Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Gal. 6:11

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gal. 6:11
  • Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 06:31:14 -0600


on 10/26/01 9:19 PM, Mesfin Atlaye at mesfin AT idirect.com wrote:

> However, whenever the epistolary aorist is used elsewhere in NT, the meaning
> is unambiguous. But not so with the EGRAPSA of Gal.6:11. E. R. Richards
> agrees that without 6:11 the argument for Paul's usage of a secretary for
> Galatians is weak (The Secretary, 182). That is my point. Could Paul write a
> letter? Could Galatians be Paul's personal letter written with his own
> distinctive hand?
>
> Let's see it from another side. When Tertius, Paul's secretary of Romans,
> wrote, "I, Tertius, the one who wrote (punctiliary participle) the letter
> greet you in the Lord" (Rom.16:22) we know he did not take the pen just at
> that point but he was referring to himself as the writer of the entire
> letter. In the same manner, when Paul says "see in how large letters I wrote
> to you with my own hand," why not we take that to mean Paul was referring to
> everything he wrote up to that point (and all the way to the end)?

Dear Mesfin,
I hope you are going to pursue this line of investigation. There are many
points to consider in making your case. The grammatical point is important,
but will probably not convince alone. Single grammatical points can be used
to confirm widely held views among those who hold them, but not usually to
challenge them. I believe that you will find the grammatical matter you
raise discussed in the sources I noted, and others too. I would think
structural arguments dealing with epistolary style would be necessary, and
interesting to examine closely. In my forthcoming (Fortress, Nov. SBL!) work
on Galatians I argue that develops along a line that may be understood to
elaborate a syllogism of ironic and rebuking style found in epistolary
handbooks. Perhaps you could examine such a matter more closely in this
letter and others and see if Paul could be expected to know this kind of
epistolary rhetorical style to communicate his message. Also the line of
argument I mentioned earlier, assessing the style of 6:11-17 vis-a-vis the
balance of the letter, especially the body units, would be useful for
comparison and contrast of the style to that of the writer of the body.
Perhaps you have some other ideas of how to approach the question. It looks
like a good dissertation or monograph topic to me...
Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page