Corpus-Paul

["Roy E. Ciampa" <Roy_Ciampa AT compuserve.com>]

Anders writes:

"In Perelmanian terms we could say that Paul is making a rhetorical
dissociation.   He creates a distinction in the greater concept of "ways of
obtaining righteousness".  The two terms in the
distinction might not have a precise parallel in reality.  Would even the
Qumranites have claimed that they dobtained righteousness by works of the
law?  Is this not Paul polemical desciption of opponents views?"

I heartily agree that we are dealing with a dissociation of ideas.  As
Hansen summarizes the approach it "functions argumentatively not only by
dividing the concept (not that, but this) but also by apportioning the
divided parts (this belongs to us; that belongs to them).  It is, in fact,
this apportioning that gives the distributio its argumentative force"
(Walter Hansen, _Abraham in Galatians_, 85).

In this case what is new in Anders' suggestion is the idea that Paul
invented a new concept which is then used as a foil to the one he wants to
promote.  Another perfectly Perelmanian approach to this text (which I,
among others, have defended elsewhere) would suggest that some people (the
new teachers in Galatia, for example) had a concept of justification which
entailed both faith and works of the law together without seeing any
problem with the two elements, in fact not seeing them as two different
things but two sides of the same coin.  But Paul divides the concept in
such a way that suggests that people have to choose between the two things
that they used to hold together.  According to him it is not "that" (works
of the law) but "this" (faith) and "this" (faith) belongs to us, but "that"
(works of the law) belongs to them (as though the new teachers did not
teach the importance of faith in Christ!).  Anders suggests a different
kind of dissociation of ideas, and an unusual one, I think, in that (if I
understand him correctly) the concept that Paul wishes to condemn is in
fact one that he has just invented, rather than one facet of what was once
a whole concept in the mind of the others.

Regards,

Roy

Roy_Ciampa AT compuserve.com