^{page 1 note 1} NTS 21 (1975) 353–79. This article served as the basis for the commentary on the letter which the same author published some years later (Philadelphia 1979). It is incorporated in the commentary, divided in parts but otherwise almost unaltered.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 2} Betz, , ‘Composition’ 377Google Scholar: ‘In the case of Galatians, the addressees are identical with the jury, with Paul being the defendant and his opponents the accusers … Serving as a substitute the letter carries the defence speech to the jury.’

^{page 1 note 3} This study incorporates the results of four articles which I published earlier viz. Smit, J., ‘Naar een nieuwe benadering van Paulus’ brieven. De historische bewijsvoering in Gal. 3, 1–4, 11’, Tijdschrift voor Theologie 24 (1984) 207–34Google Scholar; ‘Hoe kun je de heidenen verplichten als joden to leven? Paulus en de torah in Galaten 2, 11–21’, Bijdragen 46 (1985) 118–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Paulus, de Galaten en het judaisme: een narratieve analyse van Galaten 1–2’, TuT 25 (1985) 337–62Google Scholar; ‘Redactie in de brief aan de Galaten: retorische analyse van Gal. 4, 12–6, 18’, TuT 26 (1986) 113–14.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 1} Quint. 4.1.20–22.

^{page 2 note 2} Betz, , ‘Composition’ 362Google Scholar: ‘The narratio proper begins in v. 13 …’.

^{page 2 note 3} Betz, , ‘Composition’ 364Google Scholar: ‘Quintilian recommends beginning the narratio with a statement, the propositio, which will influence the judge in some way, though he may bewell informed about the case.’ For this he refers to Quint. 3.9.5; 4.2.7, 30. The said recommendation, however, cannot be found there, nor elsewhere.

^{page 3 note 1} Kennedy, G. A, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill and London, 1984) 145Google Scholar reaches the same conclusion, though with a different argumentation: ‘All species of rhetoric make use of narrative, but they use it for different purposes and in different ways. The function of judicial narrative is to set forth the facts at issue from the point of view of the speaker. Quintilian (4.2.66–68) clearly recognizes this. But the narrative of the first and second chapters of Galatians is not an account of facts at issue. It is supporting evidence for Paul's claim in 1. 11 that the gospel he preached was not from man, but from God, a topic which had been enunciated in the first verse of the salutation. Galatians is probably best viewed as deliberative rhetoric, a point to which we will return.’

^{page 3 note 2} Cicero, , De inventione 1.22.31Google Scholar, writes on the propositio, which he calls partitio: ‘Recta habita in causa partitio illustrem et perspicuam totem efficit orationem.’

^{page 4 note 1} Quint. 5.7 has a detailed discussion of the interrogation of witnesses in court. Quint. 9.2.6–32 consists entirely of a treatment of the rhetorical question as a figure of speech.

^{page 4 note 2} Rhet ad Her 3.3.4 remarks in discussing the genus deliberatiuum: ‘Prudentiae partibus utemur in dicendo si commoda cum incommodis conferemus, cum alterum sequi, vitare alterum cohortemur.’ We will return to this point at length later on.

^{page 4 note 3} For the proverb see Quint. 5.11.41. On the peroratio as the place where all floodgates of eloquence should be opened and all emotions should be unchained see Quint. 6.1.51–52; 4.1.27–28; 6.1.9–11.

^{page 4 note 4} Betz, referring to Pseudo-Demetrius, argues that Paul in using the allegory leaves something for his listeners to figure out and that they regard this as proof of their intelligence.

^{page 4 note 5} Quint. 5.12.14; Rhet ad Her 3.10.18.

^{page 4 note 6} Betz, , ‘Composition’ 375Google Scholar: ‘It is rather puzzling to see that paraenesis plays only a marginal role in the ancient rhetorical handbooks, if not in rhetoric itself.’ Cf. also note 9 where he remarks that even Quintilian has no special treatment of the paraenesis.

^{page 5 note 1} Betz, , ‘Composition’ 358Google Scholar: ‘Paul's restraint at this point with regard to the emotional appeal may reflect the same kind of caution which, according to Quintilian, was characteristic of philosophers.’

^{page 5 note 2} Cf. Gal 1. 6–12; 2. 4, 12–13; 3. 1–5; 4. 12–20; 5. 7–12.

^{page 5 note 3} In The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963)Google Scholar and in The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton, 1972)Google Scholar G. A. Kennedy gives a comprehensive survey of the history of classical rhetoric. He begins with Corax and Tisias in the second quarter of the fifth century BCE and ends with Cassius Longinus, who died about 273 CE.

^{page 6 note 1} The declamations, school-exercises which became very popular in the first century CE, played an important role in this development, Cf. Kennedy, , The An of Rhetoric in the Roman World 312–29.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 2} Current opinion holds that Cicero and the author of Rhet ad Herennium had the same teacher and had both been using their college notes. This teacher is seen as a representative of the school of Rhodes, an important centre of rhetorical studies at the time. See Kennedy, , The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 103–48Google Scholar; Caplan, H., Rhetorica ad Herennium (London, ⁵ 1981) VII–XXXiV.Google Scholar Other opinions in Adamietz, J., Ciceros De invention und die Rhetorik ad Herennium (Marburg, 1960).Google Scholar On the points relevant for us there exists a general consensus. It is also significant for the traditional character of De inventione that later on in De oratore 1.2.5 Cicero distances himself from this juvenile work. He reviews it there as ‘inchoata ac rudia’ and not in accordance with the dignity and experience he had meanwhile obtained.

^{page 7 note 1} Rhet ad Her 1.2.2 e.g. defines the three genres thus: ‘Tria genera sunt causarum quae recipere debet orator: demonstrativum, deliberativum, iudiciale. Demonstrativum est quod tribuitur in alicuius certae personae laudem vel vituperationem. Deliberativum est in consultatione, quo habet in se suasionem et dissuasionem. Iudiciale est quod positum est in controversia, et quod habet accusationem aut petitionem cum defensione.’ Cf. De Inv 1.5.7; Rhet ad Alex 1.

^{page 7 note 2} In his brief analysis of the letter to the Galatians Kennedy, , New Testament Interpretation 146Google Scholar, reaches the same point of view: ‘The basic argument of deliberative oratory is that an action is in the self-interest of the audience … That is the pervasive argument of Galatians … The letter looks to the immediate future, not to judgment of the past, and the question to be decided by the Galatians was not whether Paul had been right in what he had said or done, but what they themselves were going to believe and to do.’

^{page 7 note 3} In this respect it is significant that Betz began his commentary with the following maxim of Luther: ‘Nec de politica libertate agimus, sed de alia quadam, quam diabolus maxime odit et impugnat. Ea est, qua Christus nos liberavit, non e servitute aliqua humana aut vi tyrannorum, sed ira dei aetema. Ubi? in conscientia.’

^{page 7 note 4} A seminal work on this issue is Stendahl, K., Paul among Jews and Gentiles (London, 1977).Google Scholar Also important are Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia, 1983)Google Scholar; Watson, F., Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles (Cambridge University, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 8 note 1} See the articles mentioned above in note 3, page 1.

^{page 8 note 2} To my knowledge the only exception to this is the extreme proposal of O'Neill, J. C., The recovery of Paul's letter to the Galatians (London, 1972).Google Scholar This work has rightly received little attention.

^{page 8 note 3} In his commentary Betz somewhat conceals this under the notion of ‘exhortatio’ which, however, is nowhere used in classical rhetoric to denote a distinct part of the speech. Kennedy, , New Testament Interpretation 146Google Scholar, who regards the exhortatio of Gal 5–6 as the goal the entire letter is aiming at, does not solve this problem either.

^{page 8 note 4} I am summarising here the conclusions of my article ‘Redactie in de brief aan de Galaten’, see note 3, page 1.

^{page 8 note 5} See Dahl, N. A., ‘The particularity of the pauline epistles as a problem in the ancient church’, Neotestamentica et patristica. Festschrift O. Cullmann, NovTestSupll 6 (1962) 261–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gnilka, J., Der Philipperbrief (Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1968) 5–18Google Scholar; Schenke, H. M., ‘Das Weiterwirken des Paulus and die Pflege seines Erbe durch die Paulus-Schule’, NTS 21 (1974–5) 505–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sand, A., ‘Überlieferung and Sammlung der Paulusbriefe’, Paulus inden neutestamentlichen Spätschriften (ed. Kertelge, K., Freiburg, 1981) 11–24.Google ScholarKennedy, , New Testament Interpretation 147Google Scholar, has correctly sensed this when he writes: ‘As Paul's defence, Galatians would be chiefly of historical interest for its picture of the early church filled with acrimonious dissension and of his personal insecurities and apprehensions; as Paul's exhortation it continues to speak to christians who are tempted to substitute the form of religious observance for its essence.’

^{page 9 note 1} With this I do not intend to deny that Gal 5. 13–6. 10 was written by Paul and that we should read the letter in its present form as a unity. The question, however, how this should be done is focused more sharply and clearly by my proposal.

^{page 9 note 2} De inv 1.15.20–1.18.26; Rhet ad Her 1.3.5–1.7.11; Rhet ad Alex 29.

^{page 9 note 3} De inv 1.15.20: ‘Exordium est oratio animum auditoris idonee comparans ad reliquam dictionem, quod eveniet si eum benivolum, attentum, docilem confecerit.’

^{page 9 note 4} De inv 1.15.20: ‘Insinuatio est oratio quadam dissimulatione et circumitione obscure subiens auditoris animum.’

^{page 9 note 5} Rhet ad Her 1.4.8: ‘Benivolos auditores facere quattuor modis possumus: ab nostra, ab adversariorum nostrorum, ab auditorum persona, et ab rebus ipsis.’

^{page 10 note 1} Parallelism, hyperbole and epiphora are the figures supporting this. For the figures of speech and thought see Rhet ad Her 4; Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (München, ² 1973).Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 2} Figura etymologica (derivatio), inversio and antithesis further strengthen this.

^{page 10 note 3} Gal 1. 10–12 and 1. 15–24 have the opposition, men vs. God, in common. Gal 1. 7b–9; 2.1–10, 11–21 hinge on ‘the truth of the gospel’ (2. 5, 14).

^{page 10 note 4} It is remarkable that Paul, unlike in the exordium, does address the Galatians in 5. 7–12 with a captivating concessio: ‘You were running so well.’

^{page 10 note 5} Cf. Betz, , Galatians 47–50.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 1} De inv 1.19.27: ‘Narratio est rerum gestarum aut ut gestarum expositio.’

^{page 11 note 2} De inv 1.19.27–1.21.30; Rhet ad Her 1.8.12–1.9.16; Rhet ad Alex 30–31.

^{page 11 note 3} De inv 1.20.28: ‘Oportet igitur earn tres habere res: ut brevis, ut aperta, ut probabilis sit.’ Rhet ad Her 1.9.14: ‘Tres res convenit habere narrationem: ut brevis, ut dilucida, ut veri-similis sit.’

^{page 11 note 4} De inv 1.21.30: ‘Quare, ut hoc vitium vitetur, omnia torquenda sont ad commodum suae causae, contraria quae praeteriri poterunt praetereundo, quae dicenda erunt leviter attingendo sua diligenter et enodate narrando.’

^{page 12 note 1} The division in episodes is mainly determined by topographical and semantic data. Gal 1. 13–14; place: Judaism; opposition: Jews vs. Gentiles. Gal 1. 15–24; place: not-Jerusalem; opposition: God vs. men. Gal 2. 1–10, place: Jerusalem; opposition: Jews vs. Gentiles viz. the circumcised vs. the uncircumcised. Gal 2. 11–21, place: Antioch; opposition: Jews vs. Gentiles viz. the righteous observing the torah vs. the lawless sinners.

^{page 13 note 1} Rhet ad Alex 31–32.

^{page 13 note 2} Rhet ad Her 1.10.17: ‘Primum perorata narratione debemus aperire quid nobis conveniat cum adversariis, si ea quae utilia sunt nobis convenient, quid in controversia relictum sit, hoc modo: “Interfectam esse ab Oreste matrem convenit mihi cum adversariis. Iure fecerit et licueritne facere, id est in controversia.”’ Rhet ad Her 1.10.17 is dealing with the divisio. Cicero speaks of partitio and discusses this De inv 1.22.31–1.23.34.

^{page 13 note 3} De Inv 1.24.34: ‘Confirmatio est per quam argumentando nostrae causae fidem et auctoritatem et firmamentum adiungit oratio.’ Cf. Rhet ad Her 1.10.18; Rhet ad Alex 32.

^{page 13 note 4} Rhet ad Her 3.2.2: ‘Deliberationes partim sunt eiusmodi ut quaeratur utrum potius faciendum sit, partim eiusmodi ut quid potissimum faciendum sit consideretur.’ Idem 1.2.2: ‘Deliberativum est in consultatione, quod habet in se suasionem et dissuasionem.’ Specifically dealing with the genus deliberativum are De inv 2.51.155–2.58.176; Rhet ad Her 3.2.2–3.5.9; Rhet ad Alex 1. 29–34.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 5} De inv 2.52.158: ‘Ex his illud conficitur ut petendarum rerum partes sint honestas et utilitas, vitandarum turpitudo et inutilitas.’

^{page 13 note 6} De inv 2.53.159: ‘Nam virtus est animi habitus naturae modo atque rationi consentaneus. Quamobrem omnibus eius partibus cognitis tota vis erit simplicis honestatis considerata. Habet igitur partes quattuor: prudentiam, iustitiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam.’ Cf. Rhet ad Her 3.2.3; Rhet ad Alex 1.

^{page 14 note 1} De inv 1.30.47: ‘Omne autem … probabile quod sumitur ad argumentationem aut signum est aut credibile aut iudicatum aut comparabile.’ Cf. Rhet ad Alex 7–12; 32.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} De inv 1.30.50: ‘Atque inveniri quidem omnis ex his locis argumentatio poterit; inventa exornari et certas in partes distingui et suavissimum est et summe necessarium et ab artis scriptoribus maxime neglectum.’ Cf. Rhet ad Her 2.18.27.

^{page 14 note 3} Rhet ad Alex 32.1439a, 10–40.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 1} De inv 1.52.98: ‘Conclusio est exitus et determinatio totius orationis. Haec habet partes tres: enumerationem, indignationem, conquestionem.’ Cf. Rhet ad Her 2.30.47.

^{page 16 note 2} De inv 1.55.106: ‘Conquestio est oratio auditoris misericordiam captans.’ See for more information, De inv 1.55.106–1.56.109; Rhet ad Her 2.31.50; Rhet ad Alex 34; 36.

^{page 16 note 3} The loci enumerated here are in Cicero the numbers 1, 4, 7, 10, 12 and 14.

^{page 16 note 4} De inv 1.55.106: ‘In hac primum animum auditoris mitem et misericordem conficere oportet, quo facilius conquestione commoveri possit. Id locis communibus efficere oportebit, per quos fortunae vis in omnes et hominum infirmitas ostenditur.’

^{page 17 note 1} The threefold καλός in v. 17–18 is significant.

^{page 17 note 2} De inv 1.52.98–100; Rhet ad Her 2.30.47; Rhet ad Alex 36.1444b.

^{page 17 note 3} Rhet ad Her 2.30.47: ‘Enumeratio est per quam colligimus et commonemus quibus de rebus verba fecerimus, breviter, ut renovatur, non redintegretur oratio; et ordine ut quicquid erit dictum referemus, ut auditor, si memoriae mandaverit, ad idem quod ipse meminerit reducatur. Item curandum est ne aut ab exordio aut narratione repetatur orationis enumeratio.’

^{page 17 note 4} De inv 1.52.99–100: ‘Nam turn ex tua persona enumerare possis, ut quid et quo quidque loco dixeris admoneas; turn vero personam aut rem aliquam inducere et enumerationem ei totam attribuere … Res autem inducetur, si alicui rei huiusmodi legi, loco, urbi, monumento oratio attribuetur per enumerationem, hoc modo: “Quid si leges loqui possent? Nonne haec spud vos quererentur? Quidnam amplius desideratis, iudices, cum vobis hoc et hoc planum factum sit?”’

^{page 17 note 5} Cf. Rhet ad Her 4.53.66.

^{page 19 note 1} De inv 1.53.100: ‘Indignatio est oratio per quam conficitur ut in aliquem hominem magnum odium aut in rem gravis offensio concitetur.’ For the indignatio see: De inv 1.53.100–1.54.105; Rhet ad Her 2.30.48–49; Rhet ad Alex 34.1440a.

^{page 20 note 1} Rhet ad Her 2.30.48: ‘Quintus locus est cum ostendimus, si semel aliter iudicatum sit, nullam rem fore quae incommodo mederi aut erratum iudicum corrigere possit.’ The similarity between ‘si semel aliter iudicatum sit’ and ‘ούδὲ ν ’ λλο φρονενν’ is striking.

^{page 20 note 2} De inv 1.17.23–25; Rhet ad Her 1.6.9–1.7.11. Paul is using here at the end of his speech a form which according to the theory is designed for its beginning. The close connection which links exordium and indignatio suggests the transfer here.

^{page 21 note 1} Cf. 1 Cor 16.21; Col 4. 18; 2 Thess 3. 17; Phlm 19.

^{page 21 note 2} Amplificatio (αŭξησις) designates an increase, which comprehends an horizontal enlargement as well as a vertical heightening. The last part of a speech was the regular place for this, cf. Cicero, De part orat 15.52–17.58; Quint 8.4. The term can have a lot of different meanings. Rhet ad Her 2.30.47 uses it to indicate the indignatio.

^{page 21 note 3} Cf. especially Rhet ad Her 3.4.7; De inv 2.55.166. I suspect that a passage like Gal 6. 12–17 was considered to be a normal part of the conclusio. Aristotle, Rhet 3.10 mentions praise and censure as a regular part of the peroratio. Rhet ad Her 3.8.15 notices that praise and censure should not be confined to the genus demonstrativum, but can be useful also in the other genres. My point of departure however is the rhetorical theory as it is presented in De inv, Rhet ad Her and Rhet ad Alex and viewed in that light Gal 6. 12–18 must be described as a transgression of the normal pattern.

^{page 22 note 1} Rhet ad Her 3.2.3: ‘Fortitudo est rerum magnarum appetitio et rerum humilium contemptio et laboris cum utilitatis ratione perpessio.’ De inv 2.54.163: ‘Fortitudo est considerata periculorum susceptio et laborum perpessio. Eius partes magnificentia, fidentia, patientia, perseverantia.’

^{page 22 note 2} Showing wounds and scars was a well-known device, readily used at the end of a speech. See Cicero, De oratore 2.28.124; Fl. Josephus, De bello judaico 1.197; Quint. 6.1.21, 30.

^{page 23 note 1} Rhet ad Her 1.3.4: ‘Inventio in sex partes orationis consumitur: in exordium, narrationem, divisionem, confirmationem, refutationem, conclusionem.’

^{page 23 note 2} Rhet ad Her 3.9.17: ‘Est autem alia dispositio quae, cum ab ordine artificioso recedendum est, oratoris iudicio ad tempus adcommodatur.’

^{page 23 note 3} Rhet ad Her 1.2.2: ‘Oratoris officium est de iis rebus posse dicere quae res ad usum civilem moribus et legibus constitutae sunt, cum adsensione auditorum quoad eius fieri poterit.’ De inv 1.5.6: ‘Officium autem eius facultatis videtur esse dicere apposite ad persuasionem; finis persuadere dictione.’

^{page 23 note 4} According to Rhet ad Her 3.13.23, in delivering his speech the speaker has the disposal of three keys: sermo, contentio, amplificatio.

^{page 23 note 5} Rhet ad Alex 2.

^{page 25 note 1} Cf. 1 1.15–16 with Isa 49. 1–6; Jer 1.4–5.

^{page 25 note 2} See Dahl, N., ‘Die Name Israel I: Zur Auslegung von Gal. 6, 16’, Judaica 6 (1959) 161–70.Google Scholar