04_Biblica_Aletti_Layout 1 08/07/13 12:56 Pagina 408 408 JEAN-NOËL ALETTI mity is not one way, and the second (γ), which is an expolitio 39, to confirm that the flesh and the Spirit are really antagonistic powers and that this antagonism is not occasional but structural. To this read- ing, one can make some objections 40. It is a fact that it is very recent; indeed, over the centuries, all readers have spontaneously connected (δ) with (γ). Likewise, because of the δέ, which denotes a contrast, it seems difficult to separate (β) from (α); as for (γ), it seems to give the reason for both (α) and (β) and not only for (β). This being said, that this reading is recent does not invalidate its value, because sev- eral Pauline passages previously understood in erroneous ways have been revisited in recent decades and translated correctly 41. As for the relationship that exists between the different lines, however it may appear, the close connection between the contrast of (α) and (β) is not destroyed by the incidental clause, but just the opposite, since the latter has as its primary function explaining and clarifying the enig- matic formulation that (α) makes of the flesh/Spirit relationship. If ultimately the third reading has been preferred here, it is because of the rhetorical arrangement: since all the other units of vv.17-23 deal respectively with only one of the agents, the flesh (D) or the Spirit (c/C), that of v. 17 (d) must deal with the flesh and its desires (lines (α) and (δ)); and this means that in v. 17 the intermediary lines (β) and (γ) are an incidental clause. Notwithstanding the explanations provided above on the inci- dental clause (β) + (γ), many readers connect (δ) with (γ) and stay with the second reading, and in the best of cases, the one proposed by Barclay and Vanhoye. Nevertheless, let us add that in other pas- sages of his letters — such as 1 Cor 14,2 — Paul does not hesitate to insert parentheses that create semantic difficulties and oblige the reader to rely upon his memory if he wants to recover the dis- course’s line of thought 42. This could also be the same for Gal 5,17. A figure that consists of repeating, in greater detail, the same thing or 39 the same argument in equivalent terms. A recent commentary has even declared that it was desperate but without 40 showing why. Cf. J.P. LÉMONON, L’épître aux Galates (Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testament 9; Paris 2008), 184, who follows rather the first reading. I am thinking of Phil 3,9 and Col 1,24, in particular. 41 In 1 Cor 14,2, the explicative parenthesis “for no one (oudeis) under- 42 stands him” raises the question of what is the subject of the following verb (“he utters mysteries”), which clearly cannot be the oudeis of the parenthesis, but “the one who speaks in tongues”. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati