociation. Most important is the dominant use of Old Testament passages in support of the argument. Since the quotations rarely support the argumentation clearly, their use can be seen as rhetorical moves; in other words they are convincing by seemingly supporting an argument. In addition to the sometimes problematic use of Scripture, the analysis identified a few possible fallacies: the fallacy of incorrect transfer of properties between parts and wholes (v. ), the fallacy of false analogy (v. ), the fallacy of false dichotomy (faith/law), and maybe even the fallacy of false dilemma (the problem as a whole).

.

Gal. .–, testamental practice and inheritance Division and preliminary remarks

.a Ἀδελϕοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω· .b ὅµως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωµένην διαθήκην .c οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ .d ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. .a τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰµ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι .b καὶ τῷ σπέρµατι αὐτοῦ. .c οὐ λέγει· καὶ τοῖς σπέρµασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν .d ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐϕ’ ἑνός· ϰαὶ τῷ σπέρµατί σου, .e ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός.

.a Brothers, I give an example from everyday life: .b once a person’s will has been ratified, .c no one annuls it .d or adds to it. .a Now, the promises were made to Abraham .b and to his offspring; .c it does not say, ‘and to his offsprings’, as of many; .d but it says, ‘and to your offspring’, that is, to one person, .e who is Christ.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians .a τοῦτο δὲ λέγω· διαθήκην προκεκυρωµένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ .b ὁ µετὰ τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς νόµος .c οὐκ ἀκυροῖ εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. .a εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόµου ἡ κληρονοµία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· .b τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰµ δι’ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

.a–c My point is this: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. .a For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; .b but God graciously gave it to Abraham through the promise.

From a speech act perspective vv. – are quite straightforward: a series of assertives with one usage declarative. �is is a clear portion of the argumentation stage, where Paul, through an example from ‘daily life’ (in .b–d), through one reference to Scripture, ‘to your offspring’ (Gen. .; .; . in .a–e), and through one reference to tradition, ‘the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later’ (Exod. . in .a–c), reaches the conclusion stated in .a–b. �e text can be divided into four smaller units: .a–d, .a–e, .a–c, and .a–b. Units .a–d and .a–c together form a bigger unit. �e reference to the singular ‘offspring’ in .c–d is the only usage declarative in Galatians. Paul wants to clarify that he here understands ‘offspring’ as referring to one person – Christ – and not to a multitude of offspring. Detailed analysis Commentators note that the argumentation in vv.  and  is of the type a minore ad maius: ‘Was bei Menschen, also im weltlichen Bereich, schon gilt, gilt erst recht bei Gott.’⁸⁴ It is, however, rather difficult to clarify what tradition of ‘daily life’ this is supposed to refer to, since the unalterability of a testament does not reflect Greek or Roman law. If Paul here wants to draw upon his knowledge of law and use an example of it, the argument seems to be that of misplaced expertise.⁸⁵ Perhaps Paul counts on no one to examine the argument critically. �e suggestion that Paul with διαθήκη (‘will’ or ‘testament’) refers to the Jewish legal institution of mattenat bari’ is otherwise a good solution,⁸⁶ but it is uncertain if such a Jewish institution would have been well known among the Gentile Galatians.⁸⁷ �e idea in the text would make good sense if it would be the following: ‘A human testament is normally meant not to be annulled or added to. In the heavenly realm, where such intentions always are realized, testaments are not annulled, nor added to.’ But since this is not the wording in the text, which is . Mußner, Galater, p. , ‘What is true for man, i.e. in the worldly realm, is fully true only with God’. . As Stephen S. Carey, �e Uses and Abuses of Argument (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, ), p.  notes, ‘opinions of an expert in one area should carry little weight outside his or her field of expertise’. . Mußner, Galater, p. . . See Betz, Galatians, pp. –.

Analysis



Fig. .: A covenant cannot be annulled, .b–d & .a–c  A divine covenant ratified by God cannot be annulled. �

. & .� A human will ratified by [�e testamental practice among men reflects men cannot be annulled. the heavenly – and more perfect – practice.]

Fig. .: �e covenant is superior to the law, .a–c  �e covenant with Abraham is superior to the law of Moses. �

. & .� �e covenant with Abra[�at which comes first is supeham came first. rior to that which comes later.] �

.. �e law of Moses came  years a�er the covenant with Abraham.

absolute (cannot be annulled), the argument is unsound. Verse  is logically connected with v. , where it becomes clear that the testament in v.  refers to the promise God made to Abraham. �e legal language does not really fit the context of the blessing of Abraham, but serves the purpose of paralleling the legal example in v.  with the ‘testament’ between God and Abraham. Spelled out schematically, the argument of vv.  and  reads as outlined in Fig. .. �e argument scheme is analogous. In order to stress the posteriority of the law given to Moses, Paul points out that it came ‘four hundred and thirty years later’ (.a–c).⁸⁸ Mußner points out that according to a rabbinic understanding, priority is equal to superiority. �is aspect of the argument can be illustrated schematically (Fig. .). �e argument scheme is symptomatic. �e interpretation in v.  seems arbitrary. In several texts in Genesis the offspring is interpreted as Isaac (Gen. .; .; .ff.; .). On the other hand, the offspring also refers to all of Abraham’s offspring, which are described as ‘like the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted’ (Gen. .).⁸⁹ �is makes the claim of .e problematic especially since there is no other backing than the reference to the singular of τῷ . Depending on how one counts, the law in fact came four hundred or four hundred and thirty years later. �e issue of chronology is not relevant here. For details, see, e.g. Mußner, Galater, pp. –. . For more on the subject, see Longenecker, Galatians, pp. –; and Betz, Galatians, p. . �e LXX text reads: ‘καὶ ποιήσω τὸ σπέρµα σου ὡς τὴν ἄµµον τῆς γῆς εἰ δύναταί τις ἐξαριθµῆσαι τὴν ἄµµον τῆς γῆς, καὶ τὸ σπέρµα σου ἐξαριθµηθήσεται’.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

σπέρµατι (‘offspring’), which normally was interpreted as a generic singular. Later in the argumentation, in ., Paul himself, by ‘Abraham’s offspring’, refers to many, or all those who belong to Christ. �e main claim of the section is stated in vv. –, and .c–e is not necessary for the rest of the argument in .–, which gives it the character of a parenthetical insertion that furthers Paul’s insistence from .– that the gospel – and justification by faith in Christ – were inherent already in the blessing of Abraham. How does Paul arrive at the conclusion in v.  that the inheritance comes either from the law or through the promise? For that matter, how does he conclude that it came through the promise? For this cannot be a conclusion based on .–. Earlier, in .–, Paul made the connection between Abraham, faith, and promise. �e argument that one must choose either faith or law was also made earlier, in .–. Specifically, .b refers back to an argument in .b, whereas .a refers to the argumentation in .–, especially v. . However, many commentators see v.  as a conclusion to vv. –.⁹⁰ Mußner’s comment that the γάρ (‘for’) in .a should be understood rather as an explicative than as warranting (‘begründende’) is a good solution.⁹¹ �us v.  should not be seen as the conclusion, but vv. – together make up the conclusion. �e conclusion raises the question of the structure of the whole chapter. Can we on the basis of the analysis of .– decide on the best way to structure the passage according to the flow of the argumentation? �e answer is not given. Paul’s argumentation is clearly not characterized by a strict structure. On the contrary, different passages relate to each other in a way which o�en gives smooth transitions between thoughts. �is may be part of a rhetorical strategy: to keep the argumentation flowing, making several allusions to what has been said before, weaving a web of arguments building up to exhortations and admonitions. Since there is a clear connection between . and .–, these two portions of the text can be seen as forming a unit on some level.⁹² Since there are no specific connections between .– and .–, there is no reason on a lower structural level to combine .– and .–. Since .– is also clearly a unit in its own right because of the discussion about testament and inheritance, which does not occur in vv. –, it is best to keep vv. – as a unit on its own and not to make up one undivided unit of .– (contra Mußner).⁹³ A precise structuring on a higher level is not necessary for my analysis. So far the structure presented in Chapter  (on p. ) seems to be adequate and sufficient. . e.g. Betz states about v.  that ‘[h]ere Paul sums up the argument in :–’. Betz, Galatians, p. . . Mußner, Galater, p. . Longenecker clearly builds upon Mußner seeing v.  as belonging to v. : ‘�e γάρ (“for”) of v  is explanatory and so sets up the real reason for Paul’s conclusion of v ’. Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . �is has been done by Mußner, who places .– as a unit between .– and .–.. Mußner, Galater, pp. vii–viii. . Longenecker has suggested that .–, on a second – higher – level, makes up a coherent unit. Longenecker, Galatians, p. .

Analysis



Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .–     A divine covenant ratified by God cannot be annulled. (Fig. .) A human will ratified by men cannot be [added to or] annulled. (Fig. .) �e promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring, which is Christ. �e covenant with Abraham is superior to the law of Moses. (Fig. .) �e covenant with Abraham came first. (Fig. .) �e law of Moses came  years a�er the covenant with Abraham. (Fig. .) �e law does not nullify the promise. �e inheritance comes either from the law or from the promise.   [� ] �e testamental practice among men reflects the heavenly – and more perfect – practice. (Fig. .) [� ] �at which comes first is superior to that which comes later. (Fig. .) [] []   [] [] [] 

�e section contains the standpoints and premisses displayed in Table .. �e probably disputed standpoints are – and , all of which are important for the argument. �e following are either included in some of the other standpoints and premisses or are not necessary to include in the further analysis and are thus deleted: –, –, and � –� . Strategic manoeuvring In the passage the authoritative style continues as in the preceding verses. �e legal example, the usage declarative, and the reference to a certain period of time give the passage an almost scholarly character, a presentational device which here psychologically strengthens the conclusion. However, the reference to human law is somewhat misplaced since the claims about the unalterability of human law do not hold true. Does Paul count on his authority to be enough to make the argument hold? Since the conclusion in .– is not directly based on any of the preceding argumentation, be it vv. –, – or –, it is not a logically strong argument, suggesting that it is somehow more rhetorical. It may have been included in order to introduce support for Paul’s argumentation from another area, legal practice, thus increasing the variety of arguments for Paul’s case. �is is good use of the topical potential; the first argument (.–) was based on the Galatians’ own experiences, the second on Scripture (Abraham as an example, .–), and this third argument (.–) on common legal practice. �e most important move in the passage is the separation of the promises made to Abraham from the law of Moses. By making a case for the supremacy of the promises, Paul tries to strengthen his claim concerning the Christian’s freedom from the law, while at the same time anchoring the gospel in the Scriptures with Abraham.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Already at this point, a�er section .–, we clearly see a use of rhetorical moves. In Paul’s presentation of the relationship between Abraham, the promise, the law, faith, and the Galatians, we see topical potential, presentational devices, and auditorial demand converge, indicating an argumentative strategy. Fallacies and violations of rules Rules – In this passage Paul continues to defend his standpoint about the inferiority of the law in relation to ‘the promise’ by presenting a few more arguments in support of this standpoint. �e text suggests that, in addition to the Spirit, the law was a theme which had been actualized among the Galatians, and that this had been communicated to Paul, thus calling for a response, which the letter to the Galatians became. �is passage fits well with the aforementioned theory that Paul’s antagonists wanted to supplement Paul’s message by incorporating the necessity of law-observance. �is would explain Paul’s efforts to diminish the law’s importance with regard to the importance of ‘the promise’. �e passage does not suggest that this is done in violation of Rules –. Rule  �e example ‘from everyday life’ seems to be a fallacy of relevance. �e praxis referred to does not exist and consequently the argument does not stand against critical examination. �e main argument in the section relates to Paul’s point about the law’s inferiority in comparison with the gospel. �e use of .c–e as a premiss is relevant only if Paul’s interpretation of τῷ σπέρµατι is accepted. However, if this unusual interpretation is not accepted, the argument is of no relevance. �e argument would have been clearer without .c–e. Rules – �e two implicit premisses are clear and would probably have been accepted even by Paul’s antagonists. �e premiss in .b–c about testamental practice would probably have been accepted as well despite the problems mentioned in the analysis. Rule  �e argument scheme with a relation of analogy in Fig. . is difficult and does not pass the critical test question: ‘Are there any significant differences between a divine covenant and a human will?’ Since a will both in Greek and Roman law could be changed at any time, there are indeed significant differences between Paul’s examples. �e suggestion that Paul refers to an exclusively Jewish practice (mattenat bari’) has yet to be supported by proof of this practice being more widespread than what is known from the sources.⁹⁴ �e argument is thus unsound. �e basis for the symptomatic relation in the other figure, ., would generally have been accepted by Paul’s addressees. �e argument scheme is appropriate and correctly applied. However, since it is usually understood that the law (Moses) came before the gospel (Christ), Paul needs to show that the gospel somehow preceded the law, and this point was made earlier, in . (see Fig. ., . Betz, Galatians, pp. –.

Analysis



Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  �e covenant with Abraham is superior to the law of Moses. () – �e promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring, which is Christ. ()  �e inheritance comes either from the law or from the promise. ()

p. ). �e argument about the temporal precedence of the ‘gospel’ declared to Abraham adds an argument for the superiority of the gospel in relationship to the law, but requires that one accepts that the blessing of Abraham, ‘the promise’, included the gospel. Rules – �e section does not violate Rules –. Rule  Paul’s usage declarative is somewhat confusing since the traditional understanding of ‘seed’ included the Jews and, to a certain degree, the proselytes.⁹⁵ �ere may well have been precedence for this kind of interpretation,⁹⁶ but, still, it is not as clear as it seems to be for Paul in his argumentation. Results Again, selecting only those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated by Table .. Of all the standpoints in the section,  and  are the central ones. �e section contains arguments which on the surface seem more convincing than they are if examined critically. It would, for instance, have been clearer to argue that normally a human testament is not meant to be annulled, or added to; and in the heavenly realm, where such intentions are always realized, testaments are not annulled, or added to. As the argument stands, it is unsound. Another example of problematic argumentation is, on the one hand, that God’s promise entails that the promise was made to Abraham and Christ specifically, and, on the other, that inheritance comes either through law or through promise. �ese claims are badly argued. �ere is no good support for ‘seed’ to refer to Christ, and there is no warrant at all for the exclusion of inheritance through law from inheritance through promise. �e conclusion of the unit is v. , with v.  as an explication which does not directly belong to .–, but to the earlier argumentation of .–. On a second, higher, level, these two units together form a larger unit. �e most important part of the section is the impression it gives of an either/or dualism between law and promise.

. Betz, Galatians, p. . . Betz, Galatians, p. .

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

 .

Gal. .–, the purpose and function of the law Division and preliminary remarks

.a Τί οὖν ὁ νόµος; .b τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη, .c ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρµα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, .d διαταγεὶς δι’ ἀγγέλων .e ἐν χειρὶ µεσίτου. .a ὁ δὲ µεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, .b ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν. .a ὁ οὖν νόµος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ; .b µὴ γένοιτο. .c εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόµος ὁ δυνάµενος ζῳοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόµου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη· .a ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραϕὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁµαρτίαν, .b ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. . Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν ὑπὸ νόµον ἐϕρουρούµεθα συγκλειόµενοι εἰς τὴν µέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυϕθῆναι, .a ὥστε ὁ νόµος παιδαγωγὸς ἡµῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν, .b ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶµεν· . ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν ἐσµεν.

.a Why, then, the law? .b It was added because of transgressions, .c until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; .d and it was ordained through angels .e by a mediator. .a Now a mediator involves more than one party; .b but God is one. .a Is the law, then, opposed to the promises of God? .b Certainly not! .c For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. .a But the Scripture has confined everything under sin, .b so that the promise, by faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. . Now, before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, confined until the coming faith would be revealed. .a �erefore the law was our guardian until Christ came, .b in order that we might be justified by faith. . But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

�e section begins with a question which is then dealt with in the following verses. In the translation, a choice can be made between marking the nature or the purpose of the law. For example, Longenecker and  favour the latter, ‘Why, then, the law?’, whereas Betz, among others, favours the former, ‘What then is the law?’⁹⁷ �e difference is minor. In my opinion Paul deals with the former question in the passage. As Longenecker points out, the shorter version also has greater rhetorical impact ‘because of its crispness’.⁹⁸ .e literally says, ‘through the hand of a mediator’. All phrases are assertives with the exception of the expressive .b, ‘By no means!’ or ‘Certainly not!’ �e argumentation differs from the preceding verses (vv. –). It is more proclaiming with less explication of the premisses on which the declaratives are based.

. Longenecker, Galatians, pp. –; Betz, Galatians, pp. , . . Longenecker, Galatians, p. .

Analysis



Detailed analysis In vv. –, we find two arguments concerning the nature of the law. First, Paul states that the law was added until ‘the offspring would come’, i.e. the law is only temporary. Secondly, the law was not received directly from God, but through angels and ‘a mediator’, i.e. Moses. �e reason for the use of such arguments must be to show the inferiority of the law in relation to ‘the promise’, i.e. the gospel. �ese arguments can be drawn out as in Fig. .. Some of the premisses relate to the previous argumentation. In . Paul made the point that the law is posterior to the gospel. Now the argument continues with the statement that the law was only temporarily ‘added’ to the gospel. �is addition would then concern the period from when Moses received the law until the death and resurrection of Christ. �e gospel, on the other hand, began with Abraham, long before the law was given, and continues with Christ. �e argument scheme in –.� is symptomatic. �e argument about the giving of the gospel and the law respectively is difficult. How is it significant that the gospel was given directly and the law through mediators? �e reference is to the Jewish tradition of emphasizing the presence of angels during the giving of the law at Mount Sinai as an indication of the importance of the event.⁹⁹ Paul uses this tradition for the opposite conclusion. �e point is that the higher the number of mediators, i.e. the more indirect the reception, the less valuable the received thing, cf. the premisses to argument . (Fig. .). �e argument scheme in ..(a–b)� . is symptomatic.¹⁰⁰ �e question in v.  is clearly a rhetorical device of anticipating a possible objection on part of the reader or hearer. �e answer to the question in v.  is self-evident, but takes up a difficulty that Paul’s line of argumentation is leading to: ‘Why, then, the law?’ �e answer is given in vv. –: first, the law imprisoned all things under sin in order to pave the way for faith, and, secondly, the law acted as a disciplinarian until Christ. �e argument is that the law was important, but it is no longer needed as a ‘disciplinarian’, παιδαγωγός, (vv. ff.), see Figs . and .; in the former, the argument scheme is symptomatic, in the latter it is causal. �us, in v.  the disciplinarian is the law and the pronoun ‘we’ refers to Paul and all Jews, whereas the ‘you’ in v.  refers primarily to Galatian Christians, who were mainly Gentile. �ere is no need to problematize the choice of word by asking how the Galatians could have been seen as earlier having been under the law. �e choice of phrasing is best seen as a rhetorical use of inclusive language.¹⁰¹

�

. Longenecker, Galatians, pp. –. . Siegert, Argumentation, p.  presents the argument in the following form, which captures the meaning but presents a quite impure enthymeme: the first premiss, ‘Ein Mittler (wie Mose) ist immer ein Mittler zwischen zweien’; the second premiss, ‘Gott aber ist einer’; and the unexpressed conclusion, ‘[Die Tora ist Akkomodation an das Volk Israel, nicht reine Gottesweisheit]’. . Cf. Lars Hartman, ‘Gal :–: as Part of a �eological Argument on a Practical Issue’, in Text-Centered New Testament studies: text-theoretical essays on early Jewish and early Christian literature (WUNT, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ), pp. – (): ‘�e shi� to “we” language has the rhetorical effect of engaging the listeners, and of bringing speaker and hearer on the same footing. . . . �us, I suggest that there is much less theology than rhetorics behind the “we” of v. .’

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: �e gospel versus the law, .b–b  �e law is inferior to the gospel. �

�

. & .� �e period of vali- [�at which has dity is shorter for a shorter period the law than for of validity is inthe gospel. ferior.] �

.. �e law was added only until Christ’s arrival.

�

. �e way the law and the gospel, respectively, were given, shows that the law is inferior to the gospel.

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ..a � �..b & ..(a–b)� �e law �e gospel [�at which is given indiwas given was given rectly is inferior to that indirectly. directly. which is given directly.] �

..a. �e law was ordained through angels by a mediator.

�

..b. �e gospel was given directly to Abraham.

Fig. .: �e law and the gospel, .–a  �e law is not opposed to the gospel. �

. & .� �e law’s era of function was be[�ings that function at different fore the gospel’s era of function. eras are not opposed to each other.]

�e point is simply that the children of God – Jewish and Gentile Christians alike – are not subject to the law. Although the ‘we’ refers to all Jews, in the continuation of the sentence it includes only those who are now Christians, implying that the rest still live under the ‘guardian’, or the law. �e analogy is between the status of minors as heirs in a judicial sense and man before Christ in a soteriological sense. �e imagery of the law as ‘our guardian’ immediately connects with the institution of guardians (παιδαγωγός) for minors.¹⁰² �e imagery is then explicated in .–. �e section contains the standpoints and premisses outlined in Table .. �e following are statements that both parties can probably agree upon: –, , and � –� , and they are consequently deleted from further analysis.  and  are redundant and also deleted. �e main elements are: , , , and .

. Betz, Galatians, pp. –.

Analysis



Fig. .: �e law until faith, .–  �e law is no longer needed as a disciplinarian for Christians. �

. & .� With Christ, faith has come. [With faith, there is no need for the law as a disciplinarian.]

Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .–      [] [] []  []      []  []  [� ] [� ] [� ] �

    �e law was added because of transgressions. �e law is inferior to the gospel. (Fig. .) �e period of validity is shorter for the law than for the gospel. (Fig. .) �e law was added only until Christ’s arrival. (Fig. .) �e way the law and the gospel, respectively, were given, shows that the law is inferior to the gospel. (Fig. .) �e law was ordained through angels by a mediator. (Fig. .) A mediator involves more than one party. God is one. A law that could make one alive has not been given and righteousness cannot come through the law. �e Scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin. �e Scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Before faith came, ‘we’ were imprisoned and guarded under the law. �e law was ‘our’ disciplinarian until Christ came. �e law was given indirectly. (Fig. .) �e gospel was given directly to Abraham. (Fig. .) �e law is not opposed to the gospel. (Fig. .) �e law’s era of function was before the gospel’s era of function. (Fig. .) �e law is no longer needed as a disciplinarian for Christians. (Fig. .) With Christ, faith has come. (Fig. .)   �at which has a shorter period of validity is inferior. (Fig. .) �at which is given indirectly is inferior to that which is given directly. (Fig. .) �ings that function at different eras are not opposed to each other. (Fig. .) With faith, there is no need for the law as a disciplinarian. (Fig. .)



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians Strategic manoeuvring

In order for Paul’s argument to be convincing, he needs to explain the role of the law. �e idea of an era of law followed by an era of the promise is a solution which gives the law a proper place and function while still putting the promise to the fore. Paul also needs to explain why the law was not sufficient, why it had to be superseded by an era of faith. To make use of the Jewish emphasis of the presence of angels at the giving of the law as an argument against the law is unexpected – a rhetorical move, although not a strong one. However, Paul states that the law had an important function, that it is not opposed to the promises of God, but that it could not give that which was promised; the law only acted as a disciplinarian until Christ came. �e Galatians live in a new era where there is no longer a need for a disciplinarian. �rough Christ the promise is given and the Galatians have le� the prison of the law. Paul here presents the view he represents as the more attractive one. Who would want to be in prison, guarded under lock and key? Who would like to follow something which is inferior and which cannot ‘make one alive’ when a better alternative is available? �rough such embedded rhetorical moves, the arguments lead the reader towards the choice Paul desired his audience to come to. To present the law as inadequate and inferior in relation to the promise is a rhetorical move that is connected with the earlier dissociation between law and promise. Fallacies and violations of rules Rules – �e section continues Paul’s argumentation about the law in relation to the ‘promises of God’. �e amount of argumentation concerning the law indicates that Paul considered the topic relevant to the Galatians’ situation. Paul wants to deprecate the law, indicating that the law was held in high regard among the Galatians. Again, this fits with the theory that the Galatians overrated the importance of the law in relation to Paul’s understanding of the role of the law. �ere are no indications of any violations against Rules – in this section. Rule  �e argumentation relates to Paul’s standpoint about the law’s inferiority in relation to the gospel. If .a–b relates to the above-mentioned Jewish tradition, it is a sound argument. Considering the nature of Paul’s argumentation, it would not make sense for him to include a nonsensical argument in the midst of a heavily argumentative section. Rules – �e four unexpressed premisses are all in line with Paul’s argumentation. None of these nor any of the expressed premisses can be said to be falsely presented as starting points; it is quite clear that the whole section reflects Paul’s understanding.

Analysis



Rule  �e symptomatic premisses .� and ..(a–b)� in Fig. . (p. ) are properly used from an argument-scheme point of view. For the argument to be sound as a whole it is required that there indeed existed a well-known Jewish tradition pertaining to the lesser value of that which had been mediated by many hands. If not, the premiss seems both constructed for the argument and not very convincing, but based on the analysis I consider both arguments in the figure to be sound. In the following figure, . (p. ), the argument rests on a symptomatic argument scheme which is not self-evident. �e critical question is: Are things that function at different eras always not opposed to each other? Put like this, the question seems artificial, but shows that the crucial element in the argument lies in premiss .. Paul’s argument is that the law’s era of function is over, and this premiss would certainly have been contested by those emphasizing the law’s importance. �erefore the argument is problematic. In Fig. . (p. ) the argument scheme is causal, and correctly applied. However, as a whole the argument is unsound since Paul’s opponents would probably have disputed the unexpressed premiss (.� ) that faith would now take over the role of the law. Why does faith exclude the need for a disciplinarian? �is question is not dealt with at all, wherefore the argument is unsound. Rules – Except for the problems noted in connection with Rule , the section is in accordance with Rules –. Results Again, selecting only those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated by Table .. Of all the standpoints in the section,  and  are the most central. �is section also contains argumentation intended to be – or to seem to be – rational. Does Paul succeed in making his point? All in all, the argument connects well with the previous arguments. �e argument about the indirect giving of the law is more confusing than helpful, but the argument about an era of law and an era of faith, it must be said, is brilliant. Who would not want to be in the new era rather than in the old! Depicting the era of the law as one in prison is effective. Later, in .ff., Paul unfolds the freedom-theme. �e main argument which the passage sets out to prove is the function of the law. It cannot be said that Paul succeeds in arguing for his claim that the law’s function was () to confine everything under sin; and () to function as a guardian until Christ came. Paul states these functions without argumentation giving the impression that this part of the section is without doubt. �erefore Paul can concentrate on other questions: Is the law opposed to the promises of God? Is the law still in effect? Is it in effect as a path to righteousness? To these questions Paul gives arguments and these questions were probably pertinent in the churches of Galatia.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  �e law is inferior to the gospel. () – �e law was added because of transgressions. () – �e period of validity is shorter for the law than for the gospel. () – �e law was added only until Christ’s arrival. () – �e way the law and the gospel, respectively, were given, shows that the law is inferior to the gospel. () – �e law was given indirectly. () – �e gospel was given directly to Abraham. () – �e law’s era of function was before the gospel’s era of function. () – With Christ, faith has come. () – With faith, there is no need for the law as a disciplinarian. (� )  A law that could make one alive has not been given and righteousness cannot come through the law. () – �e Scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. () – Before faith came, ‘we’ were imprisoned and guarded under the law. () – �e law was ‘our’ disciplinarian until Christ came. ()

.

Gal. .–, equality ‘in Christ’

Division and preliminary remarks . Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ· . ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. .a οὐκ ἔνι ᾽Ιουδαῖος οὐδὲ ῞Ελλην, .b οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, .c οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· .d πάντες γὰρ ὑµεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ. .a εἰ δὲ ὑµεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰµ σπέρµα ἐστέ, .b κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόµοι.

. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. . As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. .a �ere is neither Jew nor Greek, .b there is neither slave nor freeman, .c there is no male and female; .d for you are all one in Christ Jesus. .a If, however, you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, .b heirs according to the promise.

�e style of the preceding section continues in vv.  ff. With a series of assertives, Paul expresses statements and arguments about the equal status of Christians. Section .–d shows a composition and structure which suggests that it is based on pre-Pauline material used from an early Christian baptismal liturgy.¹⁰³ For this reason Betz labels the section ‘a reference to baptismal tradition’.¹⁰⁴ �e content of the section is the equality in Christ.

. Betz, Galatians, p. . . Betz, Galatians, p. viii.

Analysis



Wayne Meeks has drawn attention to the performative language of ..¹⁰⁵ In a religious–existential sense it is a declarative, even though the equality declared is not realized in the physical world. Here, however, Paul refers to these phrases more as facts which have been declared earlier, in the baptismal liturgy. �erefore, in the analysis, I consider . to be an assertive. Detailed analysis �is section establishes the status of Gentile Christians as equals among each other, in relation to God, and in relation to Jewish Christians. �at Paul directs his argument towards Gentile Christians is clear from v. : also Gentile Christians are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise, as are, of course, Jewish Christians. At the same time, the section connects with the theme of righteousness through faith in v. : it is through faith that the Galatians have become children of God as is illustrated in the rite of baptism.¹⁰⁶ Although all but the last verse in the unit probably is based on a baptismal liturgy,¹⁰⁷an analysis of the argumentation does not require a discussion on Paul’s view on baptism. �e first verse, , connects to the preceding: the new situation, now that ‘faith has come’. �e imagery of God’s children indicates unity, a topos carried further in v. . �e expression ‘sons of God’ (υἱοὶ θεοῦ) only occurs here in Galatians – this topos is carried further in .–. Being baptized in Christ creates a unity ‘in Christ’ and sonship to God. �is should be understood in juxtaposition to the view that observance of the law would lead to sonship. On the contrary, it is ‘in Christ’ that all Christians are sons of God (Fig. .). �e argument scheme is causal: faith and baptism lead to sonship. �e unity in Christ in turn leads to equality, which is clearly the main point in the following formulaic verse, v.  (see Fig. .). �e argument scheme is causal: from oneness in Christ equality follows. Paul draws one further conclusion from the Gentiles being in Christ: they are Abraham’s offspring, v. , a point referred to repeatedly beginning with . (see Fig. .). Again, the argument scheme is causal. �e argument is problematic: what is the relationship between belonging to Christ and being one of Abraham’s offspring? �e connection is assumed without further arguments. �e standpoints and premisses in .– are laid out in Table .. Of these, at least the following should probably be seen as unproblematic, and be deleted: –. Standpoint  is the most important. . Wayne A. Meeks, ‘�e Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity’, History of Religion  (), pp. – (). . �e passage has been interpreted in different ways regarding the relationship between faith and the rite of baptism and righteousness. Cf. on the one hand Schlier, Galater, pp. –; and on the other Betz, Galatians, pp. –. . Betz, Galatians, pp. –; Schlier, Galater, pp. –; Longenecker, Galatians, pp. –; Martyn, Galatians, p. ; Hansen, Abraham, p. .

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: Christians are sons of God, .–  Christians are Sons of God. �

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � .a � � � � � � � .b Christians share Christians are faith in Christ. baptized.

&

.(a–b)� [Baptism and faith in Christ create sonship with God.]

Fig. .: Christians are equal, .–d  All Christians are equal before God. �

. & .� All Christians are [From being one in Christ, one in Christ. equality before God follows.]

Strategic manoeuvring Paul continues on the topic of sonship – a theme in Galatians  – and again states that it is acquired through faith. Instead of ‘sons of Abraham’, he uses the phrase ‘sons of God’ – the only occurrence in Galatians. �e perspective here widens to the theme of a new life in Christ where a new order applies: equality. �is is a thought-provoking perspective. To connect it to baptism – the common experience of the Galatians – is a very good use of the topical potential. �e presentational device of including a section from the baptismal liturgy heightens the effect of the passage; this was an important experience for the Galatians. �is should all fit well with the auditorial demand; the Galatians would certainly agree with the claim of unity in Christ. �rough this they would also have agreed with the phrase ‘children of God’. Paul thus has the audience well prepared to accept the claim with which Paul in .a–b ends the unit: ‘If, however, you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.’ Fig. .: Abraham’s offspring and heirs, .d–b  All Christians are Abraham’s offspring and his heirs. �

. & .� All Christians be[Belonging to Christ makes one an long to Christ. offspring and heir of Abraham’s.]

Analysis



Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .–     �rough faith all Christians are sons of God. (.) �ose baptized are ‘clothed with Christ’. (.) All Christians are equal before God. (Fig. .) All Christians are one in Christ. (Fig. .) All Christians belong to Christ. (Fig. .) All Christians are Abraham’s offspring and his heirs. (Fig. .)   � Baptism and faith in Christ creates a sonship with God. (Fig. .) � From being one in Christ, equality before God follows. (Fig. .) � Belonging to Christ makes one an offspring and heir of Abraham’s. (Fig. .)

[] [] [] [] [] 

Fallacies and violations of rules Rules – Rules – are not applicable on this unit. Rule  �e argumentation is well in accordance with the relevance rule. Rule  Paul certainly stands by the unexpressed premisses which were recovered in the analysis. �ey are in fact crucial for his argument. Rule  �ere are no violations in the unit against the starting point rule. Rule  �e unit contains two sound arguments with a correctly applied causal argument scheme: Figs . and . (p. ; p. ). �e third causal argument, Fig. . (p. ) is problematic. Paul’s opponents may very well have questioned an argument that (simply) belonging to Christ would make one an offspring and heir of Abraham’s. Rule  �e argumentation is consistent, although some of the claims are based on premisses which are not conclusively demonstrated. Why does ‘belonging to Christ’ make one an ‘offspring and heir of Abraham’s’? (.� , Fig. .). However, the premisses are consistent in relation to each other. Rules – �ere are no violations against the closure and usage rules in the unit. Results Selecting only those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated by Table .. Of all the standpoints in the section,  is the central one. �e section is a very good continuation of Paul’s argument. It presents claims appealing to the Galatians: a new life in Christ through baptism. �e argument about equality is especially forceful since it seems to rest on the baptismal liturgy. Although the text of the liturgy was probably not intended to be used in this way,

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  All Christians are Abraham’s offspring and his heirs. () – Belonging to Christ makes one an offspring and heir of Abraham’s. (� ) – Baptism and faith in Christ creates a sonship with God. (� ) – From being one in Christ, equality before God follows. (� )

Paul draws the conclusion from ‘neither Jew nor Greek’ that the Galatians now ‘in Christ’ are Abraham’s offspring. Paul has been driving towards this claim since . – it is inherent in . – but now states it explicitly: ‘you . . . are Abraham’s offspring’. �e argument seems well thought out and seems persuasive, even if it does not add much substance to the main claim of ..

.

Gal. .–, the freedom of God’s children Division and preliminary remarks

.a Λέγω δέ, ἐϕ’ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόµος νήπιός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαϕέρει δούλου .b κύριος πάντων ὤν, . ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόµους ἄχρι τῆς προθεσµίας τοῦ πατρός. .a οὕτως καὶ ἡµεῖς, .b ὅτε ἦµεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου ἤµεθα δεδουλωµένοι· .a ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωµα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, .b γενόµενον ἐκ γυναικός, .c γενόµενον ὑπὸ νόµον, .a ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόµον ἐξαγοράσῃ, .b ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωµεν. .a ῞Οτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, .b ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡµῶν .c κρᾶζον· αββα ὁ πατήρ. .a ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός· .b εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόµος διὰ θεοῦ.

.a What I am saying is this: as long as he is a minor, the heir is no different from a slave, .b although he is lord of all ; . but he is under guardians and administrators until the time set by the father. .a So with us; .b while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elements of the world. .a But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, .b born of a woman, .c born under the law, .a in order that he might redeem those under the law, .b so that we might receive adoption as sons. .a And because you are sons, .b God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, .c crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ .a �erefore, you are no longer a slave but a son, .b and if a son then also an heir, through God.

�e style of the preceding section continues in .–. With a series of assertives, Paul expresses statements and arguments about the equal status of Christians. �e cry in .c is of course an expressive, but the speech act in which it is embedded, .a–c, is an assertive.

Analysis



Detailed analysis �e following verses, .–, are designed to illustrate the preceding conclusions. �e text probably contains some kerygmatic formulations in vv. –. �e original setting of such formulations, however, seems secondary: they contain a statement that enforces Paul’s argument much in the same way Paul uses quotations from Scripture to the same end. If the source of a quotation is in early Christian liturgy it gives it authority in much the same way as a Scripture quotation but with the added benefit of perhaps being biographically or emotionally significant for the addressees, as, for instance, would be the case with wordings from the baptismal liturgy in .–. �e main point in the illustration is that the time of being ‘minors’ is limited, and that it is followed by a time of freedom or redemption. �e statement that heirs as minors are no better than slaves is an exaggeration, but illustrates the similarity between Roman legal practice and the point Paul made earlier about the Christian in relationship to the law (Fig. .). �e argument scheme is analogous. Because of the hyperbolic premiss .� , the argument is problematic. Instead of the law, in v.  Paul mentions ‘the elemental spirits of the world’ as the enslaving force. In the continuation of the same thought, however, there is an imbalance, since Paul in v.  talks about being ‘under the law’. For symmetry, v.  should refer to the elemental spirits of the world and not to the law. �e two are certainly not directly comparable; the elemental spirits refer to ideas in the Greek and Roman (and Jewish) syncretism of the time of Paul,¹⁰⁸ whereas the law is of divine origin. If v.  is of pre-Pauline origin,¹⁰⁹ it would explain the wording. For the argument to make sense, the elemental spirits and the law have to share some unwanted characteristic. �is characteristic seems to be that of slavery. Even though the law cannot truly be compared with spirits of the world, it can serve the purpose of an argument by association. By connecting slavery of the law with slavery under the elemental spirits, Paul creates a rhetorical argument: presumably the addressees shared Paul’s dislike for slavery under the elemental spirits – or could be convinced to dislike it – and so he hopes to convince the addressees that slavery under the law is equally unwanted. �e goal for the Galatians is ‘adoption as children’ (v. ) which contains reception of the Spirit (v. ), freedom from slavery (v. ), and becoming heirs (v. ), on this, see Figs . and ..¹¹⁰ In connection with v. , Betz writes, ‘Brief as it is, Gal : contains Paul’s thought about man’s situation before God prior to the redemption in Christ . . . .’¹¹¹ �is thought is intertwined with the thought of man being ‘under the law’ before Christ. Paul has earlier in the letter dealt with Gentiles and Jews separately, and . Betz, Galatians, pp. –. . For a discussion of this with bibliography, see Betz, Galatians, pp. –. . Siegert, Argumentation, p.  presents the argument in the following form, neglecting to elaborate all the implicit elements: the first premiss, ‘Wer in Christus ist, ist auch Abrahams Kind. (V. a)’; the second premiss, ‘Ihr seid alle in Christus. (V. c)’; and the conclusion, ‘Darum seid ihr auch Erben der Verheißungen, die an Abraham ergingen. (V. b)’. . Betz, Galatians, p. .

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: Heirs as minors, .a–  Heirs as minors are no better than slaves. �

. & .� Both heirs as minors and slaves [To be under guardians remain under guardians and trustees and trustees is equally until the date set by the father. bad for minors and slaves.]

Fig. .: Gentiles as heirs, .a–b  Gentiles are like heirs who are minors. �

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � .a � � � � � .b Heirs who are mi- �e Gentiles were nors are set under ‘set under’ the eleguardians and mental spirits of trustees. the world.

�

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � .a � � � � � � � .b Heirs who are minors Gentiles are are freed from their freed because guardians on the date God sent his set by their father. Son.

such a division would explain the argument here: Gentiles were enslaved by the elemental spirits, Jews were under the law. Betz suggests that .a refers to Jews and .b to Gentiles. . would then also refer to Gentiles, in spite of the inclusive ‘us’ (Paul was certainly a Jew) which can then be seen as a normal narrative figure of inclusion. �e standpoints and premisses in .– are as follows, see Table .. Of these, at least the following should probably be seen as unproblematic or redundant, and be deleted: –, , , and –� . �e most important for the dispute are  and . Strategic manoeuvring �e topics in .– are connected with the preceding sections: will, sonship, the law, slave and freeman. �e section draws an analogy from testamental practices comparing ‘us’, i.e. Paul and the Galatians before their conversion to Christ, with Fig. .: Heirs to the promise, .a–b  Gentile Christians are heirs according to the promise. �

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � .a � � � � � .b Gentile Christians �ose who belong belong to Christ. to Christ are heirs according to the promise.

�

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � .a � � � � � .b Gentile Christians God’s children are are God’s children. heirs according to the promise.

Analysis



Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .–     [] Heirs as minors are no better than slaves. (Fig. .) [] Both heirs as minors and slaves remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. (Figs . & .)  Gentiles are like heirs who are minors. (Fig. .) [] Heirs who are minors are set under guardians and trustees. (Fig. .)  �e Gentiles were enslaved by the elemental spirits of the world. (Fig. .)  Heirs who are minors are freed from their guardians on the date set by their father. (Fig. .)  God sent his Son in order to redeem those who were under the law.  God sent his Son so that ‘we’ might receive adoption as children. [] God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.  Gentiles are freed because God sent his Son. (Fig. .)  �ose who belong to Christ are heirs according to the promise. (Fig. .)  Gentile Christians are heirs according to the promise. [] Gentile Christians belong to Christ. (Fig. .) [] Gentile Christians are God’s children. (Fig. .) [] God’s children are heirs according to the promise. (Fig. .)   [� ] To be under guardians and trustees is equally bad for minors and slaves. (Fig. .)

heirs who are minors. It is a typical and simple rhetorical technique to first state a fact known by all (vv. –) and then to draw an analogy which through structural or other similarities with the stated fact creates credibility also for the contents of the analogy (vv. –). �e shi� from the second person plural to the second person singular in .a together with the expressive in .c creates the impression of personal relevance and intimacy of the matter. �e evocation of feelings related to some experience is a standard rhetorical technique. Paul continues using the techniques of association and dissociation, here illustrated with the pair slavery and sonship representing the old era and the new. �e law is associated with an old era and the promise is associated with a new one, the era of faith in Christ. �e new era was in . described with idealistic language of a new egality, while the old era is connected with words such as ‘minors’, ‘guardians’, ‘slaves’, and ‘weak and beggarly elemental spirits’. Fallacies and violation of rules Rules – �ere is no violation against Rule  in .–. �e argumentation in the section is a part of Paul’s main effort to defend his standpoints in relation to the other party and is thus also in line with Rule . Rules – Concerning this section it is not possible to evaluate the relevance of Rule . �e argumentation is directly relevant for Paul’s argumentation and thus well in line with Rule .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Rules – �e applicability of the unexpressed premiss and starting point rules are difficult to evaluate. Although Paul at the beginning of the passage adopts a lecture style where he presents all arguments as facts, it is still quite clear that these represent Paul’s personal view of these matters. �e judicial premiss about minors in .a– is unlikely to have been contested, though. Concerning the statement in .b, it may either be a view shared by Paul and the Galatians or an invention of Paul. Even if the latter is the case, it is unlikely that the Galatians would disagree with him. Rule  �e analogous argument scheme in Fig. . (p. ) is appropriate but not correctly applied. �e critical question for this type of scheme pinpoints the problem: Are there any significant differences between heirs as minors and slaves? Although there are similarities, there are also some self-evident differences, the most important being that slaves do not usually receive freedom as heirs do. �e analogy is thus problematic enough to render the whole argument problematic. Rule  �e argumentation is not in violation of Rule . However, even though the argumentation is consistent, some of the claims are based on premisses which are not conclusively demonstrated. Why are, for example, those who ‘belong to Christ’, ‘heirs according to the promise’? (.b, Fig. .). Whether these and other such premisses are problematic or not depends on the discussants. If they find the premisses that Paul supplies to be acceptable and sufficient, then also the arguments are acceptable. Rule  Rule  is not applicable to this section. Rule  �e phrase ‘elements of the world’ in .b is difficult for modern commentators, but may have been clear to Paul’s addressees. Otherwise there are no violations against Rule . Results Selecting only those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated with Table .. Of all the standpoints in the section,  and  are the central ones. �e section carries Paul’s argumentation forward with several illustrative examples. It contains well-thought-out examples. �e idea present in the earlier section, of an old and a new era, is carried forward. �e Galatians’ earlier situation is depicted with dark colours, whereas their new situation is one of redemption, sonship, and Spirit, leading to an almost primitive expressive, ‘Abba! Father!’ �e conclusion (.a–b) is not so much proven as forcefully advocated. Paul’s argument, here as before, rests on the underlying premiss that the law imprisons. �is idea would not have been accepted by all. �e way in which Paul intermingles argumentation based on Scripture, and examples from the life of the Galatians creates a whole which has a persuasive force even regardless of the standard of the individual arguments.

Analysis



Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  Gentiles are freed because God sent his Son. () – God sent his Son in order to redeem those who were under the law. () – �e Gentiles were enslaved by the elemental spirits of the world. () – Gentiles are like heirs who are minors. () – Heirs who are minors are freed from their guardians on the date set by their father. () – God sent his Son so that ‘we’ might receive adoption as children. ()  Gentile Christians are heirs according to the promise. () – �ose who belong to Christ are heirs according to the promise. ()

.

Gal. .–, Paul’s concern for the Galatians Division and preliminary remarks

. Ἀλλὰ τότε µὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς ϕύσει µὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς· .a νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, µᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ, .b πῶς ἐπιστρέϕετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα .c οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε; . ἡµέρας παρατηρεῖσθε καὶ µῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτούς, . ϕοβοῦµαι ὑµᾶς µή πως εἰκῇ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑµᾶς.

. But formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. .a Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, .b how can you turn back again to the weak and impotent elements of the world, .c whose slaves you want to become once more? . You are observing days, and months, and seasons, and years. . I am afraid for you, that my work for you may have been in vain.

�e style of the preceding sections, a series of assertives, continues with a section that includes several phrases, some of which are stylistically expressive, .b, .c, and . – all parts of a reproach of the Galatians. Once again we find expressives with a double function: expressives on the surface (the secondary speech act) but at the same time assertives in content (the primary speech act). �e assertives contain information relevant for the argument so they need to be included in the analysis. Detailed analysis �is section connects to the beginning of the whole section, .. �e same method of questioning is used in .– and in .. Paul’s preceding argumentation now reaches practical life. Paul claims that the Galatians are observing some cultic calendar (.) and that they thereby again subject themselves to the same elemental spirits from which they had been set free by Christ. Longenecker has the probatio section end with .,¹¹² whereas Betz ends it with ..¹¹³ It is true that . Longenecker, Galatians, p. vii. . Betz, Galatians, p. viii.

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: Slavery under the spirits, .–c  It is surprising that the Galatians want to turn back to slavery under the elemental spirits. �

. & .� �e Galatians were earlier en- [One usually does not want slaved by the elemental spirits. to turn back to slavery.]

Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .–      It is surprising that the Galatians want to turn back to slavery under the elemental spirits. (Fig. .)  �e Galatians were earlier enslaved by the elemental spirits. (Fig. .) [] �e Galatians observe special days, months, seasons, and years. (.)  Paul is afraid that his work for the Galatians may have been wasted. (.)   [� ] One usually does not want to turn back to slavery. (Fig. .)

the style from . onward is different from that of .–.. However, the section which contains the allegory at the end of Galatians , again contains arguments concerning the main themes of law and promise which are prominent in .–.. �ere are also parallels regarding birth ‘of a woman’ and ‘under the law’ and freedom between .– and .–. Since the argument thus continues a�er ., it does not seem helpful to consider the probatio section to end with .. �is does not change the fact that .– is different in nature from the surrounding argumentative passages. In . Paul rebukes the Galatians for wanting to ‘turn back’. �is is reminiscent of the rebukes in . and .. Here the rebuke is not as strong and makes good sense: it is difficult to understand why someone would like to return to slavery (see Fig. .). �e unexpressed premiss stands in a symptomatic relation to the claim: a former slave typically does not want to return to slavery. Certainly this is a rhetorical move since it is clear that no one would want to be enslaved. Paul’s presentation of the Galatians’ situation is probably different from their understanding of it. Clearly the Galatians found it commendable to observe special days, among other things. However, here, as earlier in Galatians , Paul wants to show that law-observance is incompatible with a life in Christ. �e standpoints and premisses in .– are as illustrated in Table .. Of these, the following are not important for the resolution of the dispute and can be deleted:  and � . Strategic manoeuvring A�er a long, heavy argumentative section, .– contains some pathos-elements, in vv.  and . �e topic of enslavement under the elements of the world may be

Analysis



Paul’s invention; by comparing the Galatians’ practices (.) with slavery under false gods, Paul discredits these practices. �e argument does not require that the Galatians considered themselves as formerly having been enslaved to ‘beings that by nature are not gods’. In the argument, a clear contrast is made between the former situation of the Galatians and their present one, which is a result of Paul’s work. �e accusation of being foolish (.) is echoed in the accusation of .b. �e presentation is clever since one usually does not want to return to a previous, lower, state of knowledge or development. By presenting the Galatians’ present considerations as belonging to an earlier state, and by presenting this state as very unattractive, the argument strengthens the appeal of the alternative, Paul’s gospel. �e section ends with a statement of an ethos- and pathos-character, v. . If the Galatians turn back to observance of some kind of cultic calendar they will contradict Paul’s work, i.e. his preaching, his gospel. Considering how the Galatians received Paul and valued his work, it would be sad had it all been in vain. Paul expresses great confidence in himself and expects that the Galatians will not question his authority. �e statement may attract a sense of regret or alarm among the addressees: are they truly on the verge of losing all that they have gained through Paul’s ministry? Fallacies and violation of rules Rules – �e section contains an important explanation of Paul’s understanding of man’s situation before and a�er Christ. Paul certainly does not feel prevented to present his side of the story even though some of Paul’s opinions must have offended those holding to the importance of the law. In this section, Paul has them ‘turn back to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits’ (.). In a critical discussion, however, strong contrary opinions are normal. Even though Paul’s argumentation here would have been offensive, it reflects his opinion and any opponents are free to respond. If the other party’s standpoint had to do with the benefit or importance of observing ‘days, and months, and seasons, and years’, then Paul’s argumentation does not allow for any true debate in this matter since he equates such observation with slavery under ‘weak and impotent “elements of the world”.’ In line with this, Paul presents his ‘work’ as the exclusive option – if the Galatians do not follow Paul in this matter, his work has been ‘in vain’. Again, we have the same tendency towards a violation against Rule  as in other sections of the letter. �e section does not give reason to comment on Rule . Rules – It seems that the other party has presented an observance of some cultic calender as important. Otherwise, Paul’s argumentation here does not make sense. �e kind of observance is not possible to determine, or how this has been presented by the other party. Paul’s argumentation seems to be in accordance with Rule . It is also in accordance with Rule .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

�e expressive style at the end of the section, .c–, does not really advance argumentation relating to Paul’s standpoint apart from the indirect statement that Paul considers observing special days, etc. to be tantamount to slavery. From a rhetorical perspective, however, such pathos arguments may well be valuable in an effort to persuade. Rules – �ere are no indications of any violation against Rule . It is not clear whether the Galatians considered their former existence as one of slavery under false gods or not. Nevertheless, Paul presents this as an accepted starting point. �ere may be a violation against Rule  here. �e unexpressed premisses in Paul’s arguments are well in line with his argumentation. In .c–d Paul presents as premisses that to follow the path of law-observance (evidently the suggestion which the Galatians have been given) equals slavery and turning ‘back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits’. �ese premisses would not have been accepted by the other party. �e logic of the passage is that turning to a law-abiding life is actually tantamount to turning to a life of slavery under the elemental spirits. Probably even Paul himself would deny this premiss, which seems more to be the result of an unhappy balancing of the argument than a reflection of Paul’s theological opinion. With Paul, it seems, law-observance is not a problem per se, but only as a necessary requirement for Christians. �is matter is obviously very important for Paul, which gives rise to hyperbolic argumentation. Rules – �e symptomatic argument scheme (Fig. .) is appropriate and correctly applied and the argumentation is coherent. Rule  Again, the section contains language suggesting that Paul would not retract his standpoints even if the other party were to present a conclusive defence (cf. .c–). �e section thus strengthens the earlier impression that Paul would not be prepared to retract his standpoint no matter what the defence of the other party. Rule  �e section does not contain formulations which, because of their ambiguity, would make the argumentation difficult. For instance, it is not decisive for the argumentation to know what is meant by the ‘weak and beggarly elemental spirits’. It is sufficient that Paul clearly conveys that he considers the situation of the Galatians to be dangerous and that choosing another alternative to the one he is presenting would be tantamount to giving in to ‘slavery’. �at modern commentators cannot identify the ‘elements of the world’ is not crucial for understanding the main point of the argumentation. �ese formulations were supposedly clear enough for their original addressees. Results Selecting only those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be

Analysis



Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  �e Galatians were earlier enslaved by the elemental spirits. ()  Paul is afraid that his work for the Galatians may have been wasted. () – It is surprising that the Galatians want to turn back to slavery under the elemental spirits. ()

illustrated by Table .. Of the standpoints in the section,  and  are the central ones. �e section continues the theme of then versus now in .–. �e rhetorical move in . makes use of the same approach as earlier: no one wants to turn back to an earlier stage of development. �e basis for the claim that the Galatians want to become slaves of the ‘elements of the world’ once more is not entirely convincing. From the observance of ‘days, and months, and years’ there is a long step to enslavement by the elements. However, this kind of exaggeration may well work rhetorically along the lines of ‘if you give them a finger they will take a hand’.

.

Gal. .–, Paul’s relationship with the Galatians Division and preliminary remarks

.a Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ, .b ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑµεῖς, ἀδελϕοί, δέοµαι ὑµῶν. .c οὐδέν µε ἠδικήσατε· . οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάµην ὑµῖν τὸ πρότερον, . καὶ τὸν πειρασµὸν ὑµῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί µου οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ µε, ὡς Χριστὸν ᾽Ιησοῦν. .a ποῦ οὖν ὁ µακαρισµὸς ὑµῶν; .b µαρτυρῶ γὰρ ὑµῖν ὅτι εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς ὀϕθαλµοὺς ὑµῶν ἐξορύξαντες ἐδώκατέ µοι. . ὥστε ἐχθρὸς ὑµῶν γέγονα ἀληθεύων ὑµῖν; .a ζηλοῦσιν ὑµᾶς οὐ καλῶς, .b ἀλλὰ ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑµᾶς θέλουσιν, ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε· . καλὸν δὲ ζηλοῦσθαι ἐν καλῷ πάντοτε καὶ µὴ µόνον ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί µε πρὸς ὑµᾶς.

.a Brothers, I beg you, become as I am, .b for I also have become as you are. .c You did me no wrong. . You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first preached the gospel to you. . And though my condition was a trial to you, you did not despise or reject me, but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. .a What then has become of your praise? .b For I testify on your behalf that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. . Have I now become your enemy for telling you the truth? .a �ey pay zealous court to you, but for no good. .b �ey intend to exclude you from us, in order that you would court them. . Yet, good is always to be courted in a good way, and not only when I am present with you.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians . τέκνα µου, οὓς πάλιν ὠδίνω µέχρις οὗ µορϕωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑµῖν· . ἤθελον δὲ παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἄρτι καὶ ἀλλάξαι τὴν ϕωνήν µου, ὅτι ἀποροῦµαι ἐν ὑµῖν.

. My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, . I wish I were present with you now and could change my voice, because I am perplexed about you.

�is section differs from the preceding sections. It contains several figures such as paradox, alliteration, rhetorical question, solemn declaration, exclamation, aphorism, paranomasia, and chiasm.¹¹⁴ It is not useful here to analyse these one by one; what is important to note is that from this diversity follows a loosening of the heavy argumentative style and a move from the logos type of arguments to ethos and pathos types of argument, thus anticipating the less logos-dominated (exhortatio) section in Galatians –. �e section begins with an appeal, the expressive of .a–b, followed by the assertives of .–. Verses  and  both begin with a rhetorical question which is clearly a pathos-element and I consider .a to be an expressive. �e rest of the unit consists of assertives. Detailed analysis �is is the only section in Gal. .–. where a standard argumentation analysis is not very helpful. Here Paul does not continue the logos type of argumentation about the law, but begins the section with words which belong to an entirely different mode of argumentation, as indicated by the first phrase, ‘Brothers, I beg you’. Such argumentation relates to ethos and pathos, and belongs to the realm of rhetorical analysis. �e difficulty of understanding the function of and the argumentation in this section is generally acknowledged and the traditional understanding is that Paul here loses control over the argument because he was ‘finally overwhelmed by his emotions’.¹¹⁵ Another interpretation is suggested by Betz, who here sees Paul making rhetorical use of the Hellenistic topos of friendship.¹¹⁶ Although this was a common theme in Hellenistic literature another interpretation could also be made:¹¹⁷ Paul here draws upon his ethos vis-à-vis the Galatians. Paul has already made clear that he is an example both in doctrine and in life (the incident in Antioch with Peter is especially designed to testify to this end). Paul reminds the Galatians that they were convinced of his authority when he visited them: they . Betz, Galatians, pp. –. . Betz, Galatians, p. . �e observation of Schlier, Galater, p.  is typical: ‘It is an argument of the heart and it is put forth with strong emotions which is clear from the irregular train of thought.’ (‘Es ist ein Argument des Herzens, das mit starkem Affekt vorgetragen wird, wie der sprungha�e Gedankengang verrät.’) See further Betz’s description of the traditional understanding of the passage. Betz himself is of the opinion that earlier commentators have failed to see the rhetorical use of such a passage. Betz, Galatians, pp. –. . Betz, Galatians, pp. –. . For further critique against Betz’s interpretation, see Kern, Assessing an Approach, pp. –; James D. G. Dunn, �e Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC, Peabody: Hendrickson, ), p. .

Analysis



Fig. .: �e Galatians’ goodwill, .–  �e Galatians felt goodwill towards Paul. �

. �e Galatians welcomed Paul as an angel of God.

�

. & �e Galatians did not scorn or despise Paul in spite of his physical infirmity.

.� [Not to scorn someone despite of a physical infirmity is a sign of goodwill.]

welcomed him as an ‘angel of God, as Christ Jesus’ (.) and they would have given him anything (.). �is can be illustrated by Fig. .. Premiss .� stands in a symptomatic relation to the standpoint. Because of the rhetoric contained in the captatio benevolentiae type appeal which begins the section of .–, the best indication in the passage of how Paul understands his relation to the Galatians is not found there, but at the end, in .–: Paul’s role is not that of an equal friend, but that of a father who is concerned with the well-being of his children. If Paul’s description of how positively the Galatians welcomed him during his visit is even fairly accurate, it would indeed seem strange to the addressees that this relationship could now turn into animosity (.). Paul takes the opportunity to once again cast the blame towards ‘they’ (.) who, according to Paul, only seek their own gain (.). �e section shows that Paul feels that he can afford to draw quite strongly upon his ethos, upon his authority as an apostle and as the one who ‘gave birth’ to the Galatians as Christians. Because of the change of character of the text from . to ., Longenecker believes that the exhortatio section begins with ..¹¹⁸ �e problem with this is that the following section, .–, again bears the same argumentative character as the preceding section, .–. Not until at . does the style of the argumentation definitively change. �erefore, it seems to me best to consider .– as a lighter insertion into the logos-dominant section than to have the paraenetic section begin with .. One can consider .– as something of an excursus, as Longenecker in fact does.¹¹⁹ For the standpoints and premisses in .–, see Table .. Unimportant for the dispute are probably –, , and � . Important for the dispute are probably –. Strategic manoeuvring �e section of .– is clearly composed with a rhetorical aim. It is a mixture of ethos- and pathos-elements which have no logical relevance for the argumentation . Longenecker, Galatians, p. vii. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. vii.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .–      �e Galatians should follow Paul’s example. [] �e Galatians have done Paul no wrong. [] �e Galatians know that it was because of a physical infirmity that he first announced the gospel to them. [] �e Galatians felt goodwill towards Paul. (Fig. .) [] �e Galatians did not scorn or despise Paul in spite of his physical infirmity. (Fig. .) [] �e Galatians welcomed Paul as an angel of God. (Fig. .) [] �e Galatians no longer show the same goodwill towards Paul.  Paul has told the Galatians the truth.  Paul’s antagonists have selfish motives for their ministry among the Galatians.  Paul is concerned with the Galatians’ spiritual well-being. [] Paul would like to be present among the Galatians.   [� ] Not to scorn someone despite of a physical infirmity and to welcome someone as an angel of God are signs of goodwill. (Fig. .)

in Gal. .–.. Paul draws upon the topos of friendship, testifying to his good intentions, his concern for the Galatians, and his truthfulness. At the same time he casts a dark shadow of suspicion over his antagonists and their selfish and cowardly purposes – a rhetorical move. Paul also makes use of the presentational device of not mentioning the opponents directly, but only by a verbal suffix. From a logical perspective, the section seems out of place in the argumentative section. However, the section provides a different perspective in the midst of heavy theological arguments by connecting them with the social reality of Paul and the Galatians. It also gives the intellect of the addressees a rest before the argument in .–, which is quite difficult, thus answering to an auditorial demand. �e section contains several figures and rhetorical techniques that give it the impression of emotional engagement. Regardless of Paul’s actual emotions, this style is well suited to refresh the attention of the reader or hearer. �e placement of the section is best explained as a way of creating variation in the long argumentative section – a presentational device – and thereby enhancing the reception of the next heavy argument of .– and at the same time preparing for the transition towards the Galatians’ social situation (from .).¹²⁰ Fallacies and violations of rules Rules – Paul’s ethos is strongly at the fore in this section. As is natural in persuasive argumentation, not only the facts but also the conveyors of the facts . For examples on the subject of the role of variation in a rhetorically devised speech according to classical rhetorical theory, see Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenscha� (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, rd edn, ), § ..

Analysis



play a role in the process of persuasion. �at Paul uses so much of the letter to defend himself (especially in Galatians –) suggests that his person was under attack. Paul’s weakness or ‘physical infirmity’ may have been used against him in the argument by the opposing party. Paul defends himself at .–, and then turns to attack the other party at .–. Paul’s standard of argumentation is in this respect no higher than the standard he attributes to his opponents. Rule  �e whole passage is a clear breach of the relevance rule. Paul’s ethos- and pathos-appeals may have a role in his argumentative strategy, but they do not advance the substance of his argumentation. In this sense, this passage is similar to .–. Rules – �e passage contains very little dialectical argumentation and the unexpressed premiss in the figure is unproblematic. It may be that someone had suggested that Paul had unclear motives for evangelizing the Galatians. �is would explain Paul’s (counter-)attack in .–. It may then be that the premiss in ., that ‘it was because of a physical infirmity’ that Paul first announced the gospel to the Galatians, had been disputed. Paul holds to his recollection of the situation and affirms that the premiss is undisputed on his part. Rule  In Fig. . (p. ) the premiss shows behaviour typical of those showing goodwill towards someone. �e symptomatic argument scheme is correctly applied and the argument is sound. Rule  �ere are no problems with logical validity in the arguments analysed in this section. Rule  Again, Paul indicates his standpoint to be the only correct one. He rhetorically draws upon his ethos in this section and depreciates his opponents (vituperatio: .–). Because of the clear inequality which Paul sees between himself and his antagonists in Galatia, it seems improbable that he would have been convinced of the correctness of their argumentation. Rule  �e section does not give rise to any problems in relation to the usage rule. Results Selecting only those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated by Table .. Of the standpoints in the section,  is the central one. �is unit shows the dynamic quality in Paul’s argumentation: he mixes logosdominated sections with ethos- and pathos-dominated ones. In a speech this is good practice. How does the section advance Paul’s argumentation? By drawing upon his ethos, Paul once more stresses his engagement with the well-being of the Galatians. By recollecting the reception he received among them and contrasting it against the current situation, he can raise the question of the source of the change: it is because of ‘they’ who ‘intend to exclude’ the Galatians from Paul and his following.

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  Paul has told the Galatians the truth. () – �e Galatians should follow Paul’s example. () – Paul’s antagonists have selfish motives for their ministry among the Galatians. () – Paul is concerned with the Galatians’ spiritual well-being. ()

Although the passage is a breach against the relevance rule, it defends its pertinence from a rhetorical perspective. It answers to the auditorial demand of variety and the presentational device of mixing logos-, ethos-, and pathos-elements.

.

Gal. .–, an allegory of Hagar and Sarah Division and preliminary remarks

.a Λέγετέ µοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόµον θέλοντες εἶναι, .b τὸν νόµον οὐκ ἀκούετε; . γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἀβραὰµ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. .a ἀλλ’ ὁ µὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, .b ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι’ ἐπαγγελίας. .a ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούµενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, .b µία µὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἁγάρ. . τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ· συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν ᾽Ιερουσαλήµ, δουλεύει γὰρ µετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. . ἡ δὲ ἄνω ᾽Ιερουσαλὴµ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν µήτηρ ἡµῶν· . γέγραπται γάρ· εὐϕράνϑητι, στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίϰτουσα, ῥῆξον ϰαὶ βόησον, ἡ οὐϰ ὠδίνουσα· ὅτι πολλὰ τὰ τέϰνα τῆς ἐρήµου µᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα. . ῾Υµεῖς δέ, ἀδελϕοί, κατὰ ᾽Ισαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ. . ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦµα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν. . ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραϕή; ἔϰβαλε

.a Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, .b do you not hear the law? . For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. .a �e one by the slave woman was born according to the flesh; .b the other, the one by the free woman, was born through the promise. .a �ese things have an allegorical meaning: these women are two covenants. .b One from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto slavery – this is Hagar. . Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, but it also corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she lives in slavery with her children. . By contrast, the Jerusalem above is free – this is our mother. . For it is written, ‘Rejoice, O barren one, who bears no children, break forth and cry aloud, you who have no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate one are more numerous than the children of the one who has a husband.’ . Now you, my brothers, are children of the promise, like Isaac. . And just as at that time the one born according to the flesh persecuted the one born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. . But what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast

Analysis τὴν παιδίσϰην ϰαὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ µὴ ϰληρονοµήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσϰης µετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευϑέρας. . διό, ἀδελϕοί, οὐκ ἐσµὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.



out the slave woman and her son; for the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son of the free woman.’ . So then, brothers, we are children, not of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Galatians  ends with one more argument from Scripture. �e section consists of assertives, apart from the first phrase, .a–b, which is an expressive, and the first half of the quotation from the Old Testament in ., which is also an expressive. �e reference to Scripture in . is not a quotation but a paraphrase of Gen. . and .–. (LXX). A tradition of interpretation, not the scriptural passages themselves, are here in focus. �e two sons, one born in slavery, the other in freedom, fit the dualism earlier in Paul’s argumentation. �at Abraham according to the Old Testament had more than two sons (Gen. .–) or that Paul himself earlier argued that Abraham only had one son (.–) is here set aside. Such inaccuracies are normal in allegorical interpretation and need not cause surprise unless the interpretation is used as a proof or premiss upon which crucial arguments are built. �e connection between Hagar and Mount Sinai is difficult, something reflected even on a text-critical level. None of the variants, or the explanations usually offered, are satisfactory. �e exact logic behind the argument does not seem to be important in the passage.¹²¹ Detailed analysis .a–b shows that Paul now intends to give yet another proof based on Scripture to support his argument. It is the final argument before the shi� to another theme and style beginning with .. �e conclusion, which the argumentation in .–  is intended to prove, is found in the last verse, .: ‘so then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman’. �is is the clearest part of the text: Paul ends his demonstration with the conclusion that, symbolically, Gentile Christians are the offspring of the ‘free woman’, Sarah, and not of the ‘slave woman’, Hagar. �e difficulty is to follow the argumentation leading up to the conclusion. �e difficulty in deciding is also how the allegory supports Paul’s argumentation. Should it be considered an important additional argument in favour of the new covenant over the old one or should it be seen as merely an a�erthought (the traditional opinion)? Does the conclusion in . end just the allegory in .–  or is it the conclusion of the whole argumentative section (Betz)?¹²² �ese different interpretations stem from the fact that it is difficult to see how the section . For a discussion, see Betz, Galatians, pp. –. . Betz, Galatians, pp. –. For bibliographical references to the traditional view, see Longenecker, Galatians, p. , who himself does not consider the section a part of probatio at all, but as a part of ‘appeals and exhortations’, which in Longenecker’s view begin with ..



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

fits in the argument at this point. It does not seem to be a good argument to end the argumentative section with – which supports the choice of including .– in the argumentative section. In fact, much of the difficulties that commentators have with this particular passage stem from the understanding that it concludes the argumentative section. For example, Elliot, with reference to rhetorical and epistolographical analyses, builds on the assumption that the section ‘ought to be a compelling piece in Paul’s overall argument’.¹²³ I will return to these questions in the section on strategic manoeuvring. �e argument utilizes the method of allegory (ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούµενα, .) or, rather, a mixture of allegory and typology.¹²⁴ Paul is not using allegory to detach the story from its historical context, but as an interpretational aid.¹²⁵ �e section begins with a question (.a–b); this is the same technique that Paul used in .–,¹²⁶ thus creating an image of dialogue between himself and the Galatians. �e dichotomy earlier in the letter between flesh and Spirit is here taken up as a dichotomy between flesh and promise which, as noted earlier,¹²⁷ is basically the same thing since the promise relates to the reception of the Spirit. In the allegory, Paul lets Ishmael, the son of Hagar, represent ‘the flesh’ and Isaac, the son of Sarah, represent ‘the promise’. �e deeper meaning of the tradition referred to in .– is explained in .– : the two women represent two different covenants, the old one and the new one. �e first part is clear enough: Hagar represents the old covenant, received by Moses on Mount Sinai, (see Fig. .). Premiss .b� stands in a causal relation to claim  as does premiss .b.� in relation to .b. �e line of thought is as follows: Ishmael was Hagar’s child. Hagar lived in slavery, as do those who live under the old covenant. �erefore Hagar can represent the old covenant allegorically: to live under the old covenant is like living in slavery (of the law). Ishmael was born into slavery as a matter of fact ; those who were born into the old covenant were allegorically born into slavery (of the law). In this sense Ishmael was born ‘according to the flesh’. Furthermore, the old covenant was made on Mount Sinai and the covenant from Mount Sinai represents Jerusalem, which is thus in slavery. �is is an unusual way of connecting some of the main concepts in Judaism, as Longenecker demonstrates: For Jews generally, the salvation–historical line of Scripture began with Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac, extended on through Moses and the Torah given . Susan M. Elliot, ‘Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians :–: in the Shadow of the Anatolian Mother of the Gods’, JBL () (), pp. – (). . Betz, Galatians, p. ; Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Hanson comments on Paul’s use of allegory that it is much closer to a Palestinian tradition than to an Alexandrian tradition: ‘[Paul] used allegory as an aid to typology, a method of interpreting the Old Testament which, however fanciful some of its forms may be, does at least regard history as something meaningful.’ R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London & Richmond, VA: SCM & John Knox, ), p. . . Betz, Galatians, p.  calls it interrogatio. . In Section ., p. .

Analysis



Fig. .: Ishmael ‘according to the flesh’, .–  Ishmael was born ‘according to the flesh’. �

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� .a � � � � � �.b & Ishmael was a Hagar was of the old child of Hagar. covenant, the one made on Mount Sinai.

.b� [To be born from a woman under the old covenant is to be born ‘according to the flesh’.]

�

.b. & Hagar lived in slavery.

.b.� [�ose of the old covenant lived in slavery.]

at Mt. Sinai, and came to focus in the present city of Jerusalem as the epitome of Israel’s hopes regarding the law, the land, and the temple . . . �is is how the Judaizers, evidently, set out associations as well. For Paul, however, slavery and freedom were the most important factors to be taken into consideration when asking how the various participants in salvation history were to be understood. So Paul, in what was undoubtedly a shocking realignment of personages and places in a Jewish understanding of salvation history, sets out the line of slavery as follows: Hagar and her son Ishmael, who have to do with Mount Sinai, are to be associated with the present city of Jerusalem and her children, from whence the Judaizers came. For, says Paul, Jerusalem, like Hagar, ‘is in slavery with her children.’¹²⁸

In contrast to this is the ‘other woman’, Sarah, who is free and corresponds to the heavenly Jerusalem, and who is ‘our mother’, a familiar Jewish designation of Jerusalem.¹²⁹ �e concept of a heavenly Jerusalem is well-known in Jewish apocalypticism.¹³⁰ Here it is juxtaposed with the earthly Jerusalem. Concerning the terminology, Betz observes that [i]t is also noteworthy that the concepts do not really say what Paul means: for him the two cities represent the sphere of the ‘flesh’ (σάρξ) and the ‘Spirit’ (πνεῦµα). Had he used his own terminology, Paul would call the ‘present’ Jerusalem ‘Jerusalem according to the flesh’ (κατὰ σάρκα), and the ‘heavenly’ Jerusalem ‘Jerusalem according to the Spirit’ (κατὰ πνεῦµα).¹³¹

Sarah’s son, Isaac, was born ‘of the promise’ which is to say that he was born ‘according to the Spirit’ (cf. .); on this see Fig. .. As in Fig. ., premiss .b� stands in a causal relation to  as does .b.� in relation to .b. In verse ., Paul repeats the claim that the Galatians are children of the promise, ‘like Isaac’. In support, Paul refers to the situation of the ‘children of . . . .

Longenecker, Galatians, p. . e.g. Ps. ; Isa. .–;  Ezra .; see also Longenecker, Galatians, p. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . Betz, Galatians, p. .

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: Isaac ‘through the promise’, .–  Isaac was born ‘through the promise.’ �

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� .a � � � � � �.b & .b� Isaac was a child Sarah represents the [To be born of a woman under of Sarah. new covenant, valid in the new covenant is to be born the heavenly Jerusalem. ‘through the promise’.] �

.b. & Sarah lived in freedom.

.b.� [�ose of the new covenant live in freedom.]

Fig. .: Children of the promise, .–  �e Galatians are children of the promise. �

. & .� �e Galatians are persecuted [Children of the promise are perseby those ‘according to the flesh’. cuted by those ‘according to the flesh’.] �

��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � .� .a � � � � � .� .b � � � � � � � .� .c Isaac was perseIsaac was a child Ishmael was a child cuted by Ishmael. of the promise. ‘according to the flesh’.

promise’ today (see Fig. .). Premiss .� stands in a symptomatic relation to the standpoint , and is backed up by the example of Isaac and Ishmael (premisses .� a, .� b, and .� c). �at Ishmael would have persecuted Isaac is not found in the Old Testament, but it is indicated in the Jewish haggadah with a reference to Gen. ..¹³² . more clearly sets out what has been implied earlier in .ff.: there are two separate ‘camps’: the one of the slave woman and her son and the one of the free woman and her son. �e son of the slave woman can have no share in the inheritance of the son of the free woman. Together with the words in ., that the present Jerusalem ‘lives in slavery together with her children’, the argument has been interpreted to indicate a clear deprecation of Judaism.¹³³ �is may, however, not be the case. Longenecker, for one, warns against reading too much into ., which is according to him not . Betz, Galatians, pp. –, also Longenecker, Galatians, p. ; both with scriptural and bibliographical references. . e.g. Betz, Galatians, pp. –; Schlier, Galater, p. ; �eodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, IX; Leipzig: A. Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Nachf., ), p. .

Analysis



so much directed against Jewish Christians or Jews, but ‘the message is really to be seen as directed against the troublers of the Galatian believers, and so the Galatian believers should “cast out” the Judaizers and their influence from the Christian congregations of Galatia’.¹³⁴ A different interpretation is made by Bachmann, who concludes that the attack here should not be seen as an attack against Paul’s antagonists, but as a warning aimed at the Galatians not to accept a Judaizing message.¹³⁵ Bachmann reaches this conclusion by noting that the goal of the passage is stated in . and .: freedom from the demands of the law. Bachmann argues that since . is clearly directed towards the addressees, and not towards any antagonists, it shows that any antagonism with any group of people was not intended in .–. Another explanation is provided by taking a look at Paul’s rhetorical strategy. As seen earlier, Paul operates with dichotomies, association and dissociation, and vilification. Even though the Christian freedom of the Galatians is Paul’s main concern, he does not show any diplomatic intentions concerning any group or influence that could be put to argumentative use, for example as a rhetorical scapegoat for the disturbing tendencies among the Galatians. It would not be impossible for Paul, for the sake of argument, to paint a black and white picture once again: a Judaism under the slavery of the law and a Christianity in the freedom of the promise. However, that such an argument serves only as an instrument in Paul’s main argument does not relieve him of accountability for such statements; it only puts them in the right perspective: Paul’s main argument concerns the freedom of the Galatians. As a part of this argument, Paul strongly rejects any Judaizing teaching and, because of this rejection, Judaism as a whole tends to be unfavourably presented, in part because of the quotations used from Scripture concerning central characters in Judaism. Since the context is an argument by allegory, a symbolic interpretation of Paul’s use of Scripture in . is warranted. Stanley captures this well: By the time Paul reaches v. , the historical particularities of the narrative have long since given way to what he regards as the typical features of each character. . . . the Galatians are urged to ‘cast out the servant-girl and her son,’ i.e. to leave behind once for all the covenant of ‘flesh’ and ‘slavery’ with all its trappings and order their lives as truly free ‘sons’ of God (cf. .–, .).¹³⁶

�e conclusion in . seems natural in light of the argumentation, not only in .–, but of the whole of Galatians –, which deals with the question of the true children and heirs of Abraham (the explicit question of .–). It is, however, difficult to see how .– could be the strongest argument of all those presented in Galatians –. Although the allegory connects important . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Michael Bachmann, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief?: Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur �eologie des Apostels Paulus (NTOA, ; Freiburg, Schweitz & Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg & Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ), pp. –. . Stanley, Language, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

themes in an inventive manner, it is not done logically and convincingly, but rather has more of an associative force. Only one proper argument in .– is presented in support of the conclusion, v.  (Fig. .): that the Galatians are persecuted (which the argument requires in order to make sense) is evidence that they are children of the promise since Isaac, the foremost child of promise in Jewish thought, was also persecuted. However, I find no need to imagine a situation in which the allegory would have made perfect sense for the Galatians, with all connections and concepts being quite clear to them.¹³⁷ Such forced theories are only needed if one follows an understanding based on classical rhetorical analysis according to which this is the last argument in the argumentative section, and, as such, it needs to be the strongest one.¹³⁸ �e standpoints and premisses in .– are displayed in Table .. �e details of the allegory are not important; the following can be deleted: –, and –. �e most important are – and � –� . Strategic manoeuvring �e rhetorical significance of this section is difficult to determine. Is it a somewhat misplaced a�erthought,¹³⁹ a repetition,¹⁴⁰ or a grand finale?¹⁴¹ Usually, a clear argument is better than an unclear one. In a rhetorically loaded text, however, ambiguity can also be used favourably. We have noticed in earlier sections that Paul can make use of any ambiguity in Old Testament quotations, making full use of topical potential. �e section of .– contains several allusions to Old Testament texts as well as a few quotations. �e theme of a division between law and promise, slavery and freedom, old and new, is continued here. If we see the passage as representing the genus grande,¹⁴² it could be seen as a strong ending to the long argumentative section. �e strength would be created by the presence of the two big themes, law and promise, represented by two women. In Paul’s argument, the two women represent something even greater, two covenants, two mountains, and even the two Jerusalems, the present . Contra Elliot, ‘Anatolian Gods’, who suggests that the issue confronting the Galatians ‘is not only about circumcision and the law but also about the Mother of the Gods, who towers over the Galatians’ world’. According to Elliot, circumcision would in this context clearly be analogous to the self-castration of the Galli. Elliot, ‘Anatolian Gods’, p. . . Elliot builds her analysis upon such an understanding, supported by Betz, Galatians, pp. – ; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, pp. –; Smit, ‘Galatians’, pp. –; and Hall, ‘Rhetorical Outline’, pp. –. �ese analyses all build on the assumption that Paul’s argumentation, including its structure, should be explained within the framework of some sort of classical rhetorical theory. . Oepke, Galater, p. . . Schlier, Galater, p. . . Betz, Galatians, pp. –, who considers . to be the last verse of the argumentative section. . To borrow the terminology from classical rhetorical theory where three genera dicendi are distinguished: genus subtile, genus medium, and genus grande. Typical of the last-mentioned is the choice of exalted objects and metaphors. It is o�en performed in a pathetic manner. Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ –.

Analysis



Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .– [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []   [] [] [] � � � � �

    Ishmael was born ‘according to the flesh’. (Fig. .) Ishmael was a child of Hagar. (Fig. .) Hagar is of the old covenant, the one made on Mount Sinai. (Fig. .) Hagar lived in slavery. (Fig. .) Isaac was born ‘through the promise’. (Fig. .) Isaac was a child of Sarah. (Fig. .) Sarah represents the new covenant, valid in the heavenly Jerusalem. (Fig. .) Sarah lived in freedom. (Fig. .) �e Galatians are children of the promise. (Fig. .) �e Galatians are persecuted by those ‘according to the flesh’. (Fig. .) Isaac was persecuted by Ishmael. (Fig. .) Isaac was a child of the promise. (Fig. .) Ishmael was a child ‘according to the flesh’. (Fig. .)   �e old covenant was ‘according to the flesh’. (Fig. .) �ose of the old covenant lived in slavery. (Fig. .) �e new covenant is made ‘through the promise’. (Fig. .) �ose of the new covenant live in freedom. (Fig. .) Children of the promise are persecuted by those ‘according to the flesh’. (Fig. .)

and the heavenly. Such imagery is well suited to arouse emotions, making full use of the allegory as a presentational device. In this connection, the strong appeal to drive out the slave woman would probably be connected in the minds of the addressees with Paul’s unexpressed appeal to ‘drive out’ all teaching foreign to his gospel. . should be seen as a warning, connecting with Paul’s earlier warning regarding different gospels (.–): those who follow them will not inherit. However, since the section contains difficult concepts and obscure analogies, it is improbable that Paul would have intended the argumentative section to end with this allegory. It is probable that the allegory is just yet another argument of a different type in Paul’s long list of arguments in favour of his position. A�er this abstract passage, Paul in the next section returns to a concrete summary of what the whole argument is about. Understood in this way, the passage is less of a problem than it is traditionally. Fallacies and violations of rules Rules – Section .– continues Paul’s argumentation in defence of his understanding of the matters being debated. Rules – As throughout the whole letter, it is difficult to conjecture about what possible arguments Paul may have been responding to here. Concerning the Hagar–Sarah allegory, there are, however, some hints that Paul is responding



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

to an argument. Barrett points out the following two indications for this:¹⁴³ () the introductory formula, γέγραπται (‘it is written’), does not, as usual with Paul, introduce a biblical quotation here,¹⁴⁴ but a paraphrase of several passages in Genesis, which indicates that some argument had already been based on these passages, and was thus familiar to the Galatians;¹⁴⁵ () the main characters of the story are not clearly presented (Hagar appears first in .b–), they are referred to with descriptive epithets only (e.g. ., ‘the free woman’; ., ‘the one who is married’), or they are not mentioned at all (Sarah and Ishmael are not mentioned by name). �e wording suggests that the story has already been put before the Galatians.¹⁴⁶ �e argument may have been that only Isaac was the true son of Abraham, as Longenecker interprets: In explicating their position, the Judaizers undoubtedly claimed that Paul’s preaching represented an ‘Ishmaelian’ form of truth. �eir argument probably was that while Ishmael was, indeed, the first son of Abraham, it was only Isaac who was considered the true son of Abraham, with the conclusion being that only as Paul’s converts are related to Isaac and so the Jewish nation, and not Ishmael the non-Jewish representative, can they legitimately be called ‘sons of Abraham’.¹⁴⁷

�e view of Barrett and Longenecker is that Paul’s argument in .– originates with his opponents in the sense that they raised the argument of Abraham’s ‘true children’, thereby making use of the Hagar–Sarah allegory to demonstrate somehow the primacy of Isaac over Ishmael in a way that underlined the importance of the law. Paul wanted to answer with a different interpretation of the same allegory, showing that Isaac represented the promise, not the law. If this is the reason for Paul’s use of the allegory in his argumentation, it would explain the difficult argument to a certain extent, or, as Longenecker puts it: ‘Paul is using the Hagar–Sarah story in an ad hominem fashion, and so his purposes and procedures must be seen in that light and not treated as the climax of his argument or as his own preferred procedure.’¹⁴⁸ �is makes sense; it would not have been Paul’s choice of argument, but he wanted to use it because his opponents had used it, and Paul saw the possibility of using the same allegory in making the opposite point to that of his antagonists. Rules – �e unexpressed premisses in Paul’s arguments are here unproblematic from the perspective of Paul’s line of argumentation. Many of the premisses are problematic, though, as starting points for argumentation: Abraham had more . C. K. Barrett, ‘�e Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians’, in J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann and P. Stuhlmacher (eds), Rechtfertigung: Festschri� für Ernst Käsemann (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, ), pp. – (). . Cf. Ellis, Paul’s Old Testament, pp. –, –. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Barrett, ‘�e Allegory’, p. . . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Longenecker, Galatians, p. .

Analysis



than two sons; why would the two women allegorically be two covenants; why would they represent mountains and cities; and does Paul use the quotation in . correctly? Because of many unclear elements, this section is most problematic from the perspective of the starting point rule.

�

Rule  �e section contains four causal connections, .b  in both Figs . and ., and in the same figures .� b.� .b. Concerning the former figure (.), the critical questions would be: Does being born from a woman under the old covenant always lead to being born ‘under the flesh’? and (for premiss .b.� ): Does living in slavery always lead to being of the old covenant? In this context, and from Paul’s point of view, the answer would be affirmative. Consequently the argument schemes are correctly applied. However, his deprecation of the law through the phrase ‘according to the flesh’ would not have been accepted by the other party, rendering the arguments unsound. �e positive arguments in Fig. . are appropriate and correctly applied and the arguments sound as a whole. �e other figure (., p. ) has one symptomatic argument scheme and for this the critical question is: Are there others who are also being persecuted by those ‘according to the flesh’? Perhaps so, but in the context those groups can be considered marginal – the scheme is correctly applied. However, when we look more closely at the content of ‘children of the promise’, there is a problem. In Paul’s argument, Isaac is used to symbolize a Christian, a child of the promise. However, Isaac lived under the old covenant and cannot be said to be a proto-Christian, rendering the simile incomplete and the argument problematic.

�

Rule  Logical validity is not to the fore here. �is is not to say that the argumentation would be logically unsound, but the type of argumentation that uses allegory is difficult to analyse in the terms of logical validity. However, Paul draws several conclusions from the allegorical interpretation. In the analysis this argumentation is illustrated by three figures which depend on premisses that are not sufficiently argued for. Most prominently, that Isaac was born ‘according to the Spirit’ and Ishmael ‘according to the flesh’ is stated but not supported. Rule  Paul here continues his technique of creating a divide between his standpoint and the one of his antagonists. �e language in .– is strongly deprecatory against both Jews and ‘Judaizers’, although probably only the latter is intended. Rule  As mentioned in the analysis, this section contains difficult formulations, especially in .a–. In fact, the whole argumentation in this section is difficult to interpret. �us, the section is in violation of the usage rule. Results Selecting those standpoints and premisses which were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated by Table .. Of the standpoints in the section, , � , and  are the central ones.

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  �e Galatians are persecuted by those ‘according to the flesh’. () – Children of the promise are persecuted by those ‘according to the flesh’. ( � )  �ose of the old covenant lived in slavery. (� ) – �e old covenant was ‘according to the flesh’. (� )  �e Galatians are children of the promise. () – �ose of the new covenant live in freedom. (� ) – �e new covenant is made ‘through the promise’. (� )

�is is the most intriguing section in Gal. .–.. �e analysis indicates that the function of the the Hagar–Sarah allegory here is to add yet another type of support for Paul’s argument about the supremacy of the promise in relation to the law. It is not a logos-argument, but clearly one which builds upon pathos. Is it a good argument? Seen from a dialectical perspective, the argumentation is weak. �e examples seem far-fetched and the analogies unconvincing. Rhetorically, the imagery is thought-provoking and emphasizes once again the importance Paul ascribes to the matter at hand: will the Galatians choose the ‘earthly’ or the ‘heavenly’ alternative? �e position of the argument has been debated. It is different from both the preceding and the succeeding argumentation. It seems to me that since the function of the section is rhetorical and of a pathos character, it should be seen as giving a psychologically ‘heightened’ argument before the section of .–. It seems a good idea to heighten the style to genus grande at this point of the argumentation. �is analysis offers an alternative interpretation to those who present .– as the closing argument in the argumentative section of the letter. Such an understanding is not supported by the way the argument unfolds.

.

Gal. .–, freedom versus circumcision Division and preliminary remarks

.a Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡµᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν· .b στήκετε οὖν καὶ µὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε. . ῎Ιδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέµνησθε, Χριστὸς ὑµᾶς οὐδὲν ὠϕελήσει. . µαρτύροµαι δὲ πάλιν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεµνοµένῳ ὅτι ὀϕειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόµον ποιῆσαι. . κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόµῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε.

.a For freedom Christ has set us free. .b Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. . Look, I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. . Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the whole law. . You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Analysis . ἡµεῖς γὰρ πνεύµατι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόµεθα. . ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ οὔτε περιτοµή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουµένη. . ᾽Ετρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑµᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ µὴ πείθεσθαι; . ἡ πεισµονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑµᾶς. . µικρὰ ζύµη ὅλον τὸ ϕύραµα ζυµοῖ. .a ἐγὼ πέποιθα εἰς ὑµᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο ϕρονήσετε· .b ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑµᾶς βαστάσει τὸ κρίµα, ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ. . ᾽Εγὼ δέ, ἀδελϕοί, εἰ περιτοµὴν ἔτι κηρύσσω, τί ἔτι διώκοµαι; ἄρα κατήργηται τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ. . ῎Οϕελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑµᾶς.



. For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. . For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything – only faith working through love. . You were running well; who got in your path toward obeying the truth? . Such persuasion does not come from him who calls you. . ‘A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough.’ .a I am confident about you in the Lord that you will take no other view. .b But whoever it is that is confusing you will bear his judgment. . But my brothers, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the ‘stumbling block of the cross’ has been removed. . As for those who unsettle you, they had better [go the whole way and] castrate themselves!

�e section consists mostly of assertives, with one exhortation, a directive, at .b and one expressive at .. �e word ‘freedom’ in . connects with the preceding section (‘the free woman’ in ., , , ), and some have understood .a to be the conclusion of the Hagar–Sarah allegory.¹⁴⁹ However, . also clearly starts a new section. �ere is no transitional phrase or connecting particle. For this reason most commentators see it as the heading of a new section. Others understand it as both a summary of .– and a preface to .–. I agree with Longenecker’s theory that it seems best to understand .a as a kind of summary of all that has been argued above, and to understand .b– as a section in which Paul presents the concluding remarks of the whole argumentation in Galatians –.¹⁵⁰ In addition, .– functions as a bridge between the heavy argumentative section and the paraenetical section. For instance, ‘freedom’ and ‘love’ are found both in .– and in .–. �at the exhortatory section definitely begins with . is signalled by both epistolary and linguistic conventions, such as the reiteration of the statement about freedom in . and the vocative ἀδελϕοί (‘brothers!’).¹⁵¹ �e section naturally falls into two parts, vv. – and –. �e latter part is very different from any earlier section in Gal. .–. as it consists of short phrases which are only loosely connected to each other. . For bibliographic references, see Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Longenecker, Galatians, p. . . Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, pp. –.

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: No circumcision, .–  �e Galatians should not become circumcised. �

. Circumcision nullifies the benefit of Christ.

�

. Circumcision leads to slavery.

& ..� [Works of law nullify the benefit of Christ.]

.. Circumcision leads to an obligation to keep the whole law.

�

.. Circumcision is a work of the law.

�

& .� [�at which nullifies the benefit of Christ, should not be done.]

& .� [�at which leads to slavery should be rejected.]

. ‘In Christ’, circumcision is not important, faith is.

& ..� [To be obliged to obey the whole law is tantamaount to slavery.]

.. We await righteousness through faith, not law.

�

& .� [One should not do that which is not important ‘in Christ’.]

�

& ..� [Only that through which one awaits righteousness is important ‘in Christ.’]

Detailed analysis In the Introduction I made the decision to include .– in the analysis. �is is in line with many commentators who undertake a traditional analysis.¹⁵² Betz’s decided to exclude .– from the argumentative section and to include it in the paraenetical section, or exhortatio section of .–..¹⁵³ His decision is based on a rhetorical analysis of the composition of the letter. Betz’s method is based on classical rhetorical practices which yields a different result than a traditional exegesis,¹⁵⁴ or an argumentation analysis. �e first six verses focus on the main theme of the whole argumentative section: circumcision. Paul once again presents arguments against the need for circumcision among the Galatians. All arguments support the one claim, that the Galatians should not become circumcised (v. ). Six arguments are given, and these can be presented as a multiple argument, as in Fig. .. Most of the argument schemes are causal (.� , .� , .� , ..� , and ..� ); one is analogous (..� ). . is the key verse in the passage. Paul has earlier dealt with the topic of circumcision, but this is the clearest instance where Paul’s intention surfaces: the Galatians should not introduce the practice of circumcision. �e force of . e.g. Mußner, Galater; Oepke, Galater; Schlier, Galater; Zahn, Galater; Eckert, Paulus’ Gegnern; and Merk, ‘Der Beginn’, who gives a clear account of the problem, with bibliographical references. See also Meeks, ‘Review of Betz’ Galatians’ who against Betz also favours this division. . Betz, Galatians, pp. –. . Cf. Schlier, Galater, p. .

Analysis



the verse is strengthened with the emphatic way in which Paul introduces the argument: ῎Ιδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑµῖν (‘Look, I, Paul, tell you’). At this point we can finally confirm that a warning against circumcision is indeed Paul’s message to the Galatians. In Fig. ., the premisses (., ., .) to the main claim () are in themselves strong claims, and these have to be seen in light of the preceding argumentation from . onward. Paul’s view of circumcision is based on the substance of Christ’s redemption: it is in itself enough for righteousness. Any deviation from this view is to deny the basis of redemption. Paul’s ethics are not a question of bettering oneself in relation to righteousness but a natural result of redemption and ‘walking in the spirit’ (.) as well as a safeguard against losing what has been gained; in Betz’s words, ‘the ethical task is the prevention of the loss of salvation’.¹⁵⁵ Contrastingly, the view that Paul opposes assigns the law a role in becoming a Christian and/or in living as one. .– summarize Paul’s argumentation so far in the letter. �e arguments have been given earlier, some of them with lengthy explanations – especially the argument concerning the relationship between law and faith. Fig. . shows that the argumentation here is in accordance with Paul’s earlier argumentation in the letter. Consequently, the same problems remain. Again, it is clear that, in Paul’s view, circumcision is a work of the law that leads to an obligation to keep the whole law, which in turn leads to slavery and nullifies the benefit of Christ, since his grace cannot be based on any works of the law. Should we draw a clear line between an argumentative section and a paraenetical section at . and .?¹⁵⁶ �e reason for making a division between an argumentative section and a paraenetic one at ./. is mainly that .a seems abrupt: there is no transitional phrase or particle. �is indicates the beginning of a larger new section, not just another argument as part of the argumentative section. However, another explanation has also been offered: .a can be seen as the conclusion to the Hagar–Sarah allegory, and .b as the beginning of a new paragraph. .b contains the inferential particle οὖν (‘therefore’), which then can be seen as being drawn not only from .a, but from the section which contains the Hagar–Sarah allegory. . clearly starts a new section, connecting to .– with the call to freedom and with the conjunction γάρ (‘for’). Although the transition between . and . seems from a linguistic point of view rather strong for the beginning of just another subsection of the argumentative section, the contents of .– support an inclusion of the section: �e connections between .– and the preceding argumentation are many, both in terminology and in the arguments themselves. Although it is true that .b– contains two exhortatory phrases (‘stand firm’ and ‘if you become circumcised’), . Betz, Galatians, p. . . I am referring to Betz’s conclusion: ‘�e last part of the body of the Galatian letter (:–:) consists of exhortation, paraenesis. �is much can be said in spite of the difficulties arising from a discussion of the matter.’ Betz, Galatians, p. .

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians



Fig. .: Not under God’s influence, .–  �e Galatians are not under God’s influence. �

. & �e Galatians are not on the path toward obeying the truth.

.� [�ose who are not on the path toward obeying the truth are not under God’s influence.]

Fig. .: Not preaching circumcision, .  Paul is not preaching circumcision. �

. & Paul is being persecuted.

.� [�ose preaching circumcision are not being persecuted.]

other such phrases that relate to the Galatians’ situation are also found earlier in the letter (e.g. .–, .–). �at Paul is moving away from the logos-dominated section becomes clear with .–. A�er the condensed summary-like portion of vv. –, the following section is not only different in relation to .– but to the whole of .–.. It is closest to .– in that it does not exhibit the same argumentative style as the rest of .–.. Betz describes vv. – as ‘freer, appearing like a rambling collection of pointed remarks, rhetorical questions, proverbial expressions, threats, irony, and, climaxing it all, a joke of stark sarcasm’.¹⁵⁷ To clarify how these two sections relate to the previous argumentation, and why the latter section should be seen as a part of the argumentative section at all is traditionally considered difficult. Verses – contain two arguments, one in vv. – and one in v. . Also v.  contains a claim and v.  contains two. �ese are, however, not argumentation proper since the former is a known proverb without any presented premisses and the latter is not of a logos character, but more of a pathos character (‘I am confident about you’ and ‘. . . will bear his judgment’). �e argument in vv. – can be presented as in Fig. . and the argument in v.  as in Fig. .. In both, the argument scheme is symptomatic. In . Paul turns directly towards the Galatians, reproaching them for deviating from the path toward obeying the truth. �is brings . to mind: ‘I am astonished that you are so quick to desert the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel’. Next, in vv. –, b, Paul shi�s the blame onto someone who is trying to ‘persuade’ and ‘confuse’ the Galatians in a negative way. Paul clearly distances himself from this lot. .b (‘But whoever it is . Betz, Galatians, p. .

Analysis



that is confusing you will bear his judgment.’) brings v. . to mind (‘some who are confusing you’) as well as the threat in v. . (‘if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!’). In . Paul defends himself. �e statement about Paul still preaching circumcision is odd. �e whole letter makes it quite clear that Paul is not preaching circumcision. �e only explanation that makes sense is that Paul himself has been accused of preaching circumcision. Perhaps the accusation highlights an inconsistency – that Paul still preached circumcision to Jewish Christians while he warned the Gentile Christians against it.¹⁵⁸ �e letter is filled with arguments against such a practice, but in addition Paul points to the improbability of his being persecuted (by Jews) if he were still to preach circumcision. A�er having thus briefly defended himself, he makes a counter-attack, thereby indicating his disregard for those who ‘unsettle’ (and negatively ‘persuade’ and ‘confuse’) the Galatians: he would like to see the knife slip on them!¹⁵⁹ .– contains two allusions to the beginning of the letter (. & ., .b & .). Mainly based on this, Longenecker suggests that .– and .– form an inclusio for Paul’s treatment of the ‘judaizing threat’.¹⁶⁰ �is categorizing is not very helpful since the connections between .– and .–/ are also plentiful as well as the connections between .–. and .–.. �e primary question from an argumentation analysis perspective is how .– should best be understood in the structure of the argumentation in Galatians. �e analysis above has already established the following: (a) .b– connect closely with .–.a, functioning as a summary, restating Paul’s main message: the Galatians should not give in to circumcision; (b) although .– concerns the same topic, it connects more with .– than with .–.; (c) . starts a new section and .– can be seen as an introduction to .–.. �e conclusions to draw from this are: (i) the structure of the argumentation is not very clear here; (ii) it is better to refer .– to the argumentative section than to the paraenetic section, mainly because of .–, but also because of the references in .– to the main issues stated already in .–; (iii) .– has a transitional function between the argumentative section proper and the paraenetical section proper, or, as I tentatively proposed . D. Hans Lietzmann, An Die Galater (HNT, ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), th edn, ), p. . . �is interpretation catches the jest, cf. Betz, Galatians, p. . Any reference to an influence of the cult of Cybele–Attis is improbable, see Hans von Campenhausen, ‘Ein Witz des Apostels Paulus und die Anfänge des christlichen Humors’, in Neutestamentlichen Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zum . Geburtstag am . August  (BZNW, ; Berlin, ), pp. – (). See also Jakob Jónsson, Humour and Irony in �e New Testament Illuminated by Parallels in Talmud and Midrash (Beihe�e der Zeitschri� für Religions- und Geistesgeschihte, XXVIII; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ), pp. , – . Jónsson comments that ‘[h]ere Paul’s irony turns into rough and brutal sarcasm and he seems to lose control of himself ’. Jónsson, Humour & Irony, p. . �e key word here is ‘seems’. As in previous instances, it is difficult to distinguish whether an expression conveys Paul’s true emotions or the emotions he wishes to convey. In light of the many rhetorical moves in the letter, I generally find the latter to be more probable. . Longenecker, Galatians, p. .



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: Standpoints and premisses in .–          [] [] [] [] [] []  [� ] [� ] [� ] � � [� ] [� ] [� ]

    �e Galatians should not become circumcised. (Fig. .) Circumcision nullifies the benefit of Christ. (Fig. .) Circumcision leads to slavery. (Fig. .) ‘In Christ’, circumcision is not important, faith is. (Fig. .) Circumcision is a work of the law. (Fig. .) Circumcision leads to an obligation to keep the whole law. (Fig. .) To justify oneself by law leads to falling away from grace. We await righteousness through faith, not law. (Fig. .) In Christ Jesus only faith working through love is important. �e Galatians are not under God’s influence. (Fig. .) �e Galatians are not on the path toward obeying the truth. (Fig. .) Little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. Paul is confident that the Galatians will adopt his view. Whoever who is confusing the Galatians will bear his judgment. Paul is not preaching circumcision. (Fig. .) Paul is being persecuted. (Fig. .)   �at which nullifies the benefit of Christ, should not be done. (Fig. .) �at which leads to slavery should be rejected. (Fig. .) One should not do that which is not important ‘in Christ’. (Fig. .) Works of the law nullify the benefit of Christ. (Fig. .) To be obliged to keep the whole law is tantamount to slavery. (Fig. .) �at through which one awaits righteousness is important ‘in Christ’. (Fig. .) �ose who are not on the path toward obeying the truth are not under God’s influence. (Fig. .) �ose preaching circumcision are not being persecuted. (Fig. .)

in Table . (p. ), it functions as a summary of the main logos section and a transition to the main pathos section. �e standpoints and premisses in .– are as in Table .. Of these –, � –� , and � –� can be deleted as redundant or less important for the main argument. �e most important are – and –. Strategic manoeuvring Section .– connects with the main topics in .ff.: slavery, circumcision, obeying the law, the Spirit, faith, righteousness, ‘those’ who have a negative influence on the Galatians, and Paul’s correct view. A new topic, ‘freedom’, is introduced in .a. �e importance of freedom is then restated at .. �is gives the passage a transitional character: it restates the central topics of .–. and at the same time paves the way for the different section of . ff. Section .– makes good use of the topical potential. Once again Paul uses warning as a presentational device in .–. Here the warning is strong, as in the beginning of the letter.

Analysis



Why does Paul change his style in .–? From the argumentative style of the preceding section, he changes to a freer, more rapid pathos type of argumentation – these verses contain only one argument proper (the one at v. ). �e structure becomes considerably clearer if we omit vv. –. Could these verses be some kind of a less-thought-out insertion between arguments? Concerning .–, which is the only other section in .–. that seems out of place, the different style could be explained by a consideration of the context: .– functions as a ‘relief ’ a�er the long and heavy argumentation that preceded it. With .– this cannot be the case: both surrounding sections are easy enough to understand, albeit they are important and central for Paul’s message. An explanation from the realm of rhetoric would be the practice of alternating different types of arguments and segments of speech with each other. Certainly vv. – enhance the effect of what follows. �e argumentation is again concise and well structured from . onward, and this is enhanced by the impromptu character of .–. �is interpretation is very favourable; vv. – do not function well as a presentational device and are unstructured as to the topical potential. Even if these verses may or may not contain issues which need to be addressed (e.g. is Paul preaching circumcision?), this is not a good place to address such an auditorial demand since it confuses the flow of the argument. �e contents of vv. – are mainly a vilification of Paul’s antagonists – a popular topic for Paul. As Paul moves towards the paraenesis of .ff., he shi�s from logos towards ethos and pathos. �is shi� occurs in .–. Paul once again questions the Galatians’ choices and sets himself up as an example. Furthermore, he once again criticizes the doings of those who teach or think unlike himself. �e section ends with a joke. �e effect of a joke at the end of a section is that it creates a pause – a presentational device – a�er which it is easy to begin a new thread of thought, which is the case here. Following this, the best that can be said about .– from the perspective of strategic manoeuvring is that it is () a transition from the logos section to the pathos section; () a conclusion of the logos section with a reminder of the seriousness of the matter, echoing the exordium of .–; and that () it rhetorically opens the next section by creating relief and a pause with the final joke. Fallacies and violations of rules Rule  What has already been said earlier about Paul’s mode of argumentation being anything but inviting open discussion can also be said for .–. �e allusions to the curse and the only true gospel in .– makes .– a communicatively closed argumentation: Paul is correct; the other party is only negatively persuading and confusing in wait for God’s judgment. �e ridiculing effect of the joke hinders an open discussion. Rules – In v. , Paul defends himself against the accusation that he himself is preaching circumcision. Paul answers with an argument (Fig. ., p. ). As



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

mentioned in the analysis above, there is no reason to suppose that Paul does not respond to an accusation here from the other party. Rule  �e argumentation in the first part, vv. –, conforms with the relevance rule. �e second part is a bit difficult to assess from the perspective of the rule: how do these arguments relate to any standpoint? From a dialectical perspective, vv. – and  are superfluous as support for the claim that the Galatians should not become circumcised. From a pragmatic perspective, these verses continue Paul’s aim to vilify the other party and to win (back) the Galatians to his side. Rules – �e unexpressed premisses in .– are well in line with Paul’s argumentation generally and he would certainly not deny them, should he be confronted with them. �e section contains one argument which is probably based on a premiss expressed by the other party: v.  requires that the other party has accused Paul of preaching circumcision. �is must have been an expressed premiss in the other party’s argumentation so there is no conflict with Rule  (unless, of course, Paul had not been accused of preaching circumcision, in which case the argument in v.  falsely presents the accusation as a premiss). Rule  .– (Fig. ., p. ) contain five causal and one analogous argument. �ree of the causal argument schemes, .� , .� , and .� , are of the subtype pragmatic argumentation, where a certain course of action is recommended or advised against. �ey all lead to the claim () that the Galatians should not circumcise themselves. �e causal argument scheme ..� . is correctly applied: the consequence (nullification of the benefit of Christ) is indeed unfavourable. But since the supposition that ‘works of the law nullify the benefit of Christ’ can be questioned, the argument as a whole becomes unsound. �is point would have needed more .. Although the argument arguing. �e same problem is present in ..� scheme is correct the premiss can be seen as distorting what it means to obey the law, rendering the argument problematic. Concerning ..� ., the argument scheme is correctly applied, but to juxtapose faith against circumcision (premiss .) is problematic. �e problem is that although the unexpressed premiss .. � is probably quite acceptable from the point of view that Paul is antagonizing, together with the expressed premiss .. the result would not have been accepted by Paul’s antagonists. �us the argument scheme is correctly applied, but the argument is problematic. .– (Figs . & ., p. ) contain two symptomatic argument schemes. �e argument scheme in Fig. . is correctly applied: the Galatians are not under God’s influence if they are not on the path of obeying the truth. �e question is whether they can be seen to be on the path of obeying the truth or not. Again, the argument scheme is correctly applied but the argument problematic since one of the premisses is disputable from the point of view of the discussants. In Fig. ., the critical question is: Are there also others who are being persecuted who are not preaching circumcision? In the context the answer would be negative. �e argument scheme is correctly applied and the argument is sound.

�

�

�

Analysis



Table .: Summary of the argument in .–  �e Galatians should not become circumcised. () – Circumcision nullifies the benefit of Christ. () – Circumcision leads to slavery. () – ‘In Christ’, circumcision is not important, faith is. () – Circumcision is a work of the law. () – Circumcision leads to an obligation to keep the whole law. () – To be obliged to keep the whole law is tantamount to slavery. (� ) – To justify oneself by law leads to falling away from grace. () – We await righteousness through faith, not law. () – In Christ Jesus only faith working through love is important. () – Paul is being persecuted. () – Works of the law nullify the benefit of Christ. (� )

Rule  Paul’s arguments can be validated by explicating unexpressed premisses. �at some of the premisses can be questioned does not, of course, reduce the validity of the arguments, but renders the argumentation problematic and insufficient. Rule  A�er this section it seems utterly unlikely that Paul would ever regard any defence of the other party as conclusive, or that he would retract his own standpoint. Rule  �e section does not seem to violate against the usage rule. Results Selecting those standpoints and premisses that were not deleted earlier (Table .), and a�er slight permutation, the argument in the section can be illustrated by Table .. Of the standpoints in the section,  is the central one. �e section poses two difficult, interrelated questions: what is its place in the letter, and what is its function in the argumentation? �e analysis shows that the arguments for a division at ./. for the argumentative section and the paraenetical section are not conclusive. �ere are many connections between .– and .–.. �e section should be seen as a conclusion to the main logos section and at the same time as a transition to the paraenetical portion of the letter. �e former is supported most of all by the fact that here Paul makes his clearest statement against circumcision, expressis verbis, stating what the aim of the whole portion of .–. was. �e latter is attested to by the theme of freedom, which continues at .. �e section contains strong claims, and so it resembles .–. Having put forth a host of arguments in support of his view, Paul confidently states his main claim. It is either/or. �e Galatians cannot enjoy the grace of Christ and cling to the law at the same time.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

�e analysis challenges the view that .–. should be considered ‘the argumentative section in Galatians’, a view supported by most analyses based on one type or another of classical rhetoric. �e analysis supports many traditional exegeses, which conclude that the main argumentative section should be seen as ending at .. �roughout the present analysis, Paul’s style has not fulfilled the ideal of the freedom or closure rules. �is section makes these indications perfectly clear: Paul holds those with different opinions in the lowest regard, and this is illustrated by his sarcastic joke.

Chapter 

O  C .

An analytic overview

Argumentative situation and participant roles A general sketch of the Galatian situation, the participant roles, and the stages of the argumentation were made before the analysis in Chapter  (in Sections ., p.  and ., p. ). I shall now add to this general sketch the results from and conclusions based on the analysis. When it comes to the situation in the Galatian churches, there are several suggestions to choose from. It is difficult to agree with statements such as: ‘It is not difficult to outline the situation in the Galatian Christian community’,¹ or with some of the seemingly sophisticated attempts at mirror-reading Galatians.² However, some attempt at a ‘socialization’ of the argumentative situation must be made. If one avoids making too detailed a reconstruction and keeps several possibilities open, such an outline can be helpful. A proper understanding of an argument requires an understanding of the different roles carried out by the discussants.³ Paul carries the role of the apostle, the one who founded the Galatian churches. However, his authority is not self-evident. In Galatians –, Paul has gone through much trouble to establish his ethos anew and restore his credibility. �e analysis supports the view that Paul had indeed been accused – why would he otherwise need to defend himself? At the same time he needs to blame the Galatians for giving in to thoughts and actions that are inconsistent with his message. �e precise argumentative situation is unknown, but some sort of sketch can be attempted. Basically, there are four alternatives: (a) Paul’s antagonists were outsiders vis-à-vis the Galatians. (b) Paul’s antagonists were a subgroup among the Galatians. . Hill, ‘Salvation’, p. . . See especially Brinsmead, Opponents. . Regarding Galatians James D. G. Dunn states that ‘this letter of all letters is so much the voice of one man addressing a particular situation with urgency and passion that the task of setting it in context has an inescapable imperative’. James D. G. Dunn, �e �eology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (New Testament �eology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . As noted on several occasions above, the ‘urgency’ and ‘passion’ are not at all a given, however.





Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

(c) Paul’s antagonists were partly outsiders, partly made up of the Galatians. (d ) Paul’s antagonists are projected in the discourse, a presentational device. Alternative (a) represents the older, widely accepted theory, that Paul’s antagonists came from outside the Galatian congregations. �ese have been identified as, among others, Judaizing Christians from Jerusalem,⁴ Gnostics,⁵ or both.⁶ Alternative (b) represents the idea that the antagonists were members of the Galatians’ community,⁷ and alternative (c) is a combination of (a) and (b). If the antagonists were outsiders, at the time of writing, Paul obviously had to address a situation in which some of the Galatians had already chosen to side with the outsiders. �is situation is reflected in alternative (c). In addition to the many speculations about the identity of Paul’s antagonists, it has been suggested that it is impossible to paint a clear picture because Paul was misinformed (Marxen); because he had misunderstood them (Schmithals) or because his description of them is intentionally incisive (Eckert).⁸ Eckert’s suggestion is later taken up in many a rhetorical analysis, where it is noted that the rhetoric of the text can indeed be misleading.⁹ Alternative (d ) highlights the difficulty of distinguishing between historical and narrative reality. Due to the prominent role some sort of opponents play in Paul’s argument, alternative (d ) is implausible: in order for the dichotomy between Paul and opponents to work, the addressees must be able to project Paul’s presentation into their reality. Nevertheless, Paul’s description of his antagonists and their role in his argument is probably exaggerated in line with his argumentative strategy. It seems clear that Galatians is a response to a development among the Galatian congregations that occurred a�er Paul’s last visit. Although ‘troublemakers’ in Paul’s view, it is probable that these preachers did not present their ideas as fundamentally opposed to Paul’s message, but instead as complementary to it. �is would explain why they seem to have been welcomed by some Galatians. Simplified, the argument can be thought to have the dialogic flow illustrated in Table .. . See Brinsmead, Opponents, p. . �is theory dates back to the second century and was later shared by many Protestant theologians, including Martin Luther. �e weakness of this theory is the difficulty of explaining the reasons for a Judaizing mission from Jerusalem; see Brinsmead, Opponents, p. ; Gerd Lüdemann, Paulus: der Heidenapostel (FRLANT, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ), p. . �e theory has been modernized by Werner Georg Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, st edn, ), p. . . �is theory goes back to the fi�eenth century, Brinsmead, Opponents, p. . For a bibliography, see Mußner, Galater, pp. –. . W. Lüttgert, Gesetz und Geist: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher �eologie, (); Gütersloh: Wolfgang Schrage & Rudolf Smend, ), pp. ff. Lüttgert’s thesis about two fronts no longer applies; for criticism, see Eckert, Paulus’ Gegnern, p. ; and Barclay, Obeying, pp. –, . . For a discussion with arguments in favour of this position, see �urén, ‘Paul Angry?’, pp. – . . See Marxsen, Einleitung, pp. –, ; Walter Schmithals, ‘Die Häretiker in Galatien’, ZNW  (), pp. – (); Eckert, Paulus’ Gegnern, pp. –, respectively. . See especially �urén, ‘Paul Angry?’, and �urén, Derhetorizing.

Overview and Conclusion



Table .: �e dialogic flow of the argument in Galatians Paul teaches the Galatians : Paul +/O Gal. [�e antagonists question Paul’s teaching : Prot ?/(+/O) Gal.] �e antagonists put forward their own teaching : Prot +/O Gal. Some Galatians accept the new teaching : Gal. +/(+/O) Prot Some Galatians question the new teaching : Gal. ?/(+O) Prot Some Galatians reject the new teaching : Gal. �/(+/O) Prot Paul rejects the antagonists’ teaching : Paul �/(+/O) Gal. Paul repeats his original teaching : Paul +/O Gal. Some Galatians re-accept Paul’s original teaching : Gal. +/(+/O) Paul Some Galatians still question Paul’s original teaching : Gal. ?/(+/O) Paul Some Galatians reject Paul’s original teaching and accept the teaching of the antagonists : Gal. �/(+/O) Paul Gal. +/(+/O) Prot O proposition, +/ put forward a proposition,

�/ reject a proposition, ?/ question a proposition It is difficult to know to what degree Paul’s argumentation is a response to another party’s accusations and arguments. Some of the references to Scripture can best be explained as answers to arguments made on the basis of the quoted passages. Some of the issues are likewise most easily explained as an argumentative reaction to issues that were first raised among the Galatians. It is equally probable that some passages of Scripture and some issues are introduced only by Paul. Fortunately, the contents of Paul’s argumentation are not changed by a knowledge of who started the argument. Even though opposite views on behalf of antagonists are assumed in the argumentation, the historical facts regarding who, what group, how many, etc. that held to such opposite views is not important. Antagonists occur in the text, in the argument, and even apart from the historical reality. Since argumentation by letter in antiquity was a slow process it is probable that Paul tries to make his case on a wide front, even answering questions and refuting



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

objections that are only anticipated. Kennedy encapsulates the argumentative situation as follows: �e whole labored argument [in Galatians ] essentially rests not on the scriptural passages cited nor on the logical acceptance of Paul’s premises by his opponents – a necessary condition in true dialectic – but on the Galatians’ acceptance of his authority in making these proclamations and their experience of Paul’s teachings. His anticipation of objections involves difficult philosophical or theological concepts which are very succinctly stated, and though they may have been clear to him, their rhetorical function in the letter is perhaps more to seem to recognize the possibility of objections and to be prepared to answer them confidently than to provide a developed response.¹⁰

However, as noted on several occasions above in the analysis, Paul himself presents a ‘case’ which does not rest solely on his authority, but also on the arguments he presents. In summary, the argumentative situation is one of some level of conflict between Paul’s gospel and a variation of it. Whether this variation has been introduced by outsiders or insiders is impossible to determine. �is ‘other gospel’ has been received by at least some of the Galatians.¹¹ Paul wants to correct the situation, but it is uncertain whether his objections will be well received. �erefore he needs to present the most persuasive response he can muster. In doing this, Paul draws heavily on his role as apostle to the Gentiles, and on his divine message – argued as convincingly as possible, as well as on his ministry among the Galatians. �e roles are not equal; Paul is the tutor, the Galatians the tutees or Paul’s ‘children’. Standpoints, arguments, and argumentation structure Since assertives advance argumentation they should be dominant in the argumentation stage. �is is in fact the case in Gal. .–., demonstrating that the argumentation as far as speech acts are concerned is typical in the sense that Paul does try to convince his addressees rationally. �is does not exclude the use of other devices. �e section also contains some expressives, one usage declarative, and one commissive, but no directives. �e commissive is from an Old Testament quotation and is not used by Paul as a commissive, but as part of an assertive. �e usage declarative is used for precisation. Regarding the distribution of speech acts, the analysis shows that different types of speech acts are evenly distributed with two exceptions. In .– and . Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, pp. –. . �e role of the antagonists’ gospel in Paul’s argument is only in part dependent on historical facts. It is useful as a presentational device in making a clear distinction between Paul’s message and any other message. It is helpful for Paul to associate any other ‘gospel’ with a negative influence from suspicious characters.

Overview and Conclusion



.– there are more expressives than in the other sections. From an argumentation point of view, this is problematic since expressives do not contribute to a sound argumentation and should not be used at all. �e presence of a number of expressives indicates that Paul’s style of argumentation includes an element of affect. Are the expressives included purposefully or by mistake as a by-product of Paul’s agitation? As noted in the analysis, the expressives have a function in Paul’s rhetorical manoeuvring. �ey provoke interaction, they underline the importance of the matter, they underline the urgency of the matter, they give variety to the argumentation, and they help the addressees keep alert during the reading of the letter. �ese functions all relate to auditorial demand. �e expressives do not forward the resolution of the dispute, in fact they o�en violate the rules for good argumentation. Concerning the distribution of speech acts over the four stages¹² we are at a disadvantage as we know little of the preceding events and nothing of the succeeding events to the letter. In Chapter , a�er the analysis of each of the text-units, all standpoints and expressed and unexpressed premisses were gathered in tables. �e most important ones were set in italics. In the results sections, the most important ones, and all those not deleted, were permutated and presented in a form in which the central premisses in each section and the other premisses and claims were supporting elements. As I now gather all the elements from these tables of summary in one single table, some further deletions and permutations are in order. In the analysis it became clear that many of the arguments are sub-arguments of the same main argument. Before attempting a structure of the whole argumentation one must distinguish the main arguments and the subordinate ones. In Table . I have gathered all the main claims from the tables of summary from the ten results sections in the analysis, and in the same order. As earlier, the unexpressed premisses are indicated with a prime (� ). �e numbers in parentheses refer to the number each standpoint had in the tables in Chapter .¹³ �e argument in Galatians appears to be a mixed, multiple difference of opinion. It is carried through as a complex argument with many subordinative arguments with single, multiple, and coordinative compound structures. When reaching for the main issue in the letter, we note that three themes are recurring and central: Paul tries to regain his authority, to suppress the law, and to discourage circumcision. On several instances Paul refers to his authority, to his message, and to his person. Paul begins the letter with emphasis on his ethos, and also ends the letter on the same note. However, to make the interpretation that this is his main message does not do justice to the laboured effort Paul makes for his claims . �e four stages were presented in Section ., p. . . Table . (p. ), . (p. ), . (p. ), . (p. ), . (p. ), . (p. ), . (p. ), . (p. ), . (p. ), and . (p. ).



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: Recollection of the principal arguments – It is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. () – �e Galatians’ spiritual experiences are nullified if they circumcise themselves. () – �e Gentiles’ faith is reckoned to them as righteousness. () – Christian Gentiles are sons of Abraham, spiritually. () – To live by faith excludes being justified before God by the law. () – �e covenant with Abraham is superior to the law of Moses. () – �e inheritance comes either from the law or from the promise. () – �e law is inferior to the gospel. () – A law that could make one alive has not been given and righteousness cannot come through the law. () – All Christians are Abraham’s offspring and his heirs. () – Gentiles are freed because God sent his Son. () – Gentile Christians are heirs according to the promise. () – �e Galatians were earlier enslaved by the elemental spirits. () – Paul is afraid that his work for the Galatians may have been wasted. () – Paul has told the Galatians the truth. () – �e Galatians are persecuted by those ‘according to the flesh’. () – �ose of the old covenant lived in slavery. (� ) – �e Galatians are children of the promise. () – �e Galatians should not become circumcised. ()

regarding the law and the gospel; .–. indicates that Paul wants to convey a message other than that of his authority. �e letter is not mainly about Paul. Considering the many different arguments about the law, and considering the unfavourable light in which it is presented, one can arrive at the conclusion that to disparage the law is the main message. But, how would such a message have benefited Paul or the Galatians? Adding the arguments about the experiences of the Galatians and Paul’s practical admonitions, warnings, blames, and requests, a picture emerges whereby all arguments point in one direction: the Galatians should not circumcise themselves. If this is considered the main thesis, all other arguments fall naturally into place as subordinative – which is not the case with other options for a main thesis. �e argument can then be illustrated as a multiple argumentation with five main sub-arguments and many subordinative arguments (Table .). Regarding what should be the main sub-arguments, different choices can be made. For example, one could consider the argument that the Galatians are sons of Abraham to be a sub-argument. However, since the main point of that particular argument is that it is faith that is reckoned to the Galatians as righteousness, not works of the law, and since this argument in turn supports the claim that circumcision is not required (. in the table), I decided not to do so. �e exact configuration of the argument is, however, not important as long as all the main points are included.

Overview and Conclusion



Table .: Result: principal argument and sub-arguments  �e Galatians should not become circumcised. () . It is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. () – God does not require any works of the law from the Galatians. () – Circumcision is a work of the law. (� , ) – God has promised to bless the Gentiles as he blessed Abraham, by faith. (, , , , , � , ) – Abraham’s faith in God was reckoned to him as righteousness. (, ) – �e Gentiles’ faith is reckoned to them as righteousness. () – God initially gave and also now supplies the Galatians with the Spirit and works miracles among them by their believing what they heard and not by their doing the works of the law. (, ) – We await righteousness through faith, not law. (, , , , , ) – In Christ Jesus only faith working through love is important. () – �e law was added only until Christ’s arrival. (, � ) . �e Galatians’ spiritual experiences and the benefit of Christ are nullified if they circumcise themselves. (, � ) – To live by faith excludes being justified before God by the law. () – To live by the works of the law excludes living by faith. (, ) – �e inheritance comes either from the law or from the promise. () – A work of the law nullifies spiritual experiences and the benefit of Christ. (, � ) – If the Galatians now circumcise themselves, they are ending with the flesh. () – �e old covenant was ‘according to the flesh’. (� ) – To justify oneself by law leads to falling away from grace. () – A law that could make one alive has not been given and righteousness cannot come through the law. (, ) – Circumcision leads to slavery. (, , � , ) – �e Scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. () . All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. () – �ose of the old covenant lived in slavery. (� ) – �e Galatians were earlier enslaved by the elemental spirits. () – It is surprising that the Galatians want to turn back to slavery under the elemental spirits. () . Gentiles are freed because God sent his Son. () – God sent his Son in order to redeem those who were under the law. () – God sent his Son so that ‘we’ might receive adoption as children. () – �ose of the new covenant live in freedom. (� ) – �e new covenant is made ‘through the promise’. (� ) . Paul has told the Galatians the truth. () – �e Galatians should follow Paul’s example. () – Paul’s antagonists have selfish motives for their ministry among the Galatians. () – Paul is concerned with the Galatians spiritual well-being. () – Paul is afraid that his work for the Galatians may have been wasted. () – �e Galatians are persecuted by those ‘according to the flesh’. () – Paul is being persecuted. ()



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

In Table . I made a few deletions and permutations in comparison with Table . as follows: out of the  principal arguments, three are deleted (, , ) since they are included in other standpoints; one () is chosen as the main claim, and five (, , , , ) are considered the main sub-arguments.¹⁴ �e remaining ten are considered as supporting the main sub-arguments. �e overview is complemented by the rest of the premisses and claims from the tables of summary. Many of these concern the same thing or support the same claim, however, and can be deleted. Regarding the structures of the subordinate arguments, in the analysis in Chapter , I clarified the arguments on the lowest level and was in most cases able present single arguments (c.%). In several cases the structure was coordinate (c.%), in some cases multiple (c.%) and in a few cases subordinate (c.%). On a higher level, the structure is predominantly multiple: Paul puts forth different types of arguments hoping to convince if not by one argument, then by another (.–. in Table .). Multiple argumentation is in fact a safe choice if the addressees consist of a large group of possibly diverse people whose opinions are not precisely known.¹⁵ �ese main multiple arguments are in turn supported by many coordinatively compound and multiple arguments, where Paul cumulates arguments in favour of his standpoints in the hope that the totality of the arguments combined are convincing. How do these arguments relate to .–, which has been suggested by many to be Paul’s main message in Galatians, its propositio?¹⁶ First, my analysis shows that .–. fully supports Paul’s statements in .–; the main points are repeated in a different form. Secondly, there is a difference of perspective earlier and later in the letter as it moves from theory to practice. My analysis suggests that Paul’s main message is not a theoretical but a practical one. In this light, .– is not Paul’s main message, but an argument for it, namely that the Galatians should not circumcise themselves. .– is a good presentation of Paul’s theological standpoint – preparing for the explicating argumentation in .–., but its contents were hardly news for the Galatians. �e later elaboration on the relationship between works of the law, especially circumcision, and Christian life may not have been clear to them, however. Since my analysis does not rest on classical rhetorical theory it does not require an identification of a propositio. Regardless of terminology, to consider .– to be the main message of Galatians does in my opinion not do justice to the practical aim of the letter. . Argument  was earlier presented as a sub-argument to . Now, a permutation is required which places argument  as a sub-argument to . �is permutation is warranted by the dominating place the argument of curse has at the beginning of the letter and of which the later sub-argument is an echo. . Van Eemeren et al., Argumentation, p. . . Schlier, Galater, pp. – (without the rhetorical terminology); Betz, Galatians, pp. –; Longenecker, Galatians, pp. – (with bibliographical references).

Overview and Conclusion



A comparison between my findings and earlier suggestions regarding Paul’s argumentation shows several differences. Both Betz and Longenecker see the arguments in .ff. as supporting the propositio of .–. According to Betz the arguments in Galatians are six in number as follows:¹⁷ .–: the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit; .–: God’s promise to Abraham; .–: common human practice of law; .–.: Christian tradition; .–: friendship; and .–: the allegory of Sarah and Hagar.

Longenecker finds three arguments in support:¹⁸ .–: righteousness apart from the law: against legalism; .–.: the believer’s life not ‘under Law’ but ‘in Christ’: against nomism; .–: Paul’s concern for the Galatians.

Schlier represents a traditional exegesis, and consequently does not identify argumentative elements in the same way as Betz and Longenecker. Schlier does, however, identify a few crucial arguments as follows:¹⁹ .–: the origin of the Spirit in the Galatian churches; .–: the Blessing of Abraham comes to those who believe; .–: Abraham’s inheritance is connected to Christ; .–: a lapse is impossible; and .–: there is only one either/or.

Mußner finds the following arguments in Galatians:²⁰ .–: a statement of Scripture; .–.: the true righteousness-function of the law; and .–.: a statement of Scripture.

My structure below is based on the contents of the argumentation (as presented in Table .):  �e Galatians should not become circumcised. (.–) . It is not required that the Galatians circumcise themselves. (.–) . �e Galatians’ spiritual experiences and the benefit of Christ are nullified if they circumcise themselves. (. & .) . All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse. (.a) . Gentiles are freed because God sent his Son. (.–) . Paul has told the Galatians the truth. (.)

. . . .

Betz, Galatians, p. viii. Longenecker, Galatians, p. vii. Schlier, Galater, p. . Mußner, Galater, p. viii.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

�is table is a structure of the argument, not of the text, and is therefore not directly comparable with the structures presented above. It does, however, illustrate the difference in approach. Many analyses are to a large extent bound by an understanding of the structure of the text and are not accompanied by a structure of the argument. To present the argument in this manner focuses on the message, not the composition, and is therefore more useful when describing the contents of the argument. �e structure of the argument shows that the main message in Galatians is found in .–. �e rest of the letter supports this statement. In a recent study D. Francois Tolmie has undertaken a ‘text-centred’ rhetorical analysis of Galatians with the aim of using neither an ancient nor a modern specific method, but to ‘reconstruct Paul’s rhetorical strategy from the text itself ’.²¹ His analysis indicates six objectives in Paul’s persuasive strategy:²² First objective: Convince the audience of his divine authorization. Second objective: Convince the audience that his gospel is the true gospel. �ird objective: Convince the audience of the inferiority of the law. Fourth objective: Convince the audience that the ‘gospel’ of the opponents represents spiritual slavery and, instead, urge them to remain spiritually free by adhering to his gospel. .–.: Fi�h objective: Convince the audience to act as he wishes them to: not to succumb to the pressure to be circumcised; to avoid the opponents, and to live according to the Spirit. .–: Sixth objective: Final refutation of the opponents. .–.: .–.: .–: .–.:

�is outline shows the result of a specifically rhetorical analysis: all elements are seen as objectives in Paul’s persuasive effort. �ere are clear parallels to my results but also differences. In light of my presentation above, Tolmie’s results present the following question: should we see Paul as having many objectives with his argumentation? Here we have an illustration of how different approaches lead to different emphases. A rhetorical objective is not equivalent to an argumentative standpoint. My overview presents Paul’s main standpoint and the main arguments in support. Rhetorical aims cannot support a standpoint but behind a standpoint there may very well lie a rhetorical objective. In my analysis Tolmies’ first, second, and sixth objectives are considered to be parts of Paul’s strengthening of his ethos. Instead of seeing this as a separate objective, I have considered Paul’s ethos to be a necessary foundation for the logoselements of his argumentation. As regards the other objectives (third, fourth, and fi�h), they are included in my specific analysis. Since I have dealt with both the make-up of the arguments and the strategic manoeuvring, I have been able to scrutinize the quality of the argumentation. �at both aspects – the dialectical and the rhetorical – work together in forming the argument was noted at the outset of this study. . Tolmie, Persuading, p. . . Tolmie, Persuading, pp. –.

Overview and Conclusion



Consequently, it needs to be said that we should not focus on the main claim about circumcision as such, but to view it in context. Paul wishes the Galatians to stay true to his gospel, which is the true gospel, and this requires them not to give in to circumcision. �is also entails that the opponents are in the wrong, that the Galatians should live according to the Spirit, and that the law is suppressed. Tolmies’ analysis seems to confirm my analysis in that it highlights the same features of Paul’s argumentation, although in a different way. To avoid repetition I deal with argument schemes (the third point in the analytic overview) under the evaluation of violations against Rule  below. Next I present the fourth and last point in the analytic overview, the argumentative strategy, which was already touched upon above. Argumentative strategy Is there an argumentative strategy in Galatians, and, if so, of what kind is it? First, it is clear that the letter contains a lot of rhetorical moves. From the outset Paul uses expressions of surprise, cursing, authority, and confidence in relation to the confrontation and opening stages. �e beginning of the letter, a�er the introduction, is an interesting use of all three aspects of strategic manoeuvring. �e topics of gospel, grace, those who are confusing the Galatians, pleasing people, and the curse, cast a wide net that touches upon important and interesting themes from the audience’s point of view. By starting with his astonishment at the situation of the Galatians, his own authority, and a curse against others, Paul makes a bold presentational device, thereby indicating the presence of an argumentative strategy. By taking a closer look at the rhetorical manoeuvring and summarizing the analysis in Chapter , I shall now focus on a few main features in each of the ten sections: .–: a strong challenging style, leading questions, the use of experiences as proofs; .–: appeals to authority and to tradition, argumentation by association and by dissociation, the use of a respected historical role-model as warrant for Paul’s own claims; .–: display of (misplaced) expertise, the use of a variety of topics with supporting claims of diverse types; .–: the use of overarching historical perspectives and the simplification of models of explanation, the eclectic use of Old Testament texts, the use of either/or dualisms; .–: the use of important symbols and experiences as arguments, the use of well-known phrases to recall important or emotional experiences; .–: the use of analogy and the use of style to create a sense of personal relevance and of intimacy, the use of association and dissociation; .–: intimidation by painting a bleak picture; .–: the use of ethos and pathos elements, reference to personal relations, the use of style to create a sense of emotion, a variation of styles;



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

.–: the creation of compelling images, the use of Old Testament texts as illustrations and the development of them to suit the current need further, the use of typology; .–: the use of warning as a presentational device, the use of vilification, the use of humour/irony, the good use of composition with variation of styles. �e authoritative style continues throughout the letter, repeatedly violating the freedom rule. Relying heavily on his own ethos is clearly part of Paul’s argumentative strategy. It is worth noting that the list has much in common with Siegert’s characterization of Paul’s argumentation (see Section ., p. ).²³ In the following, I make a few general remarks on Paul’s argumentation that are drawn from the analysis. In the argumentation stage, Paul makes many references to the Scriptures so as to add authority to his message. Paul o�en presents his interpretations of the Scriptures as self-evident (although they are not), which is in violation of the unexpressed premiss rule and the argument scheme rule. Appeals to tradition and to authority are part of Paul’s argumentative strategy. Is Galatians ‘red-hot rhetoric’?²⁴ Did the situation in Galatia engage Paul emotionally to such a degree that he ‘makes an alarmed and passionate response in his letter’?²⁵ Although the text gives the impression of having been written by Paul in an agitated state, those phrases which are usually interpreted as evidence of this can also be interpreted as deliberate rhetorical moves intended to give the impression of an urgent matter, thereby giving cause to agitation.²⁶ Be that as it may, a sense of urgency and an affected style are recurring features among Paul’s presentational devices and thus part of Paul’s argumentative strategy. �e aim of the letter is deliberative: the Galatians must not give in to circumcision. Paul’s strategy is threefold. First, he must re-establish his authority. �is aim is especially evident in Galatians –. Secondly, he needs to explain the basis for his views regarding the law and the new covenant as it pertains to the life of the believer. �is is done in the section analysed in Chapter , Gal. .–., and to some extent in what follows. �irdly, Paul must state what he wants from the Galatians and convince them accordingly. To this end Galatians – contains the main exhortation (.–), crucial paraenesis, and comments and advice leading once more up to the main exhortation not to give in to circumcision (Gal. .–). . See also Tolmie, Persuading, pp. –. . As suggested in Michael R. Cosby, ‘Galatians: Red-Hot Rhetoric’, in Anders Eriksson, �omas H. Olbricht and Walter Übelacker (eds), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund  Conference (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, ), pp. –. . Hill, ‘Salvation’, p. . . �urén, Derhetorizing, p.  states accordingly that ‘[t]here is, however, reason to doubt, whether the author himself is overwhelmed by emotions. He presents himself in the text as perplexed, uncalculating, straightforward, and impassioned; the Letter seems to be an instant response, a natural primitive reaction, to alarming news from the congregations. Yet a closer look reveals that this purposeful impression is consciously produced by utilizing effective contemporary rhetorical means. One would expect less orthodox ways of expressing perplexity, if the apostle actually was infuriated.’

Overview and Conclusion



Because of the difficult situation and the different standpoints, Paul needs to lead his addressees to this conclusion step by step. He cannot simply forbid the Galatians to circumcise themselves and hope that they will obey. First he needs to explain why they should listen to him, then he needs to give as many arguments as possible in support of his view, and only then can he hope to persuade the Galatians to follow his exhortation.

.

Violation of rules and quality of argumentation

A�er the analytic overview we can turn to a critical examination of violations of rules and evaluate the quality of the argumentation. . �e freedom rule: Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints. Several portions of the letter are problematic with regards to Rule . �e tone in the beginning of the letter is excluding; this is seen clearly in the remarks about the Galatians deserting ‘the one who called you’ (.), turning to a different gospel (.), and to those proclaiming a different gospel being accursed (.–). �is division into a right and a wrong way is echoed several times later in the letter. In combination with other arguments which can be seen as monological, authoritarian, or simply just arrogant, I conclude that these are not brought up on the spur of the moment but are in fact characteristic of Paul’s argumentation. Paul presents his standpoints forcefully and o�en as self-evident conclusions or as well-known facts, even when this is not the case. His style does not promote an open dialogue characterized by mutual respect. Some of Paul’s opinions would probably have offended those who held to the importance of the law (according to Paul, they ‘turn back to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits’, .). In several places Paul’s ethos is strongly to the fore. As is natural in persuasive argumentation, not only the facts, but also the conveyors of the facts play a role in the process of persuading. �at Paul uses so much of the letter to defend himself suggests that he was personally under attack. On occasion, Paul defends himself (.–) and then turns to attack the other party (.–). Paul’s standard of argumentation is, in this respect, no higher than the standard he attributes to his opponents (.). Paul’s mode of argumentation is anything but an invitation to open discussion. �is is quite clear in a passage such as .–. �e allusions to the curse and the only true gospel in .– creates a communicatively closed argumentation; Paul is correct, the other party is only negatively persuading and confusing and awaits God’s judgment. �e ridiculing effect of the joke is apt to hinder an open discussion. Paul presents his ‘work’ as the exclusive option – if the Galatians do not follow Paul in this matter, his work has been ‘in vain’. �is must not happen and



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

the Galatians should understand that Paul’s antagonists only have their selfish interests at heart (.–), whereas Paul would never boast about himself (.). �e Galatians should come to their senses and not bother Paul again about this matter (.). . �e burden-of-proof rule: A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if the other party asks him to do so. We do not know if someone has asked Paul to defend his standpoints or if he does this on his own initiative. However, the way in which Paul advances and defends standpoints suggests that this is done at least partly in anticipation of objections he would expect – or has already encountered – from another party. �e amount of argumentation concerning the law indicates that the theme was important for the Galatians’ situation. Otherwise it would not have been useful to set aside a large portion of the argument for this theme. Paul wants to lessen the importance of the law which indicates that the Galatians had a tendency to hold the law in high regard. Paul’s gospel of righteousness without works of the law is at issue. Paul defends his gospel against any position which would include the law as part of the reception of the Spirit, as part of righteousness, or as part of one’s status as a child of God. Paul’s defence of his standpoint about the inferiority of the law in relation to ‘the promise’ suggests that, in addition to the Spirit, the law was a theme which had been a topic of debate among the Galatians, and that this had been communicated to Paul, which in turn demanded a response in the form of the letter to the Galatians. I find the theory that Paul’s opponents wanted to supplement Paul’s message by incorporating the necessity of law-observance probable. �is would explain Paul’s efforts to suppress the law’s importance in relation to the importance of ‘the promise’. . �e standpoint rule: A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party. We have no certainty as to what possible arguments preceded Paul’s letter to the Galatians. However, in some places there is a strong sense that some of the subjects under discussion have a prehistory in the relationship between Paul and the Galatians. In .–, the Spirit is one such theme; it indicates that some among the Galatians held the view that ‘doing the works of the law’ was the reason why God supplied the Spirit and worked miracles, whereas, according to Paul’s teaching, the Galatians’ faith is the reason. However, it may be that the whole problem, especially in .–, could be considered from a Galatian perspective a fallacy of false dilemma: it is not certain that the Galatians perceived their situation as problematic before they received Paul’s letter. In that case, we have a violation against the standpoint rule. Even if the Galatians experienced some internal theological conflict, it is not certain that they conceived such problems in the same way as Paul did. �e dichotomy between law and faith may not have been a relevant formulation of the problem

Overview and Conclusion



from a Galatian perspective; it could be regarded as a fallacy of false dichotomy: law and faith need not be as mutually exclusive as Paul asserts. In . Paul defends himself against the accusation that he himself is preaching circumcision. As mentioned in the analysis, there is no reason to suppose that Paul here does not respond to an accusation by the other party. It seems that the other party has presented the importance of an observance of some cultic calender. Otherwise, Paul’s argumentation does not make sense on this point. What kind of observance is the issue here is not possible to determine, or how this has been presented by the other party. Concerning the Hagar–Sarah allegory, there are some hints that Paul responds to an argument about Abraham’s ‘true children’. �is argument could have been presented by opponents in Galatia who used the Hagar–Sarah allegory to demonstrate the primacy of Isaac over Ishmael in a way that underlined the importance of the law. Paul answers with a different interpretation of the same allegory, showing that Isaac represented the promise and not the law. If this is the reason for Paul’s use of the allegory in his argumentation, it would partly explain our difficulty in interpreting it; we do not have access to the arguments of the other party. . �e relevance rule: A party may defend his standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint. Expressives and rhetorical questions are not good ways of advancing argumentation. Accordingly, in pragma-dialectics expressives have no place in the argumentation stage. However, from a rhetorical perspective they are a common element of persuasion. �e accusations that the Galatians are ‘foolish’ and ‘bewitched’ do not advance Paul’s argumentation with arguments that relate to his standpoints. By beginning the argumentative section in this manner, Paul shows that his style of argumentation is a mixture of facts, emotions, and opinions. �is situation is far from the ideal of an orderly and neutral exchange of standpoints with premisses. �e example ‘from everyday life’ in .– seems to be a fallacy of relevance. �e praxis referred to does not exist and consequently the argument does not hold up against critical examination. �e use of .c–e as a premiss is relevant only if Paul’s interpretation of τῷ σπέρµατι is accepted. However, if this unusual interpretation is not accepted, the argument is of no relevance to the argument about the law’s inferiority in comparison with the gospel. �e argument would have been clearer without .c–e. �e expressive style is dominant in .c– where it does not really advance argumentation relating to Paul’s standpoint apart from the indirect statement that Paul considers observing special days etc. to be tantamount to slavery. Passage .–a presents a similar conflict with the relevance rule as .–. Here Paul’s ethos and pathos appeals play a role in his argumentative strategy, but they do not advance the substance of his argumentation. �e connection Paul creates to Abraham can be seen as more of a rhetorical construct than a factual connection and can be taken as a fallacy of false analogy.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Even if some of the Old Testament quotations which Paul makes use of were suggested by some earlier stage in the argumentation, either between Paul and his addressees or within the Galatian congregations, the problem of relevance is not resolved. For instance, Paul uses a passage about Abraham to defend his standpoint about faith. As we have seen in the analysis, it can be argued that the passage about Abraham is not really relevant to the argument. �e second part of .–, vv. –, is difficult to assess from the perspective of the rule: how do these arguments relate to any standpoint? From a dialectical perspective, vv. – and  are superfluous as support for the claim that the Galatians should not become circumcised. Again, the section contains expressives aimed at vilifying the other party and at winning back the Galatians. . �e unexpressed premiss rule: A party may not falsely present something as a premiss that has been le� unexpressed by the other party or deny a premiss that he himself has le� implicit. Paul’s argumentation is at times exceedingly compact, and the practice of recovering unexpressed premisses clarifies the argument as with the case of the double argument in .–, which turned out not to be an enthymeme as has been suggested earlier. A rhetorical use of unexpressed premisses is not to state a premiss explicitly, because the hearers or addressees would not easily accept the unexpressed premiss if it were clearly stated. �is would be a violation of Rule . For instance, in .–, if one does not accept the premisses of the dichotomy between law and faith, one will not be able to accept the conclusions. However, the explicit elements (premisses and conclusions) already state Paul’s position pretty clearly. In .c–d, Paul presents the following as a premiss: following the path of abiding by the law equals slavery because turning to a law-abiding life is tantamount to turning to a life under the ‘elemental spirits’. Probably even Paul himself would deny this premiss, which seems to be more the result of an unhappy balancing of the argument, as indicated in the analysis. It may be that someone had suggested that Paul had unclear motives for evangelizing the Galatians. �is would explain Paul’s (counter-)attack in .–. It may then be that the premiss in ., that ‘it was because of a physical infirmity’ that Paul first announced the gospel to the Galatians, had been disputed. Paul holds to his recollection of the situation and affirms that the premiss is undisputed on his part. Since the unexpressed premisses are generally in harmony with the expressed ones, the choice of an enthymemic argumentation seems primarily to be a stylistic feature of Paul’s argumentation, not a rhetorical means to lead the addressees to accept implicit, difficult or disputed premisses. . �e starting point rule: A party may not falsely present a premiss as an accepted starting point nor deny a premiss representing an accepted starting point. As noted above, the main argument in .– can be disputed, but Paul presents his interpretation of the Galatians’ experiences as an undeniable fact. It may be

Overview and Conclusion



that Paul’s interpretation of the Galatians’ experience is not an accepted starting point and that some of the Galatians would have considered it a false presentation of their own experiences. Also, in .a–b, Paul indicates as a fact that it was Abraham’s faith – and his faith only – that was reckoned to him as righteousness. �is statement is then used as a premiss for the arguments that follow. �ere is reason to believe that this premiss was not an accepted starting point between Paul and the other party. Similarly, the statement .a may not have been agreed on. An indication of this is the space Paul allocates in the passage for defending these two ideas. As noted in the analysis above, several crucial premisses may also have been under dispute. Still, Paul presents them as facts. One could raise the question of whether the analogy of Abraham is false, and Paul is consequently guilty of a fallacy of false analogy here: () Abraham’s faith was not in Christ; () the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is not identical with the righteousness reckoned to those who believe in Christ; and – most importantly – that () in Genesis  the intention is not to contrast Abraham’s faith with his deeds. As shown in the analysis, Abraham does not represent such a division between faith and deeds as he seems to in Paul’s argumentation. It is not clear whether the Galatians considered their former existence as one of slavery under false gods or not. Nevertheless Paul presents this as an accepted starting point. Many of the premisses in .– are problematic as starting points for argumentation: Abraham had more than two sons, so why would the two women allegorically be two covenants? Why would they represent mountains and cities? Does Paul use the quotation in . in a correct way? �e allegory of Hagar and Sarah is problematic on several points from the perspective of the starting point rule. . �e argument scheme rule: A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defence does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied. �e argument schemes identified in the analysis are presented in Table . – the table should be seen as giving a general idea and is thus an aid only. In the analysis in Chapter , each argument scheme was analysed for appropriateness and application and then evaluated as sound, problematic or unsound. Again, I stress that when assessing argument schemes, soundness is analysed, not validity. Validity only refers to the logical form of the argument and does not alone guarantee that the argument is conclusive as a defence or a refutation; the way in which the standpoints and the premisses are linked together is also important (as discussed in Section ., pp. f.). �e evaluation of the quality marked in the table is of the argument as a whole, not just the argument scheme. I mark the soundness of the argumentation as it has been indicated in the analysis – based upon the following three criteria: all the statements must be acceptable, the reasoning must be valid, and the argument scheme must be employed appropriately.



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

It is impossible to classify the quality precisely, but I find that an evaluation with three degrees of soundness captures the quality with enough precision to be informative but without aspiring to be too precise. A�er all, an evaluation of the acceptability of the premisses requires us to put ourselves in the position of the other party, which is difficult. Consequently, I have preferred the designation ‘problematic’ over ‘unsound’ in unclear cases where I could not decide how the other party would have reacted. �us, if I have been overly cautious, the only consequence is that Paul’s argumentation appears to be of somewhat higher quality than it actually is. It would be hazardous to draw any rigid conclusions based on these overviews. I note that the heavier argumentative sections are somewhat more problematic than the lighter ones. .– contains a higher degree of problematic and unsound arguments ( out of  = %) than .–. ( out of  = .%). �is is not due to the use of different argument schemes since the quality of different schemes does not differ significantly; in comparison with causal argument schemes, analogous schemes do have a lower degree of soundness and symptomatic ones a higher, but the number of schemes is too low to allow for any conclusions to be drawn from this (see Table .). �e table shows that more than half of the arguments are causal. Perhaps this scheme is especially useful when the argumentation is based on the Scriptures – directly or indirectly – as in the many causal argument schemes about Abraham, faith, and the law in Gal. .–. . �e validity rule: In his argumentation a party may only use arguments that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premisses. Checking logical validity is an important step in evaluating the overall nature of an argumentation; does the conclusion follow from the premisses and are the premisses consistent? As the analysis above has shown, most of Paul’s arguments can be presented in a way that makes sense even if the logic employed is sometimes quite strained.²⁷ However, we should assume that some of the difficulty in interpretation is due to the fact that the original situation is mostly lost to us, and we should therefore try to find a plausible explanation for even the most difficult of Paul’s arguments. Nevertheless, we should not overestimate the ability of Paul’s addressees: if an argument is exceedingly difficult for us to understand, then in most cases it probably was for the original addressees as well. Some of the figures with explications of the argumentation rest on premisses which are in themselves interpretations that can easily be contested or which are insufficient. �is means that, although the argument is in itself valid, it is not convincing on its own. In .–, Paul argues that the Galatians received and still receive the Spirit (and experience miracles) because of their faith, and not because of their ‘doing the . Becker expresses this diplomatically: ‘Streng logisch aufgebaute Gedankenketten treten zurück. Dieser Stil ist besonders Gal ,–, anzutreffen.’ Becker, Galater, p. .

Overview and Conclusion Table .: Summary of all analysed arguments  .–:

.–:

.–: .–:

.–: .– : .–: .–: .–:

.–:

. () . () . () . () . () –" – –" – . () . () . () . () . () . () –" – . () . () . () . () . () . () . () . () . () . () . () –" – . () . () . () . () . () . () . () . () . () –" – . () –" – . () . () –" – –" – –" – –" – –" – . () . ()

.  causal symptomatic analogous causal causal causal symptomatic causal causal analogous symptomatic causal causal causal causal causal causal causal causal causal symptomatic analogous symptomatic symptomatic symptomatic symptomatic causal causal causal causal analogous symptomatic symptomatic causal causal causal causal symptomatic causal causal causal causal causal analogous symptomatic symptomatic

  . sound problematic problematic sound sound sound sound problematic sound problematic problematic problematic problematic problematic sound sound problematic problematic problematic sound sound unsound sound sound sound problematic unsound sound sound problematic problematic sound sound unsound unsound sound sound problematic unsound problematic problematic problematic problematic sound problematic sound





Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Table .: Statistics of arguments  causal analogous symptomatic 

  (%)  (%)  (%)  (%)

  (%)  (%)  (%)  (%)

  ( % )  (%) –  (%)

  (%)  (%)  (%) (%)

works of the law’. �e problem in the argument is that even though the presence of faith would certainly be a necessary condition for the reception of the Spirit and for the works of the Spirit, it may not have been considered a sufficient condition for the continuing reception and works of the Spirit by the antagonists. Even though Paul would have wished it, it does not logically follow from the premisses he supplies that faith is the only condition for the continuing reception of the Spirit and experiences of miracles. �e passage .– contains a clear violation against Rule : ., which I consider to be an example of the fallacy of incorrect transfer of properties between parts and wholes. �e argumentation in .– is consistent, although some of the claims are based on premisses which are not conclusively demonstrated. Why does ‘belonging to Christ’ make one an ‘offspring and heir of Abraham’s’? Similarly, in .–, some of the claims are based on premisses which are not conclusively demonstrated. Why are those who ‘belong to Christ’, ‘heirs according to the promise’? Again, in .–, any form of validity is not important: allegory is difficult to analyse in such terms. But Paul does draw several conclusions from the allegorical interpretation, which he uses in his argumentation. �e argumentation cannot be said to be logical in the analytical sense – here Paul relies heavily on a few premisses which are not defended. �at Isaac was born ‘according to the Spirit’ and Ishmael ‘according to the flesh’ is stated but not supported. . �e closure rule: A failed defence of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defence in the other party retracting his doubt about the standpoint. �e analysis confirms Paul’s authoritarian style of argumentation. �is creates an interesting tension in the text. On the one hand, Paul states that his claims are conclusively defended. He has made an interpretation that should be accepted by all. On the other hand, Paul really seems to try to make good arguments that are convincing from a logos perspective as well. �e style of Paul’s argumentation does not give the appearance of flexibility. On the contrary, Paul seems quite determined to argue his standpoints. For instance, .– and .– contain language which suggests that Paul would not retract his standpoints even if the other party presented a conclusive defence. �is strengthens the impression that Paul would not be prepared to retract his standpoint no matter what the defence of the other party might have been.

Overview and Conclusion



Paul draws heavily upon his ethos in several passages, such as Galatians –, .–, and .–. In .– Paul states that his standpoint is the only correct one. At the same time he depreciates his opponents by the use of vituperatio: ., ., .–, and .–. Because of the clear inequality which Paul sees between himself and his antagonists, it seems improbable that he would have ever been convinced of the correctness of their argumentation. Paul uses the technique of creating a divide between his standpoint and that of his antagonists, for example the language in .–, which is strongly deprecatory against both Jews and ‘Judaizers’ (although only the latter are probably meant). A�er the last section of the analysis, .–, it seems utterly unlikely that Paul would ever regard any defence by the other party as conclusive, or that he would retract his own standpoint. . �e usage rule: A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and he must interpret the other party’s formulations as carefully and accurately as possible. �e word ‘bewitched’ in .b has caused difficulties for commentators. It may also have been unclear for the original recipients of the letter. �e unclarity of the use of the word may therefore be a rhetorical feature. Paul conveys that he knows that the influence the Galatians are under is bad for them – it is like being bewitched. �e premiss .a–b is not clear in the sense in which Paul presents it. How are Abraham’s faith and his righteousness comparable with those of the Galatians? �e same ambiguity is a problem with .b, .b, and .c. However, precisely this ambiguity with the Old Testament quotations makes it possible for Paul to use them in a sense that fits his argumentation. In some cases the quotations fit his arguments better; in others, they are easy to contest. �e use of ambiguous texts seems deliberate on Paul’s part – an ambiguous text is more easy to incorporate as a premiss than an exact and precise one. It is important that the text contains key-words of Paul’s argumentation. �e exact logical value or clarity of the texts is in most cases secondary. Paul’s usage declarative is somewhat confusing since the traditional understanding of ‘seed’ included the Jews and, to a certain degree, the proselytes. �ere may well have been precedence for this kind of interpretation, but, still, it is not as clear as it seems to be for Paul in his argumentation. �e ‘elements of the world’ in .b is difficult for modern commentators, but may have been clear to Paul’s addressees. It is not decisive for the argumentation to know what is meant by the ‘weak and beggarly elemental spirits’. It is sufficient that Paul clearly conveys that he considers the situation of the Galatians to be dangerous and that choosing another alternative than the one he is presenting would be tantamount to giving in to ‘slavery’. Supposing that these formulations were clear enough for the original addressees, they do not violate the usage rule. �e Hagar and Sarah allegory is also difficult from the point of view of the usage rule. It contains difficult formulations, especially in .a–.

Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

 .

Conclusion: Paul’s argumentation in Galatians

In closing, I return to the questions I posed at the conclusion of Chapter . . �e substance of Paul’s argumentation: Are the arguments convincing from a logos perspective? Are the arguments theologically consistent viewed as a whole? What are the contents of the arguments concerning the main themes of gospel, law, Spirit, circumcision, and freedom? Paul makes a good effort to present a convincing argumentation. �e logoselement is clearly not indifferent – otherwise Paul would not dedicate such a large part of the letter to arguments in favour of his position, arguments which at points are very difficult and which must have required careful consideration during composition. Paul approaches his theme from many angles. �e gospel is based only on faith, as it was promised to Abraham. Righteousness does not require works of the law initially nor subsequently. In this sense, the law is inferior to the gospel, and this can be concluded also from the way the law was given, that it is posterior to the gospel, that it had a limited time of function as a pathway to righteousness. �e Spirit is a proof for Paul’s theology since the Spirit was initially gained, and subsequently works, without the need for any works of the law. Circumcision is an act of law with dire consequences: it leads back to a slavery under the law and thus nullifies the benefit of Christ. �e gospel of faith leads to freedom, the gospel of law leads to slavery. �e results of this thesis do not as such place themselves anywhere in particular within the debate about the ‘new perspective on Paul’, regardless of whether we understand ‘works of the law’ as ‘badges’ for God’s people (James D. G. Dunn),²⁸ for example, or as references to the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race (N. T. Wright),²⁹ or as something else. As noted above, the question for the Galatians is how to continue their lives as Christians and here Paul makes it clear that ‘works of the law’ play no part in their justification or righteousness. In Galatians this question crystallizes into the question about circumcision. Is Paul’s argumentation coherent from a theological point of view? (cf. the presentation in Section ., p. ). In Galatians, Paul’s argumentation creates a coherent whole. A problematic issue brought forth in the discussion about Paul and the law concerns the differences in theology between Galatians and Romans. �e impression on the basis of an analysis of Galatians is that Paul adapts his approach to the situation. As I see it, this is the main reason for tensions between argumentation in different contexts. Was Paul’s argumentation consistent on a deeper level? (cf. Sanders’ suggestion, Section ., p. ). Judging from Paul’s clear purpose in Galatians it is safe to say that the main points of Paul’s mission are clear, but his use of the topical potential and his reactions to the auditorial demand in . James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster /John Knox Press, ), p. . . N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ), p. .

Overview and Conclusion



different situations present some tensions. An analysis of Galatians alone is not enough to evaluate on what level Paul’s theology was structured and coherent. . �e function of Paul’s argumentation: Does Paul’s argumentation function in the sense that the different arguments together convincingly support a main standpoint? What is the relationship between logos, ethos, and pathos in the argument? Is there a clear use of strategic manoeuvring? How is the argument convincing? When considering the argumentation from an overall perspective, it is compelling. It offers a wide variety of topical potential, including arguments from Scripture, from tradition, from experience, and from common practice. It also includes a variety of presentational devices, including intimidation, teaching, irony, personal appeal, allegory, and vilification. �ere is indeed a clear use of strategic manoeuvring that is carried out in a fairly good manner. �e effect is achieved by a good combination of topical potential, presentational devices and auditorial demand. Of these, the auditorial demand seems to be the weakest since it contains more blame and rebuke than supportive exhortation, but it is difficult to evaluate the effect of this – perhaps Paul appears exactly as the Galatians would expect him to appear in a grave situation, and he clearly wants to signal that the situation indeed is grave. �e argumentation is mainly convincing because of the underlying tone of authority. Paul draws upon the authority of Scripture, tradition, experience, and his own calling and instruction. . �e quality of Paul’s argumentation: Is the argumentation sound from an argumentation analysis perspective? Is the argumentation in Galatians coherent, a set of loosely connected arguments, or something else? �ere is a clear imbalance in the higher-order conditions. Paul does not approach the situation as if there were a symmetry of status between Paul and the Galatians. �is imbalance permeates the whole argumentation, and this is clear from the overview below with regard to the rules of a critical discussion. �e coherence of Paul’s argument also leaves room for improvement. At times it is ill-structured and gives the impression of being less thought-out in relation to structure. However, on a higher level, the argument advances in good order, from establishing Paul’s credibility and explaining the role of the law and of faith respectively, to a warning against circumcision. �e argumentation structure is not always easy to determine, and several arguments do not hold up to the scrutiny of the soundness criterion. Several expressives also diminish the quality of the argumentation. Paul puts forth his argumentation by using the full range of logos-, ethos-, and pathos-elements. All of these are present throughout the letter, but in the section under close analysis, logos-elements dominate. Paul is able to use an argumentative strategy where the three support each other, presenting an argumentation unfolding in a good manner. Mirroring Paul’s argumentation against the ten rules of argumentation clarified several problems. �e following is a summary of the results with regard to each of the ten rules:



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

. Paul presents his standpoints forcefully and o�en as evident conclusions or well-known facts, even when this is not the case. . Paul is willing and able to defend his standpoints, rigorously if necessary. . Paul’s argumentation does not seem to relate to the standpoints of the other party in all points; Paul makes his own interpretation of what the important standpoints are. . Some of Paul’s arguments are difficult to relate to his standpoints. �is may be due to Paul’s rhetorical manner of introducing arguments which due to their origin (e.g. the Scriptures), some key-words, or appealing imagery seem to back up Paul’s argumentation. In some cases the problem may lie in our lack of knowledge of possible previous stages of the argumentation between Paul and the Galatians or among the Galatians. . Paul does not make full use of the rhetorical enthymeme, but states his arguments clearly and openly. . He does, however, tend to present arguments under dispute as accepted starting points and to build argumentation upon them without further reflection. Although bad from an argumentation analysis perspective, it is o�en effective from a rhetorical perspective. . Paul favours causal argument schemes over symptomatic and, especially, analogous ones. More than half of all the arguments are problematic or unsound. �is partly explains why Paul’s argumentation is described again and again by commentators as ‘erratic’ or ‘extremely difficult to follow’. Paul does not always manage to defend his standpoints conclusively, although he o�en presents them as conclusive. . �e logical validity is difficult to assess. �e difficulty lies not only with Paul’s argumentation but with religious and ethical argumentation in general. �is is especially difficult with arguments put forth in a historical text where the exact meaning of some of the premisses are unclear. Although I have made clear choices in the many figures in the analysis with regards to what the premisses are, the choices were, in some cases, difficult. (What is the standpoint, what is the expressed premiss, and what is the unexpressed premiss?) . During the analysis it was noted several times that Paul’s argumentation is not flexible – it is in fact authoritarian. Especially a�er the last section, it seemed unlikely that Paul would ever regard any defence by the other party as conclusive, nor that he would retract his own standpoint. . Paul’s argumentation is at points unclear and confusingly ambiguous. �is seems at times to be unintentional, but sometimes it may be intentional as a presentational device. Some of the unclarity is due to our limited knowledge of the historical context. Do the violations against the rules spelled out within PD theory also constitute violations against those general, unwritten rules of communication which Paul was expected to respect in the original context? Basically, I find that the general way in which the rules are formulated have made them useful even in the analysis

Overview and Conclusion



of such a text as Galatians. On the other hand, it would not do justice to Paul to make too rigid a judgement based on these rules. �erefore, my comments are more general than would have been the case in an analysis of a modern critical argumentation where the context and the arguments of both parties would be clearly known. �is is not to say that the defects in Paul’s argumentation should be ignored; a�er a thorough argumentation analysis we cannot ignore them. Rather, they are part of Paul’s argumentative style. . �e benefits of an argumentation analysis: Does a specific argumentation analysis aid the exegete in understanding a Pauline text? Is a PD analysis suitable for the task? First of all, a specific argumentation analysis forces the analyst to isolate the argument properly. �us the exegesis can be based on a clear understanding of the argument and one can distinguish between the claims and premisses, including unexpressed ones. An evaluation of the argumentation structure and of the argument schemes also help the exegete to give a more specific evaluation of the argument. �e PD method approaches a text from a specific standpoint, that of an argumentation between two parties. In the case of Galatians, the method has proven useful in spite of the problem of not having the expressed statements of the other party. �e set of ideal rules for the resolution of a dispute provide the analyst with a tool for pinpointing problems in the argumentation. Again, this allows the exegete to be more exact in his analysis. Finally, the concept of argumentative strategy allows for a comprehensive picture of the argumentation, including ethos and pathos aspects in the whole letter. In the case of an analysis of Paul’s argumentation this element of the method is necessary. �e old view of Paul’s argumentation as passionate and incoherent does not do justice to Paul and does not lead to a balanced analysis of his argumentation.³⁰ �e discipline of argumentation analysis has undeservedly been neglected among exegetes. It provides new tools for those who wish to make a full and more precise analysis of argumentative texts. In the case of Paul and other New Testament texts the PD method is a useful addition to those methods currently in use. . Cf. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. : ‘Ganz aus der Leidenscha� ist dagegen der Galaterbrief geboren, ein flammendes Straf- und Verteidigungswort, wirklich keine Abhandlung “De lege et evangelio”, sondern Widerschein wetterleuchtender Genialität.’ �is pregnant quote illustrates the two pitfalls: to consider Galatians to be too little or too much in the sense of how well thought out it is.

B Abasciano, Brian J., Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans .–: An Intertextual and �eological Exegesis (London: T & T Clark, ). Aland, Kurt (ed.), Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschri�en des Neuen Testaments: Die Paulinischen Briefe, Bd. : Galaterbrief bis Philipperbrief (Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, ). — et al. (eds), Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellscha�, th edn, ). Anderson Jr, R. D., Ancient Rhetorical �eory and Paul (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and �eology, ; Kampen: Kok Pharos, ). Aristotle, Aristotle on Fallacies /�e Sophistic Elenchi (with a trans. and commentary by Edward Poste; London: Macmillan, ). —, �e ‘Art’ of Rhetoric: with an English Translation by John Henry Freese (G. P. Gould (ed.); LCL, ; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ). Aune, David E., ‘Galatians: A Commentary . . ., by Hans Dieter Betz; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ’, RSR () (), pp. –, book review. —, �e Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, ). Austin, J. L., ‘Performative Utterances’, in Philosophical Papers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), pp. –. —, How to Do �ings with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, nd edn, ). Bachmann, Michael, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief?: Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur �eologie des Apostels Paulus (NTOA, ; Freiburg, Schweitz & Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg & Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ). Barclay, John M. G., ‘Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT  (), pp. –. —, Obeying the Truth: Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ). Barrett, C. K., ‘�e Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians’, in Fridrich, J. and W. Pohlmann and P. Stuhlmacher (eds), Rechtfertigung: Festschri� für Ernst Käsemann (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, ), pp. –. 



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Becker, Jürgen, Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser und Kolosser: Übersetzt und erklärt von Jürgen Becker und Ulrich Luz (NTD, /; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ). Berger, Klaus, ‘Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede: zum formular der frühchristlichen Briefe’, ZNW  (), pp. –. Betz, Hans Dieter, ‘�e Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians’, NTS  (), pp. –. —, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ). Bonevac, Daniel, ‘Pragma-dialectics and Beyond’, Argum  (), pp. –. Bonneau, Normand, ‘�e Logic of Paul’s Argument on the Curse of the Law in Galatians :–’, NovT XXXIX (), pp. –. Botha, J. Eugene, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech Act Reading of John :– (NovTSup, LXV; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ). Briggs, Richard S., ‘�e Uses of Speech-Act �eory in Biblical Interpretation’, CRBS  (), pp. –. —, Words in Action: Speech Act �eory and Biblical Interpretation (London: T & T Clark, ). Brinsmead, Bernard Hungerford, Galatians: Dialogical Response to Opponents (SBLDS, ; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, ). Bühlmann, Walter and Karl Scherer, Stilfiguren der Bibel: Ein kleines Nachschlagwerk (Biblische Beiträge, ; Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, ). Bullinger, E. W., Figures of Speech Used in �e Bible Explained and Illustrated (London: Messrs Eyre and Spottiswoode, ). Bultmann, Rudolf, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch–stoische Diatribe: Mit einem Geleitwort von Hans Hübner (FRLANT, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ). Buss, Martin J., ‘Potential and Actual Interactions Between Speech Act �eory and Biblical Studies’, Semeia  (), pp. –. Campenhausen, Hans von, ‘Ein Witz des Apostels Paulus und die Anfänge des christlichen Humors’, in Neutestamentlichen Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zum . Geburtstag am . August  (BZNW, ; Berlin, ), pp. –. Carey, Stephen S., �e Uses and Abuses of Argument (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, ). Classen, Carl Joachim, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (WUNT, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ). Conzelmann, Hans, Geschichte des Urchristentums (Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament, das Neue Testament Deutsch, Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk, Ergänzungsreihe, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, rd edn, ). Copi, Irving M., Introduction to Logic (New York: Macmillan Publishing, th edn, ).

Bibliography



Cosby, Michael R., ‘Galatians: Red-Hot Rhetoric’, in Eriksson, Anders, �omas H. Olbricht and Walter Übelacker (eds), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund  Conference (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, ), pp. –. Craig, Robert T., ‘Practical Communication �eory and the Pragma-dialectical Approach in Conversation’, in Eemeren, Frans H. van et al. (eds), Argumentation Illuminated (Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), pp. –. Deciu, Andreea, ‘�e Debate Between René Descartes and Pierre Fermat: a Pragma-Dialectical Analysis’ (unpublished dissertation, University of Minnesota, ). Deissmann, Adolf, Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch–römischen Welt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), th edn, ). Derrida, J., ‘Signature Event Context’, Glyph I (), pp. –. Dibelius, Martin, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), th edn, ). Dijk, Teun A. van, ‘Introduction: Discourse Analysis as a New Cross-Discipline’, in Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Disciplines of Discourse, vol. i (London: Academic Press, ), pp. –. —, ‘Introduction: Levels and Dimensions of Discourse Analysis’, in Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Dimensions of Discourse, vol. ii (London: Academic Press, ), pp. –. — (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Disciplines of Discourse, vol. i (London: Academic Press, ). Donaldson, T. L., ‘�e “Curse of the Law” and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians .–’, NTS  (), pp. –. Doty, William G., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ). Du Plessis, J. G., ‘Speech Act �eory and New Testament Interpretation with Special Reference to G. N. Leech’s Pragmatic Principles’, in Hartin, P. J. and J. H. Petzer (eds), Text & Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, ), pp. –. Du Toit, André B., ‘Vilification as a Pragmatic Device in Early Christian Epistolography’, Biblica  (), pp. –. Dunn, James D. G., Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster /John Knox Press, ). —, �e Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC, Peabody: Hendrickson, ). —, �e �eology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (New Testament �eology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Eckert, Jost, Die urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief (Biblische Untersuchungen, ; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, ).



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Eemeren, Frans H. van, ‘Dialectical analysis as normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse’, Text () (), pp. –. —, ‘Argumentation Studies’ Five Estates’, in Wenzel, Joseph W. (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fi�h SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, ), pp. –. —, ‘For Reason’s Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse’, in Van Eemeren (ed.), Argumentation Across the Lines of Discipline: Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation  (PDA, ; Dordrecht: Foris Publications, ), pp. –. —, ‘�e Study of Argumentation from a Speech Act Perspective’, in Verschueren, Jef (ed.), Pragmatics at Issue: Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August –,  (PBNS, :; Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, ), pp. –. —, ‘�e Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics’, in Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (eds), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation, ), pp. –. —, ‘�e State of the Art in Argumentation �eory’, in Van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ), pp. –. — (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ). — (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (Sic Sat, Amsterdam: Sic Sat & Newport News, VA: Vale Press, ). — and Rob Grootendorst, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A �eoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussion Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion (PDA, ; Dordrecht, �e Netherlands & Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications, ). — —, ‘Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argum  (), pp. –. — —, ‘Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argum  (), pp. –. — —, ‘Rules for Argumentation in Dialogues’, Argum  (), pp. –. — —, ‘Speech Act Conditions as Tools for Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse’, Argum  (), pp. –. — —, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ). — —, ‘�e Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies’, in Hansen, Hans V. and Robert C. Pinto (eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, ), pp. –. — —, ‘A Pragma-dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion’, Argum  (), pp. –. — —, A Systematic �eory of Argumentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ).

Bibliography



—— (eds), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation, ). — — and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ). — and Peter Houtlosser, ‘Rhetorical Rationales for Dialectical Moves’, in Klumpp, J. (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, ), pp. –. — —, ‘Delivering the Goods in Critical Discussion’, in Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), pp. –. — —, ‘Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse’, DS () (), pp. – . — —, ‘William the Silent’s Argumentative Discourse’, in Eemeren and Houtlosser (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), pp. –. — —, ‘�e Rhetoric of William the Silent’s Apologie: A Dialectical Perspective’, in Suzuki, T., Y. Yano and T. Kato (eds), Proceedings of the st Tokyo Conference on Argumentation (Tokyo: Japan Debate Association, ), pp. –. — —, ‘Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering’, in Arguing Communication & Culture: Selected Papers from the Twel�h NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (Washington, DC: National Communication Association, ), pp. –. — —, ‘A Procedural View of Critical Reasonableness’, in Arguing Communication & Culture: Selected Papers from the Twel�h NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (Washington, DC: National Communication Association, ), pp. –. — —, ‘Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance’, in Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser (eds), Dialectic and Rhetoric: �e Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (Argumentation Library, ; Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ), pp. –. ——, ‘Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof ’, in Van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (Sic Sat, Amsterdam: Sic Sat & Newport News, VA: Vale Press, ), pp. –. — —, ‘�e Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation’, Argum  (), pp. –. — — (eds), Dialectic and Rhetoric: �e Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (Argumentation Library, ; Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ). — et al., Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse (Studies in Rhetoric and Communication, Tuscaloosa, AL & London: University of Alabama Press, ).



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Eemeren, Frans H. van et al., Fundamentals of Argumentation �eory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ). — et al. (eds), Proceedings of the �ird ISSA Conference on Argumentation . . .  (Sic Sat, a,b,c;  vols; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ). — et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ). — et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Fi�h Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ). Elliot, Susan M., ‘Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians :–: in the Shadow of the Anatolian Mother of the Gods’, JBL () (), pp. –. Ellis, E. Earle, Paul’s Use of �e Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, ). Eriksson, Anders, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in  Corinthians (ConBNT, ; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, ). —,‘Enthymemes in Pauline Argumentation: Reading between the Lines in  Corinthians’, in Eriksson, Anders, �omas H. Olbricht and Walter Übelacker (eds), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts (EmSEC, ; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, ), pp. –. — and �omas H. Olbricht and Walter Übelacker (eds), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts (EmSEC, ; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, ). Eshbaugh, Howard, ‘Textual Variants and �eology: A Study of the Galatians Text of Papyrus ’, JSNT  (), pp. –. Evans, Donald D., �e Logic of Self-Involvement: A Philosophical Study of Everyday Language with Special Reference to the Christian Use of Language about God as Creator (New York, NY: Herder and Herder, ). Fairweather, Janet, ‘�e Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric: Parts  & ’, Tyndale Bulletin () (), pp. –. Ferrara, Alessandro, ‘Pragmatics’, in Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Dimensions of Discourse, vol. ii (London: Academic Press, ), pp. –. Freeley, A. J., Argumentation and Debate: Critical �inking for Reasoned Decision Making (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, ). Garssen, Bart, ‘Argument Schemes’, in Eemeren, Frans H. van (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ), pp. –. — and Francisca Snoek Henkemans (eds), De redelijkheid zelve. Tien pragmadialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren (Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers, ). Gerritsen, Susanne, ‘Unexpressed Premises’, in Eemeren, Frans H. van (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ), pp. –.

Bibliography



Gilbert, Michael A., ‘Ideal Argumentation’(), pp. –, A paper presented at the th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Windsor, Ontario. Available online at http://www.yorku.ca/gilbert/argthry; visited on Oct th, . Gorman, Matthew, ‘Does Socrates Engage in Socratic Argumentation?’, in Hansen, Hans V., Christopher W. Tindale and Athena V. Colman (eds), Argumentation & Rhetoric: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation – Second Conference (only pub. on CD-ROM; St. Catharines, ON: Brock University, ). Grice, Paul, Studies in the Way of Words (Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press, ). Hall, Robert G., ‘�e Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration’, JBL () (), pp. –. Hamblin, C. L., Fallacies (London: Methuen, ). Hansen, G. Walter, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ). Hansen, Hans V. and Robert C. Pinto (eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, ). Hanson, R. P. C., Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London & Richmond, VA: SCM & John Knox, ). Hartman, Lars, ‘Gal :–: as Part of a �eological Argument on a Practical Issue’, in Text-Centered New Testament studies: text-theoretical essays on early Jewish and early Christian literature (WUNT, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ), pp. –. —, Text-Centered New Testament studies: text-theoretical essays on early Jewish and early Christian literature (WUNT, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ). Hayes, Calvin, ‘Popper’s Critical Rationalism and the Rationale for PragmaDialectics’, in Hansen, Hans V., Christopher W. Tindale and Athena V. Colman (eds), Argumentation & Rhetoric, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation – Second Conference (only pub. on CD-ROM; St. Catharines, ON: Brock University, ). Hellholm, David, ‘Enthymemic Argumentation in Paul: �e Case of Romans ’, in Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ), pp. –. Henkemans, Francisca Snoeck, Analysing Complex Argumentation: �e reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, nd edn, ). Hester, James D., ‘�e Rhetorical Structure of Galatians :–:’, JBL () (), pp. –. —, ‘Placing the Blame: �e Presence of Epideictic in Galatians  and ’, in Per-



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

suasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ), pp. –. Hietanen, Mika, Galaterbrevet i ljuset av en retorisk analys (Religionsvetenskapliga skri�er, ; Åbo: Ämnet religionsvetenskap vid Åbo Akademi, ). —, ‘Profetian är primärt inte för de otrogna – en argumentationsanalys av  Kor :b’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok  (), pp. –. Hill, David, ‘Salvation Proclaimed: IV. Galatians :–: Freedom and Acceptance’, ExpTim  (), pp. –. Hitchcock, David, ‘Critical Review: Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Frans H. van Eemeren, ed.’, Informal Logic () (), pp. –, book review. Houtlosser, Peter, ‘Points of View’, in Eemeren, Frans H. van (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation �eory (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, ), pp. –. — and Agnès van Rees (eds), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (Festschri� Frans H. van Eemeren; Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, ). Ito, H., ‘Command or Petition? A Speech Act Analysis of the Parents’ Utterances in John :cd’, Acta �eologica  (), pp. –. —, ‘�e Significance of Jesus’ Utterance in Relation to the Johannine Son of Man: A Speech Act Analysis of John :’, Acta �eologica  (), pp. –. Jegher-Bucher, Verena, Der Galaterbrief auf dem Hintergrund antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik: Ein anderes Paulusbild (Abhandlungen zur �eologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, ; Zürich: �eologischer Verlag, ). Johnson, Ralph H., ‘Informal Logic and Pragma-dialectics: Some Differences’, in Eemeren, Frans H. van et al. (eds), Perspectives and Approaches: Proceedings of the �ird ISSA Conference on Argumentation (Sic Sat, ; Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), pp. –. Jónsson, Jakob, Humour and Irony in �e New Testament Illuminated by Parallels in Talmud and Midrash (Beihe�e der Zeitschri� für Religions- und Geistesgeschihte, XXVIII; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ). Kennedy, George A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Studies in Religion, Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press, ). —, Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition from ancient to modern times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, nd edn, ). Kern, Philip H., Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle (SNTSMS, ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Kienpointner, Manfred, Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, ). König, Ed., Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die Biblische Literatur Komparativisch Dargestellt (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung �eodor Weicher, ).

Bibliography



Kopperschmidt, Josef, ‘An Analysis of Argumentation’, in Dijk, Teun A. van (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Dimensions of Discourse, vol. ii (London: Academic Press, ), pp. –. Koskenniemi, Heikki, Studien zur Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis  n. Chr (Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ, Ser. B., ,; Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, ). Kra�chick, Steven John, ‘Ethos and Pathos Appeals in Galatians Five and Six: A Rhetorical Analysis’ (unpublished dissertation, Emory University, ). Kremendahl, Dieter, Die Botscha� der Form: Zum verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetoric im Galaterbrief (NTOA, ; Freiburg, Schweitz & Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg & Vandenoeck & Ruprecht, ). Kümmel, Werner Georg, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, st edn, ). Kuula, Kari, �e Law, the Covenant and God’s Plan. Volume : Paul’s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, ; Helsinki & Göttingen: �e Finnish Exegetical Society & Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ). Lanser, S. S., �e Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ). Lausberg, Heinrich, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenscha� (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, rd edn, ). Lietzmann, D. Hans, An Die Galater (HNT, ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), th edn, ). Longenecker, Richard N., Paul, Apostle of Liberty (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, ). —, Galatians (WBC, ; Dallas: Word Books, ). Lüdemann, Gerd, Paulus: der Heidenapostel (FRLANT, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ). Lüttgert, W., Gesetz und Geist: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher �eologie, (); Gütersloh: Wolfgang Schrage & Rudolf Smend, ). Mack, Burton L., Rhetoric and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ). Malherbe, Abraham J., Ancient Epistolary �eorists (SBLSBS, ; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, ). Marshall, J. W., ‘Paul’s Ethical Appeal in Philippians’, in Porter, Stanley E. and �omas H. Olbricht (eds), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the  Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ), pp. –. Martin, Troy, ‘Apostasy to Paganism: �e Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy’, JBL () (), pp. –. Martyn, J. Louis, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, a; New York: Doubleday, ).



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Marxsen, Willi, Einleitung in das Neue Testament: eine Einführung in ihre Probleme (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, ). Meeks, Wayne A., ‘�e Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity’, History of Religion  (), pp. –. —, ‘Galatians: A Commentary . . . , by Hans Dieter Betz; Philadelphia: Fortress, ’, JBL  (), pp. –, book review. Merk, Otto, ‘Der Beginn der Paränese im Galaterbrief ’, ZNW  (), pp. – . Mitchell, Margaret, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of  Corinthians (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur �eologie, ; Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, ). Mitternacht, Dieter, Forum für Sprachlose: Eine kommunikationspsychologische und epistolär–rhetorische Untersuchung des Galaterbriefs (ConBNT, ; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, ). Moores, John D., Wrestling with rationality in Paul: Romans – in a new perspective (SNTSMS, ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Morland, Kjell Arne, �e Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel (EmSEC, ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ). Mußner, Frans, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT, IX; Freiburg: Herder, th edn, ). Næss, Arne, Endel elementære logiske emner (Oslo: Grøndahl & søns boktrykkeri, th edn, ). Neufeld, D., Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of  John (Biblical Interpretation Series, ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ). �e New Revised Standard Version Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, , Anglicized edn; Copyright , , Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. Used by permission. All rights reserved.). Oepke, D. Albrecht, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT, IX; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, nd edn, ). Olbricht, �omas H. and Anders Eriksson (eds), Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the  Heidelberg Conference (EmSEC, ; New York & Edinburgh: T & T Clark, ). Patte, Daniel, ‘Speech Act �eory and Biblical Exegesis’, Semeia  (), pp. – . Pearsall, Judy (ed.), �e New Oxford Dictionary of English (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ). Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, �e New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. John Wilkinson & Purcell Weaver; University of Notre Dame Press, ; Notre Dame & London: University of Notre Dame Press, ). Pitta, Antonio, Dispositione e Messaggio della Lettera ai Galati: Analisi retorico– letteraria (AnBib, ; Roma: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, ).

Bibliography



Porter, Stanley E. and �omas H. Olbricht (eds), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the  Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ). — — (eds), Rhetoric, Scripture and �eology: Essays from the  Pretoria Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ). — — (eds), �e Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the  London Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ). — and Dennis L. Stamps (eds), �e Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the  Malibu Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ). — — (eds), Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ). Räisänen, Heikki, Paul and the Law (WUNT, ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), nd edn, ). —, Beyond New Testament �eology: A story and a programme (London: SCM Press, nd edn, ). Roller, Otto, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe (Beiträge zur Wissenscha� vom Alten und Neuen Testament, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, ). Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ). Schewe, Susanne, Die Galater zurückgewinnen: Paulinische Strategien in Galater  und . (FRLANT, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ). Schiffrin, Deborah, Approaches to Discourse (Oxford, UK & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, ). Schlier, Heinrich, Der Brief an die Galater (MeyerK, ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, th edn, ). Schmithals, Walter, ‘Die Häretiker in Galatien’, ZNW  (), pp. –. Schnider, Franz and Werner Stenger, Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular (NTTS, ; Leiden: Brill, ). Schoeps, H. J., Paul: �e �eology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (trans. H. Knight; Philadelphia: �e Westminster Press, ). Searle, John R., Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). —, ‘Indirect Speech Acts’, in Cole, P. and J. L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts (London: Academic Press, ), pp. –. —, ‘A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts’, in Gunderson, K. (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, ), pp. – . —, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the �eory of Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ).



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

‘A Selective Bibliography of Studies of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians’, JSRCNT, an online journal at http://rhetjournal.net; visited on Oct th, . Siegert, Folker, Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm – (WUNT, ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), ). Sigrell, Anders, Att övertyga mellan raderna: en retorisk studie om underförstådda inslag i modern politisk argumentation (Meddelanden från institutionen för nordiska språk vid Umeå universitet, ; Umeå: Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Umeå universitet, ). Smit, Joop, ‘�e Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech’, NTS  (), pp. –. Snyman, A. H., ‘Persuasion in Philippians :–’, in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the  Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ), pp. –. Stanley, Christopher D., ‘ /“Under a Curse”: A Fresh Reading of Galatians .–’, NTS  (), pp. –. —, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation technique in the Pauline Epistles and contemporary literature (SNTSMS, ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Stirewalt Jr, M. Luther, Paul, �e Letter Writer (Grand Rapids, MI & Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ). Stowers, Stanley K., Letter Writing in Greco–Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity, ; Philadelphia, PA: �e Westminster Press, ). �urén, Lauri, �e Rhetorical Strategy of  Peter: With Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions (Åbo: Åbo Academy Press, ). —, Argument and �eology in  Peter: �e Origins of Christian Paraenesis (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ). —, ‘Was Paul Angry?: Derhetorizing Galatians’, in Porter, Stanley E. and Dennis L. Stamps (eds), �e Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: essays from the  Malibu Conference (JSNTSup, ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ), pp. –. —, Derhetorizing Paul (WUNT, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ). Tolmie, D. Francois, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (WUNT, . Reihe, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ). Toulmin, Stephen, An Examination of �e Place of Reason in Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). —, �e Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). —, ‘Logic, Rhetoric & Reason: Redressing the Balance’, in Eemeren, Frans H. van et al. (eds), Argumentation Illuminated (Amsterdam: Sic Sat, ), pp. –. — and Richard Rieke and Allan Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning (New York: Macmillan Publishing, nd edn, ). Vos, Johan S., Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik (WUNT, ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), ).

Bibliography



Walton, Douglas N., Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). —, Argument structure: a pragmatic theory (Toronto studies in philosophy, Toronto & Buffalo & London: University of Toronto Press, ). Watson, Duane F. and Alan J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method (Biblical Interpretation Series, ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ). White, Hugh C., ‘Speech Act �eory and Literary Criticism’, Semeia  (), pp. –. — (ed.), Speech Act �eory and Biblical Criticism (Semeia, ; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, ). White, John Lee, �e Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle (SBLDS, ; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, ). Wisse, Maarten, ‘Words in Action: Speech Act �eory and Biblical Interpretation, by Richard S. Briggs; London: T & T Clark, ’, Ars Disputandi  (), pp. –, an online journal at http://www.ArsDisputandi.org; visited on Oct th, ; book review. Wright, N. T., What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ). Young, Norman H., ‘Who’s Cursed – And Why? (Galatians :–)’, JBL () (), pp. –. Zahn, �eodor, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, IX; Leipzig: A. Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Nachf., ). Zarefsky, David, ‘�e Ten Rules of Pragma-Dialectics and Validity in Argumentation’, in Houtlosser, Peter and Agnès van Rees (eds), Considering PragmaDialectics (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, ), pp. –.

I  B R OLD TESTAMENT Genesis . , , ,  . ,  .  . , , , , ,  .  .  .  .–.  .ff.  .  .–  .   

.–  .–  .–  . ,  . –, ,  .–  . , ,  . ,  .  .-  .–  .–  .  .–  . , , , ,  .– , , , , ,  . , , ,  .–  .–  . ,  .– ,  . , ,  .–  .  .– ,  .  .  . ,  .–  .– ,  .  .  .–  . 

Exodus .  Leviticus . ,  Deuteronomy . ,  . ,  Habakkuk . , ,  NEW TESTAMENT Galatians – ,  . ,  .–  .–.  .–  

 . , ,  .  .– , , ,  .–  .  . , ,  .–  .– ,  .  .– ,  .–  .  .  .  .  .– , ,  .  .–  .  .  . ,  .– ,  .–  .  .– ,  .–  .  . , ,  .  .  .–  .  .–  .– ,  .–  .– ,  .  . , ,  .  .– 

Index of Biblical References

I  A Abasciano, Brian J.  Aland, Kurt ,  Anderson Jr, R. D. ,  Aristotle , ,  Aune, David E. ,  Austin, J. L. , 

Copi, Irving M.  Cosby, Michael R.  Craig, Robert T.  Deciu, Andreea ,  Deissmann, Adolf , ,  Derrida, J.  Dibelius, Martin  Dijk, Teun A. van , , ,  Donaldson, T. L.  Doty, William G. ,  Dunn, James D. G. , ,  Du Plessis, J. G.  Du Toit, André B. , 

Bachmann, Michael  Barclay, John M. G. , ,  Barrett, C. K.  Becker, Jürgen ,  Berger, Klaus  Betz, Hans Dieter –, , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , –, –, , , , , , , –, , –, ,  Bonevac, Daniel  Bonneau, Normand  Botha, J. Eugene  Briggs, Richard S. ,  Brinsmead, Bernard Hungerford , ,  Bullinger, E. W.  Bultmann, Rudolf ,  Buss, Martin J.  Bühlmann, Walter 

Eckert, Jost , ,  Eemeren, Frans H. van , , , , , , –, –, , , , , , ,  Elliot, Susan M. ,  Ellis, E. Earle ,  Engberg-Pedersen, Troels  Eriksson, Anders , , ,  Eshbaugh, Howard  Evans, Donald D.  Fairweather, Janet  Ferrara, Alessandro  Freeley, A. J.  Friedrich, J. 

Campenhausen, Hans von  Carey, Stephen S.  Classen, Carl Joachim  Cole, P. ,  Colman, Athena V. , ,  Conzelmann, Hans 

Garssen, Bart , , ,  Gerritsen, Susanne  Gilbert, Michael A.  Gorman, Matthew ,  



Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians

Grice, Paul ,  Grootendorst, Rob , , , –, , –, –, –, , , , , , , , ,  Gunderson, K.  Hall, Robert G. ,  Hamblin, C. L.  Hansen, G. Walter , , , , , ,  Hansen, Hans V. , , ,  Hanson, R. P. C.  Hartin, P. J.  Hartman, Lars ,  Hauser, Alan J. , , ,  Hayes, Calvin  Hellholm, David  Henkemans, Francisca Snoeck , , , , , , , , –, , , ,  Hester, James D. ,  Hietanen, Mika xiii, , ,  Hill, David , ,  Hitchcock, David , ,  Houtlosser, Peter , , , , – , , , , – Ito H., ,  Jegher-Bucher, Verena ,  Johnson, Ralph H.  Jónsson, Jakob  Kennedy, George A. , , , ,  Kern, Philip H. , , ,  Kienpointner, Manfred  König, Ed.  Kopperschmidt, Josef  Koskenniemi, Heikki  Kra�chick, Steven John , , ,  Kremendahl, Dieter , ,  Kümmel, Werner Georg  Kuula, Kari 

Lanser, S. S.  Lausberg, Heinrich ,  Lietzmann, D. Hans  Longenecker, Richard N. –, – , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , ,  Lüdemann, Gerd  Lüttgert, W.  Mack, Burton L.  Malherbe, Abraham J.  Marshall, J. W.  Martin, Troy  Martyn, J. Louis , , , , , , ,  Marxsen, Willi ,  Meeks, Wayne A. , ,  Merk, Otto , ,  Mitchell, Margaret  Mitternacht, Dieter , , ,  Moores, John D. ,  Morgan, J. L. ,  Morland, Kjell Arne  Mußner, Frans , –, , , , , , , , , , , , –, , ,  Neufeld, D.  Næss, Arne ,  Oepke, D. Albrecht , , , , , ,  Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. , ,  Olbricht, �omas H. , , ,  Patte, Daniel ,  Pearsall, Judy  Perelman, Ch. , ,  Pitta, Antonio ,  Porter, Stanley E. , , , , , ,  Räisänen, Heikki , ,  Rieke, Richard , 

Index of Authors Roller, Otto  Sanders, E. P. ,  Scherer, Karl  Schewe, Susanne  Schiffrin, Deborah  Schlier, Heinrich , , , , , , , , ,  Schmithals, Walter  Schnider, Franz – Schoeps, H. J.  Searle, John R. –, –,  Siegert, Folker , , , , , ,  Sigrell, Anders , ,  Smit, Joop , , ,  Snyman, A. H.  Stamps, Dennis L. , , , , ,  Stanley, Christopher D. , , ,  Stenger, Werner – Stirewalt Jr, M. Luther  Stowers, Stanley K.  Stuhlmacher, P.  �urén, Lauri , , , , , , , , , ,  Tindale, Christopher W. , ,  Tolmie, D. Francois , ,  Toulmin, Stephen , , ,  Verschueren, Jef , ,  Vos, Johan S.  Walton, Douglas N. ,  Watson, Duane F. ,  Wenzel, Joseph W. ,  White, Hugh C.  White, John Lee ,  Wisse, Maarten  Wright, N. T.  Young, Norman H. , , 

Zahn, �eodor ,  Zarefsky, David 

