^{page 411 note 1} Cf. Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983);Google ScholarDunn, J. G., ‘Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law’, NTS 13 (1985) 527;Google ScholarRäisänen, H., ‘Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism’, NTS 31 (1985) 544;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMoo, D., ‘Paul and the Law in the Last Ten years’, SJTh 40 (1987) 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 411 note 2} Cf. Betz, H.-D., ‘The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 21 (1974/1975) 353–79;CrossRefGoogle Scholar‘In Defense of the Spirit: Paul's Letter to the Galatians as a Document of Early Christian Apologetics’, Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Schüssler-Fiorenza, E.; Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame, 1967) 99–114;Google ScholarGalatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).Google Scholar

^{page 412 note 1} For a discussion of recent work on Galatians, cf. Hester, J. D., ‘The Use and Influence of Rhetoric in Galatians’, ThZ 42 (1986) 386–408.Google Scholar Cf. also Smit, J., ‘Paulus, de galaten en het judaïsme. Een narratieve analyse van Galaten 1–2’, TTh 25 (1985) 337–62;Google Scholar‘Redactie in de brief aan de galaten. Retoriese analyse van Gal. 4, 12–6, 18’, TTh 26 (1986) 113–44;Google ScholarHübner, H., ‘Der Galaterbrief und das Verhältnis von antiker Rhetorik und Epistolographie’, ThLZ 109 (1984) 241–50;Google ScholarStandaert, B., ‘La rhétorique antique et l'épître aux Galates’, FV 84 (1985) 33–40.Google Scholar Further: Bunker, M., Briefformular und rhetorische Disposition im I. Korintherbrief (GThA 28; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1983);Google ScholarForbes, C., ‘Comparison, Self-praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric’, NTS 32 (1986) 1–30;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWuellner, W. ‘Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation’, Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: In honorem Robert M. Grant (ed. Schoedel, W. R. and Wilken, R. L.; Paris: Beauchesne, 1979) 177–88;Google Scholar‘Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans’, CBQ 38 (1976) 330–51;Google Scholar‘Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?’, CBQ 49 (1987) 448–63.Google Scholar For a brief discussion of the various reactions to his approach, cf. Betz, H.-D., Der Galaterbrief, Ein Kommentar zum Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien (München: Kaiser, 1987) 1–4.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 1} Betz, , Galatians, 24.Google Scholar It is well-known that in several of his letter openings, Paul explicitly addresses a wider audience, e.g. 1 Cor 1. 2; 2 Cor 1. 1; Rom 1. 7.

^{page 413 note 2} Hartman, L., ‘On Reading Others' Letters’, Christians among Jews and Gentiles. Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. Nicklesburg, G. W. E. and MacRae, G. W.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 137–46.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 3} Hartman, , ‘On Reading’, 141.Google Scholar Cf. also Lategan, B. C., ‘Current issues in the hermeneutical debate’, Neotestamentica 18 (1984) 4.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 4} On the relationship between written and oral communication, see notes 4 and 5 on page 415 below.

^{page 414 note 1} Cf. Wuellner, W., ‘Reading Romans in Context’ (Paper read in the SNTS Seminar on the Role of the Reader, Göttingen 1987) 3;Google ScholarPerelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame, 1969) 19.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 2} For an overview of the different methodological approaches used to identify Paul's opponents, cf. Berger, K., ‘Die Implizieten Gegner. Zur Methode des Erschliessens von ’Gegnern‘ in neutestamentlichen Texten’, Kirche. Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag (Hrsg. D. Lührmann und G. Strecker; Tübingen: Mohr, 1980) 373–400.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 3} Cf. Hellholm, D., Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse I (CB 13:1; Lund: Gleerup, 1980) 27–52.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 1} Cf. Betz, , Galatians, 14;Google ScholarHübner, , ‘Epistolographi’; Bünker, Briefformular, 11–15, 76–80;Google ScholarJewett, R., The Thessalonian Correspondence. Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Foundations and Facets; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 63–8;Google ScholarWhite, J. L., ‘Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epistolography’, ANRW 2. 25.2 (1984) 1733–51;Google ScholarPetersen, N. R., ‘Prolegomena to a Reader-oriented Study of Paul's Letter to Rome’ (Paper read in the SNTS Seminar on the Role of the Reader, Göttingen, 1987) 9–14.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 2} Betz, , Galatians, 15 note 113.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 3} Betz, , Galatians, 24.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 4} Cf. Funk, R. W., ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance’, Christian History and Interpretation: Studies presented to John Knox (ed. Farmer, W. R., Moule, C. F. D. and Niebuhr, R. R.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 249–68;Google ScholarBünker, , Briefformular, 25–6;Google ScholarKoskenniemi, H., Studien zur Idee and Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki: AnAcScFen, 1956) 38–42.Google Scholar

^{page 415 note 5} Ricoeur, P., Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, 1976).Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 1} Cf. Hartman, , ‘On Reading’, 139;Google ScholarHester, , ‘Rhetoric’, 387;Google ScholarFunk, R. W., Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God (New York: Harper and Row, 1966) 245.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 2} In the introduction to the German edition of this commentary, Betz clarifies his position on various of the issues raised in the subsequent discussion of his work, but concludes that his basic approach and the necessity of a rhetorical analysis of the letter remains unchallenged. The choice between Galatians as an apologetic or a deliberative letter represents a false alternative as the former does not exclude elements with a deliberative function. At the same time, paraenesis can form part of an apologetic letter. Betz also discusses issues in need of further investigation, e.g. the use of the example of Paul as an argumentative device and the theological development of his thought – cf. Betz, , Galaterbrief, 1–4.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 3} I am indebted to Professor Carl Holladay for drawing my attention to other statements in the Corinthian correspondence (quite apart from the apostleship issue) which might support the thesis presented in this article and which will be the subject of a further investigation.

^{page 416 note 4} Cf. Gaventa, B. R., ‘Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm’, NT 28 (1986) 310 note 2 for bibliographical details.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 1} Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865) 92–101.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 2} Schütz, J. H., Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975) 3.Google Scholar For another good statement of the apostleship position, cf. Kertelge, K., ‘Apokalypsis Jesou Christou (Gal 1, 12), Neues Testament und Kirche. Für Rudolf Schnackenburg. (Hrsg. J. Gnilka; Freiburg: Herder 1974) 266–81Google Scholar, who nonetheless stresses the close relationship between gospel and apostleship.

^{page 417 note 3} Schütz, , Paul, 127.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 4} Schütz, , Paul, 118.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 5} Schütz, , Paul, 123.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 6} Schütz, , Paul, 121.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 7} For a further critique of Schütz's position, cf. Hester, , ‘Rhetoric’, 393 note 25.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 8} άπόστολος and derivatives: 1. 1; 1. 17; 1. 19; 2. 8. εύσλλέλιον and derivatives: 1. 6; 1. 7; 1. 8 (2x);1.9; 1. 11 (2x); 1. 16; 1. 23; 2. 2; 2. 5; 2. 7; 2. 14; 4. 13.

^{page 418 note 1} Cf. Funk, , Language, 248;Google ScholarLategan, B. C., ‘Het motief van de dienst in Galan 1 en 2’, De knechtsgestalte van Christus. Studies aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. H. N. Ridderbos (red. H. H. Grosheide et al.; Kampen: Kok, 1978) 76–80.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 2} Cf. Jeremias, J., Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1966) 285–6;Google ScholarPetersen, N. R., ‘Prolegomena’, 23–5;Google ScholarStengel, W., ‘Biographisches und Idealbiographisches in Gal 1,11–2,14, Kontinuität und Einheit’, Festschrift für F. Mussner (Hrsg. P. G. Müller und W. Stengel; Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 128–9;Google ScholarMartyn, J. L., ‘Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 31 (1985) 410–24;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAune, D., Review of Betz, Galatians, RelStudRev 7 (1981) 325;Google ScholarBerényi, G., ‘Gal 2,20: a Pre-Pauline or a Pauline Text?’, Biblica 65 (1984) 525–28;Google ScholarSmit, , ‘Paulus’, 341.Google Scholar Cf. especially Boers, H., ‘The foundations of Paul's Thought: A Methodological Investigation’, paper read at the SBL Annual Meeting, November 24, 1986 in Atlanta.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 3} Bultmann, R., Theologie des Neuen Testaments (9. Aufl.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1984) 192.Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 1} Cf. Lategan, , ‘Motief’, 81–2.Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 2} Lyons, G., Pauline Autobiography. Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: SBL, 1985) 146–64, esp. 152–6.Google Scholar Cf. Baarda, T., ‘Openbaring – Traditie en Didache’, Zelfstandig geloven. Studies uoor Jaap Firet (red. F. H. Kuiper, J. S. van Nijen en J. C. Schreuder; Kampen: Kok, 1987) 156Google Scholar, who also emphasizes the antithesis between God and man in 1. 11–12.

^{page 419 note 3} Betz, , Galatians, 56.Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 4} Betz, , Galatians, 61.Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 5} Baarda, , ‘Openbaring’, 155.Google Scholar

^{page 420 note 1} Cf. Bauer, W., Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971) 805:Google Scholar κατά often has adverbial force, describing the ‘Art and Weise, Beschaffenheit oder Eigentümlichkeit einer Sache.’

^{page 420 note 2} In the introduction of his Galatian commentary, Betz has called attention to Paul's frequent use of what he describes as theological ‘abbreviations’ – formula-like prepositional phrases which refer to theological doctrines. This phenomenon merits further investigation and Betz's list (Galatians, 27–8)Google Scholar can be expanded to include the following: ύπρ τν άμαρτιν (1. 4); ύπò κατάραν (3. 10); κατά τν παγγελιῶν (3. 21); ύπò άμαρτίαν (3. 22); δι’ άσθένειαν τῆς σαρκòς (4. 13). As the most likely origin of these phrases, Betz sees the oral transmission of Paul’s the ology (Galatians, 27).Google Scholar This abbreviated way of writing fits Paul's antithetical style of argumentation so well and is so compatible with the binary structure of his theology that, had these phrases existed in the pre-pauline tradition, it is reasonable to assume that Paul amplified and expanded their scope to the extent that they now characterize his letters. 2 Cor 3 provides a vivid example of how Paul uses these theological abbreviations to build up a complex antithetical structure which describes the existence of man before faith and in faith (cf. Bultmann, , Theologie, 192).Google Scholar ού κατά ἅνθρωπον in Gal 1. 11 is the theological equivalent of κατ σάρκα which, in the famous passage of 2 Cor 5. 16, forms the antipole of κατ πνεμα and refers to the perspective of the non-believer in contrast to the faith perspective. Cf. also Stengel, , ‘Idealbiographisches’, 128–31.Google Scholar

^{page 420 note 3} Cf. Lyons, , Autobiography, 155–6.Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 1} Baarda, , ‘Openbaring’, 156.Google Scholar For this reason alone, the suggestion by Jeremias, , Abba, 286Google Scholar that παρ άνθρώπον and κατ νθρωπον provide the basis for dividing the letter in two sections (1. 13–2. 21 and 3. 1–6. 10), is doubtful.

^{page 421 note 2} Baarda, , ‘Openbaring’, 159–61.Google Scholar Cf. also Dunn, J. D. G., ‘The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2’, NTS 28 (1982) 461,465, 467–8, 470–4;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSmit, , ‘Paulus’, 341.Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 3} Cf. Stengel, , ‘Idealbiographisches’, 127–9.Google Scholar Cf. also Kertelge, , ‘Apokalypsis’, 268Google Scholar who correctly points out the parallel between 1. 1 and 1. 11.

^{page 421 note 4} Schütz, , Paul, 117.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 1} Betz, , Galatians, 25, 52–4.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 2} Lyons, , Autobiography, 136–44.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 3} Betz, , Galatians, 55.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 1} Smit, J., ‘“Hoe kun je de heidenen verplichten als joden to leven?” Paulus en de torah in Galatan 2,11–21’, Bijdragen 46 (1985) 118–40;CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘Redactie’; ‘Paulus’ (see note 1, page 412 above).

^{page 423 note 2} Smit, , ‘Paulus’, 340–1.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 3} Smit, , ‘Paulus’, 340.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 4} Baarda, , ‘Openbaring’, 161–2.Google Scholar In a remarkable procedure, Baarda adds emphasis to the apostleship issue in the Galatian situation by following the suggestion of Rodrigues to use fragments from the Pseudo-Clementine homilies as a co-text for the letter, where the apostleship theme is prominent (162–3). Is it the absence of any strong emphasis on the apostleship issue in Galatians which necesitates such a procedure?

^{page 423 note 5} Lyons, , Autobiography, 171.Google Scholar

^{page 424 note 1} Lyons, , Autobiography, 171.Google Scholar

^{page 424 note 2} Lyons, , Autobiography, 164–70.Google Scholar Cf. also Betz, , Galaterbrief, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 424 note 3} In a recent study (‘Idealbiographisches’ – cf. note 2, page 418), Werner Stengel discusses the important difference between ‘Biographie’ and ‘Idealbiographie’, with special reference to the narrative sections in Gal 1 and 2. He shows that ‘Idealbiographie’ (in contrast to biography in the usual sense of the word) has to do with the public and official side of the subject's life and especially those events which establish him in his public function. A narration of these events is not to be understood as a chronological record of the subject's life, but as a confirmation of his official position. Following Lüdemann (Paulus, der Heidenapostel I [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1980] 74)Google Scholar, Stengel correctly understands the bibliographical references in Gal 1–2 as ‘erzählende Argumentation’ in support of the claim made in 1. 11–12 (‘Idealbiographisches’, 127).

^{page 424 note 4} Cf. Robinson, J. A. T., Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976);Google ScholarJewett, R., A Chronology of Paul's Life (Philadelphia; Fortress, 1979);Google ScholarLüdemann, G., Heidenapostel.Google Scholar

^{page 424 note 5} Betz, , Galatians, 19, 56.Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 1} For this reason, Hester is both right and wrong in understanding this section as an egressus (Hester, J. D., ‘The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11–2:14’, JBL 103 [1984] 232).Google Scholar He is right in so far as Peter is the main figure in this section, not Paul. But he is wrong in understanding the Peter-episode as a deviation or interruption of Paul's thought. This episode forms an integral part of Paul's argument. In a further study entitled ‘Placing the Blame: the Presence of the Epideictic in Galatians One and Two’ (of which Professor Hester kindly made a pre-publication draft available to me), he now understands 2. 11–14 as an expanded chreia which has the same function as the Jerusalem incident, namely to illustrate Paul's character in defence of his gospel and the value system derived from it.

^{page 425 note 2} Betz, , Galatians, 28.Google Scholar Cf. also his essay ‘In Defense’ (cf. note 2, page 411 above).

^{page 425 note 3} For the following exposition, see Betz, , Galatians, 29–30.Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 4} Betz, , Galatians, 31.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 1} So correctly Gaventa, , ‘Galatians 1 and 2’, 312.Google Scholar

^{page 426 note 2} Cf. Lategan, ‘Motier’ for a fuller discussion of this problem.

^{page 427 note 1} Berényi, G., ‘Gal 2, 20’, 527.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 2} Cf. Betz, , Galatians, 122:Google Scholar ‘The paradigmatic “I”’; Schmithals, W., ‘Judaisten in Galatia’, ZNW 74 (1983) 4;CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘der “überindividuelle” Ich’; Berényi, , ‘Gal. 2,20’, 529.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 1} Cf. Schmithals, , ‘Judaisten’, 40.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 2} Berényi, , ‘Gal. 2,20’, 530.Google Scholar

^{page 429 note 1} Betz, , Galatians, 121.Google Scholar

^{page 429 note 2} Betz, , Galatians, 122.Google Scholar

^{page 429 note 3} Cf. note 2, page 420 above.