Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Gal 2:11-21

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <DHindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: Re: Gal 2:11-21
  • Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:55:29


Jim Hester said:

>>Frankly I have always had trouble with claims for redactional activity in
Paul's letters, unless it can be argued that Paul himself added things to
them in the process of composition, which is what I think happened at Gal
5:2 - 12, e.g. Teasing out redacted material smacks at bit of trying to
make the messiness of ancient argumentation conform to the neatness of
modern thinking. If it doesn't read like we would argue it, then someone
must have tampered with it. Why, I would ask, would an ancient redactor
screw up something that must have made some sense to the author who is
worried that it make sense to the hearer? Partition theories pose the same
question for me but even more so because the of loss of essential elements
of epistolary forms that are involved in the editing process.<<

As you know from our earlier private correspondence (a half year ago?) I am
skeptical about attributing to Paul such a high degree of rhetorical
ability that what appears to the modern reader as gibberish and double talk
is really brilliant rhetoric.

The comment of the author of 2 peter 3:16 bears consideration, as it
indiates that by his time (late 1st thru 2nd century CE?) Paul's rhetoric,
if that was indeed what it was, was "hard to understand" and subject to
varying interpretations. This weakens an argument that our modern
perspective alone is what is keeping us from understanding his discourse.

There was a recent review of Philip H. Kern's _Rhetoric and Galatians:
Assessing an Approach to Paul's Epistle_ (SNTSMS 101. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998) by Fredrick J. Long at the RBL site, which suggests
that this issue is not at all settled.

What I am afraid of is that we can label just about any sort of phrase as
an element of a rhetorical construction if we are disposed to do so. The
danger is in letting the "tail wag the dog", and ending up with what we
would like to see, i.e., a traditional portrait of Paul and his theology.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page