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: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:23:28 -0500


on 10/16/01 5:51 PM, Mesfin Atlaye at mesfin AT idirect.com wrote:

> Dear Listers,
>
> It has long been supposed that Paul entrusted the formulation of his letters
> to secretaries; and he authenticated his dictation by adding greetings with
> his own hand "th`/ ejmh`/ ceiriv" (I Cor.16:21; Gal. 6:11; Phlm. 19 and if
> authentic Col. 4:18; II Thes. 3:17). However, I have difficulty to
> understand
> why the EGRAPSA in Gal. 6:11 should be read as an epistolary aorist. Is
> there
> strong grammatical reason, other than the fact that one is persuaded by the
> argument 'Paul used secretaries for all his letters', why the aorist
> indicative should not be simply read as immediate past. I am aware of
> Longenecker's article "Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles," in New
> Dimensions in the New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974) pp.
> 289-29, where he suggests Paul wrote only vv. 11-18. Most others follow his
> conclusion without their own independent argument and judgement. What if
> Paul
> wrote the entire letter to the Galatians in his own distinctive hand?
>
> Can someone comment on this line of thought or refer me to other works, in
> English.

Dear Mesfin,
Sorry for the delayed response, but I hope this is helpful, should you still
be pursuing the matter.

Recent interpreters who note the likelihood that Galatians was executed by
the hand of a secretary note the subscription beginning at 6:11, in which he
puts his own hand to work at writing a summary of the chief concerns
expressed throughout the letter. It is variously argued in the following
works, for example, along several lines that may be of interest to you:

Julius Victor, Art of Rhetoric 27, in Malherbe, Abraham J. 1988. Ancient
Epistolary Theorists. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press;

Bahr, Gordon J. 1968. "The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters." JBL
87:27-41;

Richards, E. Randolph. 1991. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. (WUNT
2.42) Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 81-91, 172-75;

Weima, Jeffrey A. D. 1994. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the
Pauline Letter Closings. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 45-56, 118-32,
157-74;

H. D. Betz, Galatians, 313.

It is usually understood by those suggesting a secretary is involved that
the letter is confirmed and summarized in this section, that is, that it
represents Paul's communicative objective, whether he has written the words
or a secretary. Examples along this line from antiquity are detailed in
these references. Thus your question about what difference it might make is
qualified. It should be considered relevant by someone seeking to make
statistical points of comparison between this and other letters by Paul (and
perhaps different secretaries), for example, but less significant, or rather
in different ways by one analyzing just this letter. One could analyze the
language and themes of the verses in question at the end of the letter in
comparison to those themes of the letter and how they are communicated in
the rest of it. Some of this is done in these articles, esp. Bahr and Weima.

It is interesting to note that there are some words and themes in this
summary section that do not appear (or are not explicit anyway) in the
letter beforehand. To note one I find interesting, consider the theme of
6:12 that the ones influencing the addressees are themselves in a marginal
situation, that is, seeking to avoid undesirable results ("persecution") if
the addressees do not comply with their suggested way to pursue
re-identification as proselytes ("circumcision"). It is not clear that this
is the case in the letter before this point. But Paul makes much of this in
vv. 12-13 when seeking to undermine the influencers' intentions, suggesting
that they also seek to enhance their honor rating by bringing about the
successful compliance of the addressees. That is not a new theme, but a
different twist is put on it here, in that the influencers are accused of
seeking this result not only from the addressees, but also from some other
unnamed auditors. In other words, they too, like the addressees (and Paul;
5:11), are between a rock and a hard place.

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