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: "Jim Hester" <hester AT jasper.uor.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gal 2:11-21
  • Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:54:20 -0800


David!

Thanks for commenting further on my view of any redaction of Paul's letters.
Let me say more because I wasn't clear earlier, and that may be because I
hadn't understood your point.

I make no broad claim for Paul as a skillful rhetor. I think he in fact
screws up his argumentation in places and in effect throws up his hands and
just declares something to be, period. You see that in the Corinthian
correspondence.

It is precisely for that reason that I think it unwise to resort to
explanations of later editorial activity when we find it hard to sort out
what he is trying to say, or create bridges over and paths around
"gibberish" by speculating about redactional activity. We "micromanage" his
thought and don't take seriously the possibility of some words or phrases
were being used because of their oral/aural qualities, or allow for a bit
of rambling as Paul tries to dictate his thoughts successfully.

IMHO the problem that plagues so many attempts to analyze Paul rhetorically
is an underlying assumption that, using classical rhetorical tools, we can
"settle the issue" of whether or not Paul was a masterful rhetorician who
made nuanced use of all the canons, tropes and traditions at his disposal.
That assumption carries the burden of being too concrete in its
expectations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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


----------
>From: "David C. Hindley" <DHindley AT compuserve.com>
>To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Gal 2:11-21
>Date: Thu, Mar 30, 2000, 1:55 PM
>

> 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
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: hester AT uor.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page