Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Gal 5:2-12 (was Gal. 2:11-21)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jim Hester" <hester AT jasper.uor.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gal 5:2-12 (was Gal. 2:11-21)
  • Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:08:28 -0800


Mark: you wrote concerning my observations on Gal 5:1,13:

> This is pretty tenuous as stated. This particular observation would
> apply to many of the seams evident in the letter, such as the
> movement from situational discourse to narrative units, sometimes, as
> at 3:1, with little to no transition indicated. Another such unit
> that readily comes to mind is the language between 4:11 and 21.

The shift at 3:1 doesn't strike me as analogous to that at 5:2. From a
Perelmanian perspective I can make the case that the argumentative situation
had changed by the end of chapter two, that Paul addresses an audience that
may have been convinced that he was consistent in his actions based on his
interpretation of the gospel. Thus a new argumentative topography was
needed.

The shift at 4:12 is closer to that of 5:2. I could be comfortable with an
assertion that Paul intervened here as well; the tone of the appeal is much
more personal than its context. And the use of the emphatic personal
pronouns parallels the deictic force of "I, Paul" in 5:2.

> And how can one ascertain the secretary's hand from Paul's? Did a
> secretary write the scathing rebukes of 1:6-7 or 4:8-10, or the
> double curse wish of 1:8-9? Why did Paul add 5:2-12 and not those?

Okay, more weirdness. I want to differentiate between secretary and
composer or "author." Yep, I think the "author" of the letter wrote the
rebukes and cursing formula. They were consistent with Paul's objective. But
sections like 4:12ff, 5:2ff and 6:11ff have a different ethical "feel" to
them (sorry for the mushy term!). In the case of Galatians at least, I think
that another "author" was involved who had more responsibility for
composition than that of a conventional secretary and that Paul "edited" his
own letter!.

Now, how do I prove my thesis? Well, that would take a more detailed
analysis of everything from stylistics to patterns of persuasion than I am
willing to undertake in my advancing years, but it would make a lovely
dissertation!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hester "Never be afraid to try something new.
736 Buckingham Drive Remember, amateurs built the ark.
Redlands, CA 92374 Professionals built the Titanic."
(909) 792-0533
hester AT uor.edu http://rhetjournal.uor.edu
http://www.ars-rhetorica.net





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page