Recent research in the school papyri of Egypt, especially Oxyrhychus, has illuminated our understanding of the pedagogical process in the Greco-Roman world. Particularly interesting in this respect is the acquisition and social function of grapho-literacy (i.e., the ability to compose writing). Since few were literate, and of those few, fewer could read than could write, understanding how one gained grapho-literacy, who gained grapho-literacy, and how that literacy was employed in day to day life shines new light on passages such as 1 Cor 16,21, Gal 6,11, Col 4,18, 2 Thess 3,17, and Phlm 19. In these passages, Paul draws attention
to the fact that he has personally written in the text. This paper will argue that these passages are not merely interesting asides, but rather significantly heighten the
rhetorical force of the text. They draw attention not only to Paul’s grapho-literacy, but also to his ability to avoid using it.
This paper explores various issues pertaining to the exegesis of Greek conditional clauses, using as a case study the pair of conditional statements found in Galatians 1,8-9. These conditional curse formulations are broadly similar with reference to content, whilst also showing significant differences, notably in terms of mood. These conditional statements are firstly examined from syntactic and semantic perspectives. Their function in the discourse is then analysed with reference to Speech Act Theory. An integrative approach to exegesis of conditional clauses is advocated.
Especially since the publication of H. D. Betz’s commentary in 1979 much attention has been given to rhetorical analysis of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Discussion has focused on the species of Galatians’ rhetoric, i.e., whether it is forensic, deliberative or epideictic; little attention has been given to its style. This paper is an attempt to supply that lack. It begins by describing stylistic ornamentation of Galatians with respect to vocabulary and syntax and proceeds to discuss the presence of plain, middle and grand styles in Galatians. Finally it considers the implications of stylistic analysis for interpretation of Galatians.
Scholars agree that in Gal 1,13–2,21 Paul substantiates his gospel but disagree as to his method. The three common views: that Paul defends his apostolate, that he denies accusations, and that he functions as a paradigm conflict with the text. Instead, Paul sets up two categories in 1,10 — that of seeking to please people and that of seeking to please God — and defends his gospel by means of his Damascus experience together with his subsequent life motivation.
Scholars have suggested that Gal 3,28 is comparable to similar sayings found in rabbinic writings, and that the latter can help in interpreting and understanding the meaning and theology of Gal 3,28. In this study we have analysed and compared the alleged similar sayings found in Jewish texts and Gal 3,28 in order to demonstrate that Gal 3,28 is neither literally nor thematically related to the former, and we should not allow the alleged similar sayings found in rabbinic writings to influence our reading of Gal 3,28. Both texts reflect the conceptual uses of pairs of opposites in the Greco-Roman tradition, but at the same time, their subsequent usages or occurrences in Jewish and Christian texts came into being independently from one another.
More technical than in the past, the interpretation of Ga 3,10-14 tries to pay attention to the enthymemes and to find the syllogisms which would support Paul’s reflection. This article shows that it is much better and surer to have a very close look at the gezeroth shawoth.
In Gal 5,13–6,10 we find three much-debated passages in which the meaning and connotation, positive or negative, of no/moj are not clear: 5,14; 5,23b; 6,2. This article seeks to shed light on these verses, consi - dered within the context of the letter. Starting with the text as it stands, it is shown how it is possible to understand the use of no/moj in the setting of a coherent development of Paul’s thought in Galatians. Lastly, in view of the paraenetic context in which no/moj is used, some general indications are brought together which are useful for Pauline ethics.
In Gal 5,13–6,10 we find three much-debated passages in which the meaning and connotation, positive or negative, of no/moj are not clear: 5,14; 5,23b; 6,2. This article seeks to shed light on these verses, consi - dered within the context of the letter. Starting with the text as it stands, it is shown how it is possible to understand the use of no/moj in the setting of a coherent development of Paul’s thought in Galatians. Lastly, in view of the paraenetic context in which no/moj is used, some general indications are brought together which are useful for Pauline ethics.
After having shown that Gal 5,13-25 forms a rhetorical and semantic unit, the article examines Gal 5,17, a crux interpretum, and proves that the most plausible reading is this one: 'For the flesh desires against the Spirit — but the Spirit desires against the flesh, for those [powers] fight each other — to prevent you from doing those things you would', and draws its soteriological consequences.
According to a certain lexicographical consensus the phrase oi ek peritomes is interpreted either as meaning Jewish Christians or simply Jews. A closer observation of the verses shows that in all cases oi ek peritomes means 'circumcised people,' 'Jews'. When New Testament authors refer to Christian Jews it is always indicated by special reference markers in the context. The same is the case in Gal 2:12. While the meaning of oi ek peritomes is Jews, the reference demanded by the context are James-people as Christian Jews. Moreover, Paul used this particular phrase because of its special semantic extension. In the Pauline corpus constructions with oi ek … either mean the social or ethnic origins of a person or a basic theological orientation. The latter meaning fits best in Gal 2:12 because the following context shows a strong contrast between oi ek pisteos and osoi ... ex ergon nomou and its synonym oi ek peritomes. Therefore oi ek peritomes in Gal 2:12 means Jews, refers to the James-people and characterises them as zealous observers of Torah.
The Greek lexeme euteos should be understood primarily as an adverb of quality, rather than regularly be taken as an adverb of time in the New Testament. Three problematic passages with euteos will be discussed. They are 3 John 14, Galatians 1:15-17, and a variant reading in Acts 14:8-10. As background to this discussion the meaning of the adjective euteos is considered, as well as its use in various derivative and compound words. Next the formation of adverbs of manner and their place in the Greek sentence or phrase is envisaged. Four meanings of euteos as an adverb of quality, drawing on extra-biblical and New Testament sources, are identified before proceeding to discuss the three problematic passages, indicating how euteos is to be understood and translated.
Paul's testimony of his post-conversion experience in Galatians—the only place in the New Testament this is found—is the starting point for the rest of his polemic against his opponents who avert the gospel he first taught his readers. What is interesting is that he highlights or emphasizes certain portions of his testimony, using the linguistic method of prominence. As others have written already, prominence in Hellenistic Greek is conveyed in many ways, but one major way is by the writer's choice of verbal aspect. By first identifying a theory of prominence in the Greek of the New Testament, the paper then applies that theory to Gal 1:11–2:10 to discover that Paul emphasizes preaching and gospel related items in his testimony.
The present paper explores Luther’s textual study of the Greek New Testament which is reconstructed from his approach to Galatians 1,6; 2,5 and 1 John 5,7-8 with reference to the eminent scholars of the 16th century (Laurentius Valla, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis and Erasmus) whose commentaries he consulted.
The present paper explores Luther’s textual study of the Greek New Testament which is reconstructed from his approach to Galatians 1,6; 2,5 and 1 John 5,7-8 with reference to the eminent scholars of the 16th century (Laurentius Valla, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis and Erasmus) whose commentaries he consulted.