Mitternacht Dieter (2013) 'Forceful and demanding.' On Paul as a letter writer. Theology and Life...

Perils of powerful speechIn his first letter to the “church of God” in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), Paul asserts that his preaching was not “with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). To this he adds that “the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (v. 18). At first glance, Paul seems to reject persuasion through rhetorical eloquence as a distraction from, if not an obstacle to, the manifestation of the power of the cross of Christ.

Later on in the same letter, Paul declares that speaking in tongues of angels without love is like making useless noise (1 Cor. 13:1). The main issue may not be intelligible speech1, yet eloquence of persuasion of some sort is implied. We note that this time Paul does not warn against the act of persuasion as such, but against persuasion without love.Furthermore, looking at his other letters, Paul seems perfectly comfortable with employing rhetorical craftsmanship. He constructs arguments and proofs, and utilizes the rhetorical means of ethos, pathos and logos, even irony, without hesitation.

The very chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians can arguably be called one of the most eloquent and persuasive passages in the Bible, where Paul does not hesitate to employ hyperbole (“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things ...”) and metaphor (“... now we see in a mirror, dimly...”), thus weaving a texture that is saturated with poetic flair.

In other words, notwithstanding what appears to be an assertion to the contrary

“Forceful and demanding.” On Paul as a letter writer

Dieter Mitternacht

Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong, China

1 1 Cor. 14 it seems to indicate that angelic tongues are unintelligible to men (v.2). Similarly, the Testament of Job (ca.100 BCE-100 CE) refers to Job’s daughter praising God in an angelic tongue. When Job gave her ‘a cord’ (stringed instrument?) “…she took on another heart—no longer minded toward earthly things—but ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God in accord with the style of the angels. And as she spoke ecstatically, she allowed “The Spirit” to be on her garment." (T. Job 48:2-3). Then Job’s other daughters also are said to take on “the dialect of archons”, “the dialect of those and the “dialect of the cherubim” (T. Job 49:1-50:3); Cf. Ps. 148:2.

Theology & Life 36 (2013)128

in 1 Cor. 1:17, Paul applied rhetorical persuasion with considerable skill, as he communicated the message concerning the Cross of Christ. He pleads with his addressees, praises them, tries to persuade them, threatens and encourages them to follow his example, share his beliefs and convictions, and respect his apostleship. In doing so, he readily utilizes the communicative tools available to him.

But then, what is the meaning of contrasting, even counterpoising “God’s power” over against “eloquent wisdom”? A reasonable answer would be, so it seems, that Paul, in fact, echoes common alerts, found already in Plato and Aristotle, against the sophists who seem to eliminate the concept of objectivity (“man is the measure of all things”, Protagoras) and make persuasion their sole concern. In other words, the critics of the sophists don’t oppose rhetorical form or style as such but object to using those means to deceive, or in Paul’s terms, to try to persuade “with empty words”.

Moreover, the ancients were acutely aware that the use of rhetorical persuasion is not a matter of choice but essentially part of all human communication. Cicero, one of the great Latin rhetoricians (and Roman senator), emphasized that people do not become famous for their eloquence by applying rhetorical rules, but that eloquent people achieve by nature, that which is being observed and arranged according to rules. Thus, eloquence does not come from the application of rules, but the rules are deduced from eloquence.2 In other words, man is a homo rhetoricus3, persuasion is intrinsic to the texture of human communication and determined by universal principles or even subconscious processes of communication. What rhetorical theorists do is recognize and describe what is. Thus also, abuse and exploitation of the means of persuasion have always been and are potential dangers as long as people communicate, just as bulimia is a potential danger as long as people eat.

Finally, alerting an audience against rhetoric may in itself be a rhetorical device. Orators in antiquity have been known to oppose rhetorical eloquence for the purpose of luring their audience into thinking that “this” person is a “sincere” orator or letter writer. Thus, there is a possibility that even Paul may have emphasized that his message is folly in the eyes of the world in order not so much to articulate what “the world” actually thought about his message, but in order to persuade his readers that he is not playing tricks on them, and that his motives are pure and true.

2 Cicero De Orat. I. 32 146: “But to my thinking the virtue in all the rules is, not that orators by following them have won a reputation for eloquence, but that certain persons have noted and collected the doings of men who were naturally eloquent : thus eloquence is not the offspring of the art, but the art of eloquence.” This notwithstanding, Cicero also asserts that “while those on whom these gifts have been bestowed by nature in smaller measure, can none the less acquire the power to use what they have with propriety and discernment, and so as to show no lack of good taste.” (I.128.132)

3 “… the universal, inartificial phenomenon of the rhetorical that possesses a cultural ubiquity not as art but as capacity within the sphere of living.” Oesterreich 2009, 57.

Dieter Mitternacht / “Forceful and demanding.” 129

The charisma of worthless speechIn the second letter to the Corinthians, Paul recites a slogan that seems to have been widespread among the saints in Achaia: “His letters, they say, are demanding and forceful, but in person he is weak, and his speeches are worthless4” (2 Cor. 10:10). From what follows in the subsequent paragraphs (esp. 11:6), it would appear that Paul acknowledges his limited ability as an orator and his weak and indeterminate personal interaction with people.

Yet, the acknowledgement of what seems to be a stigma does not lead to a show of regret. Instead, Paul avows his limitations as proof of the genuineness of his apostleship (cf. 11:13-14). This manner of dealing with a stigma corroborates the socio-psychological phenomenon of self-stigmatization (not to be confused with “self”-stigma as part of mental illness). Beginning with Max Weber, sociologists have argued that resolute self-stigmatization is a major cause for charismatic authority. When a person deliberately takes on a negative role or exposes a quality that would normally be considered detrimental to a positive image in society, the self-stigma can transmute into a charisma and reverses societal detrimental valuation into a quality.5

It has been argued that self-stigmatization is basic to Christian self-identification as it is apparent already in the life of Jesus as he adopts the role of the outsider (Theissen 1999, 143ff.). According to Andreas Mödritzer the early church celebrates Jesus’s self-stigmatization in the Christ-hymn of Phil 2: Jesus’ public humiliation and death as a criminal is portrayed as an act of obedience to God, his disgrace as the means of his glorification. Paul then takes the hymn a step further and declares Jesus’ self-stigmatization to be a paradigm for his, that is Paul’s, life, and for the life of all

4 ἐξουθενέω is translated in the NLT as “worthless”; NRSV has “contemptible,” the NJB “negligible,” the NIV “amounts to nothing”. The Low-Nida lexicon explains the word field as “to despise someone or something on the basis that it is worthless or of no value.” A comparison with the accusation against Paul of being a “σπερμολόγος” (Acts 17:18, translated in the NRSV as “babbler”) is only moderately relevant. Cf. Moulton-Milligan, 583, on σπερμολόγος: “Used originally of birds “picking up seed,” it came to be applied in Athenian slang to an adventurer who gains a “hand-to-mouth” living in the markets by picking up anything that falls from the loads of merchandise which are being carried about. Hence it passed into the meaning of one gathering scraps of information and retailing them at second-hand without any real knowledge of their meaning.“

5 “The phenomenon can take four different forms: (a) aggressive provocation (drawing upon itself punishment), (b) self-denying asceticism, (c) deficitary self-stigmatization (exhibitionistic showing of individual "defects"), and (d) forensic self-stigmatization, best shown in martyrdom (accepting the deadly consequences of upholding the norms of the divine forum in the face of a human one)” (Holmberg 1996, 742). David Horrell has argued that the label “Christians” from the beginning was a derogative term, denoting the followers of the criminal Christos. However, the followers accepted the label and turned it into a badge of honor. Similar phenomena can be observed in modern times with labels such as “freak” or “queer”, or slogans such as “black is beautiful.”


Christians. (Mödritzer, 168-244).

Also Gal 4:13 ff. seems to confirm the phenomenon. There Paul asserts that his “weakness in the flesh” on his arrival in Galatia had been divinely purposed, and was perceived as such by the Galatians, wherefore they received him despite of his condition “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (cf. Gal 4:13 ff.). Not only was Paul able to turn weakness into strength, stigma into charisma; his followers seemed to love him for it.

We may note thus far that people who knew Paul in person seem to have been affectionately moved by his humble appearance and demeanor. As recipients of his letters they experienced a curious discrepancy between his humility in person and his potency as a letter writer. In person they knew him as a caring, understanding and accommodating person, carrying his own weaknesses with sincere dignity, and with compassion for the weaknesses and shortcomings of others. In his letters, however, they met harsh and intolerant admonitions, exaggerated polemics, and even resentment.

Letters and speechesHaving articulated the apparent discrepancy between Paul’s speaking and writing abilities and habits, the question may be posed as to how the ancients distinguished oral from written communication. In terms of basic principles of communication and structures of persuasion there are many points of contact. In both media, senders want their audiences/addressees to accept their arguments as credible, reasonable and convincing, or a course of action as pleasing, pleasant, pitiful, to be followed, etc. In both media, senders are expected to use culturally and contextually available means and conventions of communication that they believe will persuade the recipients.

The focus of a speech, however, is usually on an immediate rather than a lasting effect. An instructive anecdote recorded by Plutarch concerning the Greek speech writer Lysias (445 BCE – ca. 380 BCE) illustrates this. Lysias

once composed a speech for a litigant and gave it to him. The man read it through a number of times and came to Lysias in despair and said that the first time he read it the speech seemed to him wonderfully good, but on taking it up a second and third time it appeared completely dull and ineffectual. ‘Well,’ said Lysias laughing, ‘isn't it only once that you are going to speak it before the jurors?” (Plutarch 5)

While excelling in immediate effects, the lasting impact of a speech or an oral argument was comparatively short-lived, partly because it is difficult to reassess or scrutinize the oral, whereas written argumentation has to stand the test of detailed examination.

Ancient handbooks on letter writing emphasize the obvious, namely that letters are but one half of a conversation and need to be treated as that. Especially for the modern reader of an ancient letter, this should ring a bell, and has been articulated by methodological discussions of what is called “mirror reading” or “charge approach”


(Barclay 1987, 73-93. Mitternacht 1999, 38-59). Time and again, the interpreter needs to pause and ask her/himself whether or not it is possible to identify the issue, concern or question to which the letter writer responds. As vital information tends to be missing an argument in a letter is easily misconstrued.

Furthermore, the written form of a letter may not be what was actually delivered to the recipients. In ancient times a “postman” quite often did not simply hand a letter over to the addressee, but was commissioned to “perform” the content of the letter to the addressee(s). Among several reasons may have been the addressees’ illiteracy, or that the sender wanted the postman to supply particular gestures or personal expressions of emotions to the written text. Speaking, for obvious reasons, has means of communication that writing has not. Thus, the “postman” was not just a delivery man but also a messenger who represented the absent sender orally (see Deissmann 1924).

This does not preclude that expressions of a sender’s personal emotion can be included in writing. An example of this is found towards the end of Galatians where Paul writes: “See here with what large letters I write to you with my own hand.” The expression is not directly related to the argument of the letter, but expresses affinity with the addressees, and underscores the authenticity of the letter.

As to form, there seems to be a general agreement among ancient writers that letters enjoy “greater structural freedom ... [and t]hat it is absurd” - as the ancient letters theorist Demetrius puts it – “to construct letter sections as if one wrote an apologetic speech ...” Letters are more personal in nature than public speeches, wherefore “an approach ... [as in an apologetic speech] would contradict the rules of friendship, which require that we call a spade a spade, as the saying goes.”

Furthermore, the varieties of letter types are much greater than those of speeches, and the possibilities more flexible and open-ended. Thus, the handbook Pseudo-Libanius counts 41 and Pseudo-Demetrius 21 types, with the latter adding the remark: “Perhaps time will produce even more than these, because time is indeed a very talented inventor of skills and theories.” Thus, although the rules for letter writing overlap with rules for speech composition, the ancient hand books are nowhere near as rigorous on letter types as they are on speech types.

Rhetorical types: Galatians as a test caseSpeeches are usually constructed for one of three overarching purposes, so that the aim of a speech is normally to be either judicial (defensive, accusatory) and situated in the court room, deliberative (advisory) and situated in the political debate context, or demonstrative (praise, blaming) and situated in obituary or festive contexts. With each type and context follows a suitable disposition.

H.D. Betz initiated the modern search for rhetorical speech structures of Paul’s letters with his seminal commentary on Galatians in 1972. Many NT interpreters have since scrutinized ancient rhetorical manuals for speech structures and


dispositions in order to shed light on Paul’s strategies of persuasion.

Betz ascribed to the letter to the Galatians an apologetic self-defense speech type (judicial) with letter introduction and conclusion. He surmised that Paul wrote the letter to defend his missionary activity against hostile agitation. Positioning the letter in a court speech situation, he attributed to Paul the role of defender/defendant, to the addressees the role of jury, and to the opponents the role of prosecutors.

Betz’s role distribution raised a number of concerns, such as, is it reasonable to think that a defendant in self-defense would accuse the jury of being bewitched and stupid (Galatians 3:1)? After all, the jury sits in judgment and the defendant wants to be absolved. Possibly, one could imagine that a defender admonishes a jury to be fair and to consider all the facts. We know from the sources that in exceptional cases a defender could make threats, such as reminding the judge that the people of the city would be very unhappy with an unfavorable decision. A defender could even issue a warning against suspicions of bribery. But are the personal reprimands, insults, threats and admonitions found in Galatians (3:1ff; 5:2 ff) suitable or probable for a defense strategy?

In response to questions such as these, Robert Hall and others suggested that the deliberative speech type and the political debate context provide a more likely set of imaginary roles (Hall 1987). In a political debate, an orator’s main concern is to urge colleagues/citizens to do what is beneficial and to discourage them from doing what is useless. Also, in order to maximize the effect on the audience, the orator should, as the handbooks describe, demonstrate his impeccable character and genuine wisdom, i.e. he should establish his ethos. In this setting exhortation and self-defense/praise combine well.

Hall also suggested that the structural disposition of the deliberative speech type is more fitting to Galatians (for a comparison of dispositions, see Table 1). The main dispositional differences between the judicial and the deliberative speech type are

(1) the place for admonitions or exhortations – these are naturally included among proofs in the deliberative speech type, but not quite fitting in the judicial type.6 Betz acknowledges that his categorization of Galatians 5:1-6:10 as exhortatio has no support in the rhetorical handbooks. Yet he abides by the judicial genre of the letter based on the nature of the content in its entirety.

(2) the function of narratio – according to the ancient handbooks, in a judicial speech the narratio narrates the circumstances of the case, on which all parties agree. It therefore precedes and prepares the propositio. It does not provide proof of one of the parties, but background information on which there is common ground. In the deliberative speech, which looks primarily to the future, there is no need for a

6 Hall 1987, 281: “exhortation plays no part in judicial rhetoric, but is especially characteristic of deliberative.”


narratio (Quintilian), but if it is included it should be part of the proofs that support and/or follow from the propositio.

(3) the propositio (main thesis) – on this the different types concur in principle. It is the part of the speech where that which is to be demonstrated is postulated. However, for reasons just described, in a judicial disposition the propositio precedes the narratio, whereas in a deliberative disposition it succeeds it. Thus with regard to Galatians, Hall identifies the propositio in 1:6-9, whereas Betz has it in 2:15-21.

Table 1: Rhetorical divisions of Galatians

Judicial (H. D. Betz) Deliberative (R. Hall)

Epistolary prescript (1:1-5) Salutation / exordium (1:1-5)Exordium (1:6-11) Propositio (1:6-9)Narratio (1:12 to 2:14) Proof (1:10 to 6:10)Propositio (2:15-21) a. NarrationProbatio (3:1-4:31) b. Further headingsExhortatio (5.1-6:10)Epistolary postscript (6:11-18) Epilogue (6:11-18)

It is apparent that such dispositional differences lead to different interpretations of Galatians. Identifying the propositio at 2:15-21 implies for one that Paul’s main contender may be Peter, whom he addresses in the passage about the incident at Antioch, which precedes the propositio in 2:10-14. If, as Hall argues, the propositio comes at 1:6-9, Paul’s main purpose could be to combat the notion that he has been preaching a gospel in order to please men.

Epistolary structure: Galatians as a test caseEpistolography is defined as the art or practice of letter writing. Learning this art in antiquity was part of the progymnasmata (fore-exercises) in rhetorical education. Learning how to write letters meant learning elementary persuasive means, strategies and conventions for written communication. An epistolary analysis thus examines these characteristics in order to gain insights into the relationship between sender and addressee, strategies of persuasion and to identify the concern and purpose of the letter. With regard to the letter to the Galatians, there are two main characteristics that seem crucial: a) situational pertinence and b) epistolary formulae.

Regarding situational pertinence or applicability, it has often been noticed, long before scholars showed a particular interest in the rhetoric of letter writing, that certain passages in Galatians seem to speak directly to the addressees’ situation, whereas other passage are of a more general nature and with no clear connection to the concerns articulated in the passages with direct appeal.


Passages where the epistolary situation of the addressees is directly addressed are easily recognized in Galatians by the frequency of the pronouns I, you and they, strong emotional appeal, and by references to the so-called “agitators”. Typical of passages that seem distant and more general in nature, is elaborations on intricate scripture interpretations, and/or theological arguments that could fit many contexts. In addition, the elaborations don’t always seem to cohere, and one may turn out to contradict another elaboration.7 In this paper, I will limit myself to pointing out the structural positioning of these passages and their interplay.

There are five sections in Galatians where the epistolary situation is addressed directly: 1) introduction (1:1-10); 2) Paul’s first visit to Galatia and its consequences (3:1-5); 3) the current situation with embedded references to the first visit (4:8-20); 4) the consequences of persistent wrongdoing (5:2-16); and 5) the final appeal (6:11-18).

Four general passages are inserted in between the five sections. They are: 1) a primarily autobiographical part (1:12 to 2:21); 2) a section with arguments from scripture (3:5-4:7); 3) an exposition of scripture (4:21-5:1); and 4) a part with general admonition (5:17 to 6:10). Some uncertainty remains in my mind as to where to place 3:26-4:7.

The identification of epistolary formulae began with the observation that ancient letters seem remarkably similar. A closer look at this phenomenon in letters from the 4th century BCE to the 4th century CE, i.e. a period of 800 years, has led to the observation that certain expressions and structures seem stereotypical in meaning, formal in structure, and often appear in clusters. It was concluded that formulae can be roughly divided into three kinds: expressions that mark a shift of argument, expressions that indicate a particular meaning and expressions that specify the character of a letter as a whole.

During the 1960s and 70s T.Y. Mullins and N. A. Dahl explored a large number of ancient letters and found, for instance, that when the phrase “I’m surprised that ...” (Θαυμάζω ὅτι, Gal 1:6) appears in a letter opening (cf. Gal 1:6), it always seems to purport the notion of discontent or disappointment. They suggested that to contemporary readers, the expression functioned like an epistolary signal and named it “rebuke formula”. Several studies since have confirmed that Galatians contains a number of expressions that seem to comply with the notion of epistolary formulae.

Even the absence of certain formulae can be a signal of sorts, such as the lack of a Thanksgiving formula in the letter introduction of Galatians. Especially if the rebuke formula goes hand in hand with the absence of the Thanksgiving formula, the reproach seems serious. In other cases, for instance when a father uses the rebuke formula to express disapproval for not having heard from his son for a long time (“I am surprised that you have not written …”) the rebuke may be seen as a sign of affection rather than confrontation. But even then it implies some sort of reprimand.

7 For a detailed treatment of these issues, see Mitternacht, 1999, 72-108.


In Pseudo-Libanius the expression is proposed as a suitable formulation for two letter types, the “Ironic letter” and the “Reprimand letter.”

Another expression where the form indicates more than what is being said explicitly is the so-called letter greeting formula. Here it is the order that marks variations of meaning. Thus, the pattern “From x to y” indicates superiority of x over y (except in wholly private letters), whereas the pattern “To y from x.” indicates subordination of x to y.

An atypical epistolary expression is found in the postscript of Galatians. This expression stands out not by its formulaic character, but by its content. In Gal 6:11 Paul writes: “Behold with what large letters I write to you.” The words buttress, so it seems, Paul’s final appeal, one, by letting the addressees know that the letter was written by an amanuensis, and thus, even though the content may seem impulsive at times, was composed with care. Two, the reference to the “large letters” adds emotional appeal. Three, the handwriting of Paul is like a signature that authenticates the letter.

Table 2: Epistolary structure of Galatians. The table provides an overview of the epistolary distinctiveness of Galatians from the point of view of direct and general passages, and the positioning of clusters of epistolary formulas.

Direct General Formulaic Clusters1) introduction (1:1-10) 1) autobiographical illustra-

tion (1:12 to 2:21)1.1-3, 6, 9-13

2) the first visit and its con-sequences (3:1-5)

2) arguments from scripture (3:5-4:7)

3:1-7

3) the current situation (4:8-20)

3) application of scripture (4:21-5:1)

4:11-20

4) the consequences of per-sistent wrongdoing (5:2-16)

4) exhortations (5:17 to 6:10)

4:31-5:3, 5:10-13;

5) final appeal (6:11-18) 6:11-18

An expression which often occurs together with the rebuke formula is the so-called petition formula. This formula is usually found somewhere in the middle of the letter, contains a petition verb, a title and a kindness phrase. Typical of letters with this formula is that it divides the letter into two halves. What precedes the formula describes the background for the petition, what follows the formula describes the benefits of responding favorably to the request and/or the harm of neglecting the request. If the conditions can be confirmed the letter would then be classified as a “letter of petition” (see table 3).


Table 3: Galatians as a letter of petition

Introduction Background Petition Benefit/Harm Conclusion

1:1-12 1:13-4:11 4:12 4:13-6:10 6:11-18

The verbs used to express the request, signal something about the entire letter situation. The verb δεῖσθαι, also used in Galatians, is common in official petitions where the sender is eagerly concerned. The verb ἐρωτᾶν occurs mostly between people with the same social status, while παρακαλεῖν is mainly used in personal letters.

When in Galatians 4:12 Paul asks: “Be as I, for I [am] as you, brothers, I beg (δεῖσθαι) you”, the question must be posed whether what has been said earlier can be perceived as a background description of the request. Mullins did not think so and therefore rejected labeling Galatians a petition letter. Unfortunately, Mullins never developed his reasons. It may be presumed that he meant that the request in 4:12 is personal and social, whereas the main argument of the letter is theological-soteriological. In my opinion, the two are not opposed, but that Paul’s personal and theological concerns are closely interrelated. Thus, 1:13 to 4:11 would show the plausibility and dependability of the request, while 4:13 to 6:10 would describe the benefits and harm that would follow if the addressee neglected the request. The letter introduction and conclusion frame the argument with strong appeals to ethos, thus trying to persuade the addressees to reconsider their view of Paul and his understanding of the gospel.

A subtle letter openingHaving noted the intricacies of the macro-structure of Galatians, it seems clear that Paul designed the persuasive strategy of the letter very carefully, using the different rhetorical means that were at his disposal. Additional arguments that support this inference include the carefully constructed polemics, and the strong appeal to ethos in the beginning and at the end of the letter. At this point, I will exemplify how Paul’s rhetorical skill also surfaces in the details of the letter opening, as it aims to set the stage for the request to come in 4:12.

The basic structure of the prescript of Galatians is in conformity with ancient letter conventions. It consists of three major parts: superscript (from Paul), adscript (to the churches of Galatia), and salutatio (grace and peace from God). The fact that the superscript precedes the adscript shows that he presents himself as a superior who writes to subordinates. An adjustment of prescript conventions is found in the fact that, while letters in general use χαίρειν to greet the addressees, Paul chooses to blend Greek and Jewish greetings as he writes: χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη (shalom), “grace and peace”.

Contrary to customary epistolary practice, Paul extends the prescript (1:1-5)


with two elaborations. The first elaboration is in the superscriptio8 and consists of a double dissociation stating that Paul’s apostleship is “not from men, nor through man” (οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀνθρώπου, 1:1). By using dissociative assertions at the beginning of the letter Paul seems to reverse the advice given in the rhetorical handbooks. The handbooks suggest that one should never get straight to the point when a matter is controversial, since an introduction is always primarily a captatio benevolentiae (“to win the recipient’s goodwill”). Cicero writes regarding the introduction (exordium):

The purpose of the exordium is to make the audience well disposed toward the speaker and to secure its good will, attention and interest (Cicero, De Inv. 1.15.).

In fact, the handbooks also state that one may do what Paul did, if one is absolutely sure of the recipient’s good will and amenability. Taking Paul’s ambition to persuade the addressees for granted, and seeing the double dissociation together with the intense polemic of the letter in several instances, an argument can be made that Paul was indeed aware of the handbook advice and being quite confident about the addressees’ good will towards him, followed the second rule.

The second elaboration is added to the salutatio and states that Christ “gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age.” References to “Christ dying for our sins" are usually taken as pre-Pauline traditions (cf. 1 Cor 15:3), whereas the phrase “to rescue us from the present evil age” is unique and occurs only here in all of Paul’s writings. Thus, the second elaboration combines an accepted tradition with a new interpretation. From a rhetorical standpoint, this is entirely consistent with Aristotle’s advice, who says that one should prove a thesis by basing it on that which is already settled. From an interpretive standpoint, the linkage of the two should be seen as an alert signal. Further into the argument of the letter, and particularly in the personally written ending, it will become clear that the initial reference to Christ's sacrificing himself for salvation from this present evil world was deliberate as it articulates the letter's most controversial point.

The transition from the prescript to the letter body in 1:6 is marked by the ironic expression “I am ‘surprised’ that ...” (see above). The reason given for the surprise is stated in somewhat cryptic terms: “… that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” (1:6-7). One may not yet notice the emotional undertone, but as one reads Paul's lament in 4:19 (“My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you”), and his explicit threat in 5:1 (“you have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace”), there is hardly any doubt that Paul’s concern is solemn.

8 The prescript (praescriptio) consists of superscriptio (who is sending), adscriptio (to whom), and salutatio (greeting).


Paul drops his initial restraint when he turns to those, who he thinks have misled the Galatians. Over them he pronounce a double curse. “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!” (1:8-9). One may argue that the conditional clause “If anyone …” is still a sign of restraint. Once we get to the second half of the letter conditional sentences make way for straight-forward threats: “…whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty,” and “I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” (5:10, 12)

Betz has pointed out that in Demosthenes’ De Corona – one of the Greek rhetorical masterpieces – we find a curse at the end (peroratio). He therefore concludes that: “since exordium and peroratio were closely linked , the difference is irrelevant” (Betz 1975, 11). I agree with Betz that letter beginning and end belong closely together. But I do not agree with his conclusion that it is therefore without significance that the curses in Galatians occur at the beginning and not the end. On the contrary, I think that the curses in 1:8-9 are important rhetorical signals and included in order to prepare for 1:10.

The introduction ends with yet another assurance that Paul did not receive his gospel from men, but by revelation from Jesus Christ (1:11-12). And thus we are back to the theme of verse 1 and the introductory section is found to have a thematic frame, known rhetorically as inclusio. At the same time the end of the introduction also marks the transition to the next section, just as the handbooks suggests. From the point of view of rhetorical composition it is desirable as Quintilian states that the transitio from exordium to narratio is clear but even, since abrupt change as well as complete smoothing out of any difference is to be avoided.

The apparently disruptive tenth verseIn Gal 1:10 Paul asks: “Am I now seeking human approval, or God's approval? Or am I trying to please people?...” The two verbs used denote the task of the orator who wants to persuade (πείθειν, cf. 2 Cor 5:11) and to please (ἀρέσκειν) an audience. Combined, the two verbs purport the impression of an unpredictable rhetorician and a man-pleaser or flatterer (Schlier 1951, 15, Betz 1979, 55). It has been widely recognized that placing these questions here seems puzzling and unwarranted.9 So far into the letter, Paul has dissociated himself from men, accused the addressees and cursed others. Why then this question about whether or not he “now” (ἄρτι) is a man-pleaser? Instead of supporting the train of thought, verse 10 seems to challenge, even contradict it.

The problem, it seems to me, lies in the fact that interpreters tend to assume that

9 For instance Betz 1979, 54: “In verse 10 Paul raises and answers two different questions which have kept commentators puzzling.”


the main argument is clear, and from there proceed to disqualify verse 10 for not fitting in. I would propose, instead, that the main argument only appears to be the main argument and that verse 10 can provide the key rather than be an obstacle to finding the rhetorical function of 1:1-12. Aware that a letter is only half a dialogue, it is to be expected that the cause that precipitates a counter-argument may not be explicitly stated. Judging from v.10, the unstated cause for the introduction of Galatians is that the addressees were not sure whether or not Paul could be trusted, and whether his personality was weak and wavering. Aware of these suspicions, Paul decided to take the bull by its horns and make sure from the very beginning of the letter that there can be no doubt about his forceful and firm determination. Thus, the dissociations, accusations and curses serve the purpose of proving that the accusation behind the questions in v. 10 is wrong.

The Rhetorica ad Herennium states that “there are two kinds of Introduction: the Direct Opening [principium], in Greek called the Prooimion, and the Subtle Approach [insinuatio], called the Ephodos” (RhetadHer. I.4.6.), the latter of which is appropriate when the audience seems to be convinced of the opposite.10 Thus, a subtle approach should use disguised wordings and dissimulation, in order to keep the listener attentive.11

Similarly Cicero recommends that an audience can be swathed with one line of argument into an emotional state that makes it disposed to consider plausible what seemed controversial before.12

Rhetorically speaking, then, it seems possible to solve the puzzle of v. 10, if one accepts that Paul applies the subtle approach to dealing with an intricate problem. At first sight, Gal 1:1-12 has the appearance of a principium where Paul not only looks back to past dissociations, but also performs in the now of the text, accusations and curses that oblige the audience both emotionally and intellectually to reverse their opinion of Paul as being a man-pleaser. What appears to be a direct opening may actually be a smoke screen (“disguised wordings and dissimulation”) that entices

10 Cf. RhetadHer I.6.9: “There are three occasions on which we cannot use the Direct Opening, and these we must consider carefully: ( (1) when our cause is discreditable, that is, when the subject itself alienates the hearer from us; (2) when the hearer has apparently been won over by the previous speakers of the opposition; (3) or when the hearer has become wearied by listening to the previous speakers.”

11 RhetadHer. I.7.11: “… the Subtle Approach should be such that we effect all these results covertly, through dissimulation, and so can arrive at the same vantage point in the task of speaking. But though this three-fold advantage—that the hearers constantly show themselves attentive, receptive, and well-disposed to us—is to be secured throughout the discourse, it must in the main be won by the Introduction to the cause.”

12 See Cicero, De Inv. 1. 15.10: “The language calculated to enable the orator to work his way into the good graces of the hearer, is an address which employs a certain dissimulation, and which by a circuitous route as it were obscurely creeps into the affections of the hearer.”


the addressees’ hearts and minds, so that, once they get to reading v.10 they would accept that Paul’s question was rhetorical, i.e. that the answer is given beforehand. ‘Of course not, Paul is not a man-pleaser.’ What better way to counteract a suspicion of weakness than by a demonstration of power?

Looking at the second half of v.10, Paul seems to retreat somewhat from his own strategy and humbly admit that the suspicion of the addressees was not completely unreasonable. Yes, he seems to argue, there was a time when I was trying to please people. But no more, because “If I were still (ἔτι) pleasing people, I would not be a servant (δοῦλος) of Christ.”13 The use of still (ἔτι) calls to mind 5:11: “But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.” Suspicions against Paul of being a wavering personality are fed from several sources..

Thus, while modern readers may be upset, even put off by the forcefulness and harshness of this letter introduction, the first addressees may have heard something else entirely. They knew Paul personally and may have been equally caught off guard, at first, by his austerity. However, to them austerity may have been exactly what they were missing, so that dissociations, accusations and even curses may have taken them emotionally captive and liberated them from their suspicion that Paul was a man-pleaser.

Right on the heels of the introduction follows the background story (narratio), a major rhetorical function of which is to establish Paul’s credibility, his ethos. “Character is almost, so to speak, the controlling factor of persuasion,” Aristotle tells us.14 Paul’s narratio (1:13-2:15) reads almost like a rhetorical textbook example, listing incident after incident in order to prove his irreproachable zeal for the supreme revelation given to him by Christ himself and his firmness as he defends the truth of the gospel against any odds.

He makes sure that the addresses understand that he did not ask the advice of flesh or blood, he did not go up to Jerusalem for consultations (1:16) and he did not submit even for a moment to those who accused him (2:5). Others, notably Peter, may have strayed from the true path and betrayed common beliefs because of fear of false brethren or retaliation (2:11-15). But Paul stood firm in his calling. The narrative self-presentation culminates at the end of chapter 2 with the words: “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:19-20)

Indeed, it can hardly be doubted that Paul was a skilled, forceful and demanding

13 Cf. Witherington 1988, 84, who suggests that “Paul admits that in the past (presumably before his conversion, note the ἔτι) he had acted in this fashion.”

14 Aristotle, Rhet. II.6.1384a23


letter-writer. The overall design of Galatians as well as the construction of individual arguments or letter sections confirm that Paul was keen to maximize the persuasive effect as he proclaimed the truth of the Gospel and presented himself as a truthful imitator of the crucified Christ.

SourcesAristotle. The ‘Art’ of Rhetoric. LCL 193. Cambridge, Mass. (1926).Cicero. De Oratore. 2 vols. LCL 348-349. Cambridge, Mass. (1949).[Cicero]. RhetoricaadHerennium. LCL 403. Cambridge, Mass. (1954).Demetrius. On Style (De Elocutione). LCL. Translator W. Rhys Roberts. Cambridge,

Mass. (1993).Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntut Typoi epstolikoi at Epistolimaioi xarakteres.

Weichert, V. (ed.). Leipzig, Teubner (1910).Plutarch, Moralia, De Garrulitate. Gregorius N. Bernardakis (ed.). Leipzig, Teubner

(1891).Quintilian, Marcus Fabius.. Institutio Oratoria. 4 vols. LCL 124-127. Cambridge,

Mass. (1920).

ReferencesBarclay, J.M.G. 1987. Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.

JSNT 31: 73-93.Betz, Hans D. 1979. Galatians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia.______. 1994 (1975). “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to

the Galatians.” The Galatians Debate. Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical andHistoricalInterpretation. Nanos., Mark D. (Ed.). Peabody, Mass.: 3-28. Publicerades för första gången i New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 352-79.

Dahl, Nils A. 2002 (1973). “Paul's Letter to the Galatians. Epistolary Genre, Content and Structure”. The Galatians Debate. Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical andHistoricalInterpretation. Nanos, Mark D. (Ed.). Peabody, Mass.: 117-42.

Deissmann, A. 1924. Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch–römischen Zeit. 4th edition. Tübingen.

Hall, Robert G. 1987. “The Rhetorical Outline of Galatians: A Reconsideration.” Journal for Biblical Literature 106: 277-87.

Holmberg, Bengt. 1996. Review of Mödritzer 1994, in JBL 115, 743-44.Longenecker, Richard N. 1990. Galatians. WBC 41. Dallas.Malherbe, Abraham J. 1988. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. SBLSBS 19. Atlanta.Mitternacht, Dieter. 1999. Forum für Sprachlose. Eine kommunikations-

psychologische und epistolär-rhetorische Untersuchung des Galatarbriefs. Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series 30. Almquist & Wiksell International.

Mitternacht, Dieter. 2002. “Foolish Galatians. A Recipient-oriented Assessment of Paul's Letter.” The Galatians Debate. Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and HistoricalInterpretation. Nanos, Mark D. (Ed.). Peabody, Mass: 408-33.


Mullins, Terence Y. 1962. “Petition as a Literary Form.” Novum Testamentum 5: 46-54.

______. 1972. “Formulas in New Testament Epistles.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91: 380-90.

Mödritzer, Helmut. 1994. Stigma und Charisma im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt: Zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 28, Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag.

Nanos, Mark D. 2002. The Irony of Galatians. Philadelphia.Oesterreich, Peter L. 2012. “Homo Rhetoricus”. In Culture and Rhetoric (Studies in

Rhetoric and Culture). Strecker Ivo and Tyler Stephen (eds). Berghahn Books, 49-58.

Theissen, Gerd. 1999. A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion. SCM Press.Witherington III, Ben. 1998. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the

Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Mitternacht Dieter (2013) 'Forceful and demanding.' On Paul as a letter writer. Theology and Life...

Documents

Transcript of Mitternacht Dieter (2013) 'Forceful and demanding.' On Paul as a letter writer. Theology and Life...