Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T06:43:01.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul's Argumentation in Galatians 1–2*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Johan S. Vos
Johan S. Vos
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul directly addresses only the Galatian churches; through them, however, he is engaged in a polemic against rival missionaries who had influenced the churches with another gospel. If one intends to analyze Paul's argumentation in Galatians 1–2, it is necessary first to ask about the characteristics of these missionaries and their gospel. In the history of research, many different pictures of the opponents and their gospel have been drawn. These reconstructions result partly from the method of so-called mirror reading; this method infers the position of the opponents by reversing the negations and affirmations in Paul's argumentation. Recently and with good reason this method has been criticized. In my analysis I confine myself to what can be said with certainty about the opponents: First, the opponents shared with Paul the belief in Jesus as the messiah; otherwise Paul could not have termed their message a “gospel” (Gal 1:6). Second, for the opponents the gospel of Paul was incomplete, because it lacked part of the commandments of the covenant, particularly the commandment of circumcision as a prerequisite for full membership among the people of God (Gal 5:3–4; 6:12–13). Although Paul himself did not mention it, we can safely assume that on this point the opponents referred to scripture. Gen 17:10–11, for example, states clearly that without circumcision no one can be a member of the covenant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Surveys of the history of research can be found in, for example, Mussner, Franz, Der Galaterbrief (HThKNT 9; 3d ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 11–29Google Scholar; Hawkins, John Gale, “The Opponents of Paul in Galatia” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1971) 5–85Google Scholar, 279–309; Brinsmead, Birger Hungerford, Galatians: Dialogical Response to Opponents (SBLDS 65; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) 9–22.Google Scholar

2 See Betz, Hans Dieter, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches of Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 6Google Scholar, 56 n. 115; Martyn, J. Louis, “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians,” Michigan Quarterly Review 22 (1983) 221–36Google Scholar, reprinted in SJT 38 (1985) 307–24Google Scholar; Lyons, George, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 96–105Google Scholar; Suhl, Alfred, “Der Galaterbrief—Situation and Argumentation,” ANRW 2. 25/4 (1987) 3067–134Google Scholar, esp. 3089; Barclay, John M. G., “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987) 73–93Google Scholar; Hall, Robert G., “Historical Inference and Rhetorical Effect: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” in Watson, Duane F., ed.. Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (JSNTSup 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 308–20Google Scholar, esp. 319.

3 For the history of research, see Hawkins, “Opponents,” 279–342; Lyons, Autobiography, 79–82; Schoon-Janssen, J., Umstrittene “Apologien” in den Paulusbriefen (GThA 45; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 94–96.Google Scholar

4 See Fridrichsen, Anton, “Die Apologie des Paulus Gal. 1,” in Brun, Lyder and Fridrichsen, Anton, eds., Paulus und die Urgemeinde: Zwei Abhandlungen (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1921) 56Google Scholar; Bornkamm, Günther, Paulus (Urban-Taschenbücher 119; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969) 41–42Google Scholar; Georgi, Dieter, Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem (ThF 38; Hamburg-Bergstedt: Reich, 1965) 36Google Scholar n. 113; Suhl, Alfred, Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinische Chronologie (StNT 11; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975) 20–21Google Scholar; idem, “Der Galaterbrief,” 3094.

5 See Fridrichsen, Paulus und die Urgemeinde, 56; Howard, George, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology (SNTSMS 35: Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 20–45Google Scholar; Lyons, Autobiography, 83–95; Hübner, Hans, “Galaterbrief,” ThRE 12 (1984) 5–14Google Scholar, esp. 7; Lategan, Bernard C., “Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians?: The Function of Galatians 1:11–12 and 2:19–20 in the Development of Paul's Argument,” NTS 34 (1988) 411–30Google Scholar, esp. 421; Hall, “Historical Inference,” 316–17; Hawkins, “Opponents,” 287–89.

6 The problematic aspect of the word “opponents” in this context has been pointed out in recent literature with good reason; it may carry the unproven connotation that the rival missionaries had intruded into the missionary field of Paul with the specific purpose of combating him; see Martyn, “A Law-Observant Mission,” 226; and Lyons, Autobiography, 79, 104, 120. In my opinion, however, the word “opponents” can be used meaningfully in this context: first, from the perspective of Paul, who described the other missionaries explicitly as the adversaries of the true gospel; second, from the perspective of other missionaries, who, given their own presuppositions, had to combat Paul as soon as they were confronted with his gospel.

7 See Schneider, Norbert, Die rhetorische Eigenart der paulinischen Antithese (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 11; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1970) 47–52.Google Scholar

8 Fridrichsen, Anton, The Apostle and his Message (UUÅ 3; Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln and Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1947) 21Google Scholar n. 20; Betz, Galatians, 38; Lyons, Autobiography, 80–82, 97.

9 θαυμάζω is here—as often in Greek letters—less an expression of real astonishment than of irritation and rebuke; the word is equivalent to μέμϕομαι. See Koskenniemi, Heikki, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia, series B, 102.2; Helsinki: n.p., 1956) 66–67Google Scholar; White, John L., “Introductory Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Letter,” JBL 90 (1971) 91–97Google Scholar, esp. 96; idem, The Body of the Greek Letter (SBLDS 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972) 106Google Scholar n. 38; Mullins, Terence Y., “Formulas in New Testament Epistles,” JBL 91 (1972) 380–90Google Scholar, esp, 385–86; Betz, Galatians, 46–47; Smiga, George Michael, Language, Experience, and Theology: The Argumentation of Galatians 3:6–4:7 in Light of the Literary Form of Letter (Rome: Pontifica Universitas Gregoriana, Facultas Theologiae, 1985) 127Google Scholar (including a reference to Nils A. Dahl, “Paul's Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure,” a paper presented at the Seminar on Paul at the 1973 Annual Meeting of the SBL, 14); Stowers, Stanley K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 87Google Scholar; Hansen, G. Walter, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 33–44.Google Scholar

10 This was noted already by Bullinger, Heinrich, In omnes apostolicas epistolas, divi videlicet Pauli XI. et VII. canonicas, commentarti (Zurich: Froschouer, 1539) 342–46. In recent times, see Hans Dieter Betz, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975) 352–79Google Scholar, esp. 359–62; idem, Galatians, 44–46; Lüdemann, Gerd, Paulus, der Heidenapostel, vol. 1: Studien zur Chronologie (FRLANT 123; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 65–73Google Scholar; Ebeling, Gerhard, Die Wahrheit des Evangeliums: Eine Lesehilfe zum Galaterbrief (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1981) 55–56Google Scholar; Brinsmead, Galatians, 48–49, 67–69; Kennedy, George A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill/London: University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 148Google Scholar; Hester, James D., “The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11–2:14,” JBL 103 (1984) 223–33Google Scholar, esp. 233; Baarda, Tjitze, “Openbaring—Traditie en Didachè,” in Kuiper, F. H., Nijen, J. J. van, Schreuder, J. C., eds., Zelfstandig geloven: Studies voor Jaap Firet (Kämpen: Kok, 1987) 152–67Google Scholar, esp. 155–57; Smit, Joop, Brief aan de Galaten (Belichting van het bijbelboek; Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting, 1989) 35–37Google Scholar; Hansen, Abraham, 67; Jegher-Bucher, Verena, Der Galaterbrief auf dem Hintergrund antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik: Ein anderes Paulusbild (AThANT 78; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991) 203Google Scholar; Pitta, A., Disposizione e messagio della lettera ai Galati: analisi retorico-letteraria (AnBib 131; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1992) 85–88Google Scholar; Bachmann, Michael, ünder oder Übertreter: Studien zur Argumentation in Gal 2,15ff. (WUNT 59; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992) 157–58.Google Scholar

11 Quintilian Inst. orat. 4.1.53.

12 See, for example, ibid., 4.1.5: “Causa principii nulla alia est, quam ut auditorem, quo sit nobis in ceteris partibus accommodatior, praeparemus” (“The sole purpose of the exordium is to prepare our audience in such a way that they will be disposed to lend a ready ear to the rest of our speech”; trans. Butler, H. E., The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian [LCL; 4 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and London: Heinemann, 1920–22] 2. 9).Google Scholar Compare the speech of Antonius in Cicero De orat. 2.317; according to Antonius, to begin in the proem not in a fierce, but in a gentle way corresponds to a law of nature. That rhetorical theory does not always correspond to rhetorical praxis is to be seen in the Exordia of Demosthenes. This collection contains various texts in which it is hard to recognize the characteristics of the proem as described in the handbooks. See Clavaud, Robert, Démosthène: Prologues (Collections des Universités de France; Paris: Les belles lettres, 1974) 5–9.Google Scholar

13 Betz, “Literary Composition,” 359–62; idem, Galatians, 44–46.

14 See Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 29 (1436a–38a); Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.6–11; Cicero De inventione 1.20–26; Quintilian Inst. orat. 3.8.6–9; 4.1.1–79. Only Aristotle (Rhet. 3.14 [1414b–16a]) would minimize the psychological preparation. For him, the specific function of the prooemium is to make clear for what “end” (τέλος) the speech is being made.

15 See David E. Aune, review of Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches of Galatia, by Betz, Hans Dieter, RelStRev 7 (1981) 323–28.Google Scholar Aune writes, “Since the ordinary function of forensic exordia is threefold (securing the good will of the audience, securing their attentiveness, and disposing them to receive instruction), it is difficult to find anything characteristic of a normal forensic exordium in Gal 1:6–11” (p. 326).

16 See also the criticism of Classen, Carl Joachim, “Paulus und die antike Rhetorik,” ZNW 82 (1991) 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 10 n. 23.

17 See Kennedy, Interpretation, 148.

18 Bullinger, In omnes apostolicas epistolas, 346: “Hactenus paravit auditorum animos exordio&, nunc vero aggreditur ipsum negotium.”

19 Pitta, Disposizione, 149; see also the discussion on this subject in Lambrecht, J., ed., The Truth of the Gospel (Galatians 1:1–4:11) (Monographic Series of “Benedictina,” Biblical-Ecumenical Section 12; Rome: St. Paul's Abbey, 1993) 45Google Scholar, 47–48, 50–51, 53–56.

20 Betz, “Literary Composition,” 367–68; idem, Galatians, 113–14; similar positions can be found in Brinsmead, Galatians, 50–51; Hübner, “Galaterbrief,” 5–6; Vouga, François, “Zur rhetorischen Gattung des Galaterbriefes,” ZNW 79 (1988) 291–92Google Scholar; Hansen, Abraham, 69, 100–101.

21 Melanchthon, Philipp, “Eξηγησις Methodica in Epistolam Pauli προς τους γαλατας,” in Bizer, Ernst, ed., Texte aus der Anfangszeit Melanchthons (Texte zur Geschichte der evangelischen Theologie 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966) 34–37Google Scholar, esp. 34–35; for an analysis of this commentary, see Classen, “Paulus und die antike Rhetorik,” 17–18. A more recent example of this approach is that of Standaert, Benoît, “La rhétorique ancienne dans saint Paul,” in Vanhoye, A., ed., L'apôtre Paul: Personalité, style et conception du ministère (BETL 73; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986) 78–92Google Scholar, esp. 84–85.

22 Kennedy remarks (Interpretation, 148), “The central idea of the proem, that there is no other gospel, is a general statement of the proposition of the letter, which will be taken up and given specific meaning in the headings which follow.” Kennedy regards Gal 1:11–5:1 as the “proof” divided into several “headings” (pp. 148–51).

23 Hall, Robert G., “The Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration,” JBL 106 (1987) 277–87.Google Scholar Hall structures the letter as follows: (1) Salutation/Exordium (Gal 1:1–5); (2) Proposition (Gal 1:6–9); (3) Proof (Gal 1:10–6:10); (3a) Narration (Gal 1:10–2:21); (3b) Further Headings (Gal 3:1–6:10); (4) Epilogue (Gal 6:11–18).

24 For the placing of a propositio at the beginning of a speech, see Aristotle Rhet. 3.13 (1414a); Hermogenes De inventione 3.2 (in Rabe, Hugo, ed., Hermogenis Opera [Stuttgart: Teubner, 1913] 128Google Scholar, lines 7–10). For the history of the propositio in rhetorical theory and praxis, see Classen, Carl Joachim, “Cicero ‘Pro Cluentio’ 1–11 im Licht der rhetorischen Theorie und Praxis,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 108 (1965) 104–42Google Scholar, esp. 126–37. For various forms of a propositio in the letters of Paul, see Aletti, Jean-Noel, “La ‘dispositio’ rhétorique dans les épîtres pauliniennes: propositions de méthode,” NTS 38 (1992) 385–401Google Scholar, esp. 397–98.

25 For the various forms a proposition can take, see Quintilian Inst. oral. 4.4.8.

26 Smiga, Language, 455–59.

27 Kennedy, Interpretation, 148–49.

28 For a partial history of research, see Longenecker, Richard N., Galatians (Word Biblical Commentary 41; Dallas: Word, 1990) 18Google Scholar; see also the survey of the history of research regarding the structure of the letter as a whole in Pitta, Disposizione, 13–41.

29 Betz, “Literary Composition,” 361–62; idem, Galatians, 46.

30 Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam ad Galatas (Baum, Guilielmus, Cunitz, Eduardus, Reuss, Eduardus, eds., Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia [Corpus Reformatorum 29–87; 59 vols, in 49; Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1863–1900] 50. 175)Google Scholar on Gal 1:10.

31 See also Weiss, Bernhard, Die paulinischen Briefe im berichtigten Text (Leipzig: Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1896) 320–21.Google Scholar

32 Гάρ is often taken to be a confirmative adverb with the force of making the question more urgent; see, for example, Zahn, Theodor, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 9; 3d ed.; Leipzig/Erlangen: Deichen, 1922) 54–55Google Scholar; Oepke, Albrecht, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (ThHKNT 9; 2d ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964) 26Google Scholar; Schlier, Heinrich, Der Brief an die Galater (MeyerK; 4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 41Google Scholar n. 2; according to Betz (Galatians, 54 n. 100), γάρ is used not so much to connect with what precedes as to introduce another topic.

Insofar as interpreters hold to the causal meaning and the argumentative force of γάρ, they mostly consider Gal 1:10 to be an attempt to justify the harsh language of Gal 1:6(8)–9; see, for example, Heinrich August Meyer, Wilhelm, Kritisch Exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief an die Galater (MeyerK; 4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1870) 25Google Scholar; Burton, Ernest DeWitt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921) 31Google Scholar; Lyons, Autobiography, 137. A different approach is taken by Ellicott, C. J. (St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians [3d ed.; London: Longmans, Green, 1863] 11)Google Scholar who does not connect the argumentative aspect of γάρ with the harsh tone of Gal 1:6–9, but with the “unquestionable truth, the best proof of which lay in his [Paul's] being one who was making God his friend, and not men.”

33 BAG, s.v. γάρ, 152e gives Matt 2:2; Mark 8:35//Luke 9:24; and Mark 8:38 as further examples from the New Testament.

34 For a similar interpretation in later commentaries, see Rückert, Leopold Immanuel, Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Galater (Leipzig: Köhler, 1833) 27–28.Google Scholar

35 With ἃρτι in Gal 1:10, Paul resumes the same word from the preceding verse.

36 Like most interpreters, I assume άνθρώπους πείθειν and ζητεῖν ἀνθρώποις άρέσκειν to be synonymous and the answer to the question of Gal 1:10a to be “God.” Since, even with the meaning “through the art of persuasion to make well disposed,” πείθω does not in this context really fit the object τὸν θεόν, the sentence is to be considered a zeugma. See Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 26; Mussner, Der Galaterbrief 63; Baarda, “Openbaring,” 165 n. 20. For a critica] review of the differing interpretations of Rudolf Bultmann and Hans Dieter Betz, see Lyons, Autobiography, 141–43.

37 See also Sieffert, Friedrich, Der Brief an die Galater (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899) 50Google Scholar; Betz, Galatians, 55–56; Lüdemann, Paulus, 1. 68–72; Lyons, Autobiography, 143–44; Aune, David E., The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminister, 1987) 189–90.Google Scholar

38 For example, Plato Gorg. 462b–66a; 500e–503d; 521a–b; Demosthenes Exordia 1.3; 9.2; 19; 26.2; 28.1; 41; 44.1; Dio Chrysostom Or. 32.11; 33.1–16; see also Ribbeck, Otto, Kolax: Eine ethologische Studie (Abhandlungen der [K.] Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 9; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1883) 11–12Google Scholar, 16–18.

39 For example, Plato Ap. 17a–18a; Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.1–20; 35.1.

40 Demosthenes Exordia 32.1–2; 36; 53; idem, Contra Philippum 4.75–76.

41 Betz, Galatians, 54–56.

42 For 1 Thessalonians 2, see Dibelius, Martin, An die Thessalonicher I, II, An die Philipper (HNT; 3d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1937) 7–11Google Scholar; Malherbe, Abraham, “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to I Thess ii,” NovT 12 (1970) 203–17.Google Scholar

43 The evidence of the manuscripts does not permit a clear decision between γάρ and δέ. The arguments for γάρ as the original reading have been clearly formulated by Sieffert (Der Brief an die Galater, 52), who writes, “It is not probable that γὰρ has ‘come into the text mechanically from the context’ (Meyer); rather it is the original text and—with a view to avoiding the fourfold γὰρ and because of its apparent intrinsic difficulty—has been partly changed into δὲ (in accordance with 1 Cor 15:1; 2 Cor 8:1) and partly… omitted.” See also Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 55 n. 55.

44 Even if one reads δέ instead of γάρ, it is important to see the close intrinsic connection between Gal 1:10 and 1:11. Ruckert interprets the text otherwise (Commentar, 30), defending the reading δέ with the argument that there is no intrinsic connection between Gal 1:10 and 1:11.

45 See also Sieffert, Der Brief an die Galater, 52; and Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 55.

46 On this formula, see White, The Body of the Greek Letter, 2–5, 50–51; Schnider, Franz and Stenger, Werner, Studien z.um neutestamentlichen Briefformular (NTTS 11; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1987) 171–72.Google Scholar

47 On rhetors, see above, n. 37; on statesmen, see Philo Jos. 73–78; on friends, see Cicero De amicitia 89–92; Plutarch Adulat 54d–55e; on prophets, see Jer 23:16–17; 1 Kgs 22:13–18; Luke 6:26. See also Sandnes, Karl Olav, Paul, One of the Prophets?: A Contribution to the Apostle's Self-Understanding (WUNT 2d series 43; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991) 56–57.Google Scholar

48 Compare John 3:6, 31; 1 Cor 15:47–49; Gal 6:8.

49 For the logic of the argumentation, see also Longenecker, Galatians, cxv-cxvi.

50 It is not necessary to understand οὐδὲ γὰρ ὲγώ in a polemical way as “I as little as the twelve.” Such an antithesis is not reflected in the context. With ὲγώ Paul picks up ύπ' ὲμοῦ from Gal 1:11, where the implied antithesis is with the rival missionaries in Galatia. Οὐδή accentuates not so much ὲγώ in Gal 1:12 as the denial in Gal 1:11. See Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (8th ed.; London: Macmilan, 1884) 80Google Scholar; Riickert, Commentar, 32; Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 56 n. 57; Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 28–29; Baarda, “Openbaring,” 157–58; Rohde, Joachim, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (ThHKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989) 51.Google Scholar

51 For a similar position, see Lategan, “Is Paul Defending his Apostleship,” 416–26. See also Eckert, Jost, Die urchristliche Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief (Biblische Untersuchungen 6; Regensburg: Pustet, 1971) 201Google Scholar; Smit, J., Opbouw en gedachtengang van de brief aan de Galaten (Nijmegen: n.p., 1986) 66–92.Google Scholar

52 Cicero De inventione 1.19.27; Rhetorica ad Herennium. 1.8.12; Quintilian Inst. oral. 4.2.11.

53 According to Betz (“Literary Composition,” 363–64; and Galatians, 58–59), the narratio in Galatians 1–2 belongs to the first type; Kennedy (Interpretation, 145, 148), however, regards this text as belonging to the second type.

54 Hypocrisy is a conventional characteristic of the flatterer; see Plutarch Adulat 53e; Philo Omn. prob. lib. 99; Leg. Gaj. 162; Jos. 67–68.

55 Lyons, Autobiography; Gaventa, Beverly Roberts, “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm,” NovT 28 (1986) 309–26Google Scholar; Stowers, Letter Writing, 100–102, 109; Gaventa does not rule out an apologetic function alongside the paradigmatic one.

56 For a criticism of Lyon's thesis, see Barclay, “Mirror-Reading,” 93 n. 44; Lategan, “Is Paul Defending his Apostleship,” 423–24; Sandnes, Paul, 49–50 n. 4; Schoon-Janssen, Apologien, 110–11.

57 Melanchthon, “Eξηγησις Methodica,” 34; compare Classen, “Paulus und die antike Rhetorik,” 16.