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: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gal 5:2-12 (was Gal. 2:11-21)
  • Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:23:47 -0600


Mark Nanos wrote:

> Jim,
> What does this mean?:
>
> "...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..."

Okay, Mark, allow me to get a bit weird here. In recent years it has struck
me that Galatians really is quite different from the other letters in the
care with which it is composed -- forgive me for stating the obvious. It
is, as almost every one admits, a good piece of argumentation and fairly
tightly reasoned, I think. That has led me to think that Paul is not its
primary composer but that it was written for him by someone more skilled in
rhetoric than he. Almost everyone acknowledges the work of a "secretary" at
work in the letter, if for no other reason than the statement in 6:11.

This is an interesting observation, and one that I too have wondered about, that is, what difference might this make in trying to trace Paul's language in this or any other letter if different letters are composed by different secretaries, and perhaps some entirely by Paul.


But I want to take the point a step further. If you read 5:1 and then
immediately 5:13, it would seem that Paul has "edited in" a specific
teaching that he elaborates as central to, or at least important to an
understanding of what it means to be free in Christ. He comes back to the
same issue in the closing section of the letter, 6:11-16, again in his own
"voice" if you will. That is what I mean by Paul "adding" things to the
composition of his letters. I think it is fairly apparent in Galatians; I
haven't fussed much it elsewhere much except to muse on the possibility of
something like that happening in Philippians, for example.

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.

If composed by a secretary would 5:2-13 still not come out like this, that is, why edited instead of composed, if this is in keeping with the overall theme of the letter as summarized in 6:11-16 when Paul interjects his own hand? Nevertheless, if a secretary is involved, then a process of adding and subtracting is logical, but not so "apparent" here and not in other places, it would seem to me, as though it was "added" after the fact, so to speak. 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? In this case the language choices (several different aspects such as word choice, syntax, etc. could be analyzed) in 5:2-13 and 6:11-16 would need to correspond to each other and contrast with those elsewhere throughout the letter, would they not? Do they? Interesting stuff, but far from "fairly apparent in Galatians," isn't it?

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page