Debbie Hunn, «Pleasing God or Pleasing People? Defending the Gospel in Galatians 1–2», Vol. 91 (2010) 24-49
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.
30 DEBBIE HUNN
and Paul offers himself as the example 15. Hester asserts in particular
that before 2,14 Paul “was narrating the demonstration of the power
of the gospel to change character†and that after 2,14 he uses “the
inclusive ‘I’, as the one whose character should be imitated†16.
Gaventa works through the text in more detail to explain how Paul
acts as paradigm. She says 1,10 implies that the Galatians desire to
please people and that Paul is an example of not doing so 17.
Galatians 1,11-17 then illustrates Paul’s response to the demand of
the gospel to preach to the Gentiles, and 1,18-24 establishes his
personal credibility by confirming his move from persecutor to
gospel preacher 18. In 2,1-10 she sees Jerusalem recognizing “God’s
action in Paul’s work among the Gentiles†followed by a change of
heart in 2,11-14 in which they no longer confirm his endeavors 19.
Gaventa explains further that Paul’s gospel and his calling as an
apostle (his response to which demonstrates his personal credibility)
are “inextricably linked†20 and that “the gospel and its attendant
J.D. HESTER, “Placing the Blame: The Presence of Epideictic in
15
Galatians 1 and 2â€, Persuasive Artistry. Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in
H onor of George A. Kennedy (eds. D.F. WATSON – G.A. KENNEDY)
(JSNTSS 50 ; Sheffield 1991) 292-293, 298. See also J.-N. ALETTI, “Galates
1–2 : Quelle Fonction et Quelle Demonstration?â€, Bib 86 (2005) 305-311,
against Hester and some elements of rhetorical analysis. See M. HEATH, “John
Chrysostom, Rhetoric and Galatiansâ€, Biblical Interpretation 12 (2004) 369-
400 ; M.P. SURBURG, “Ancient Rhetorical Criticism, Galatians, and Paul at
Twenty-five Yearsâ€, Concordia Journal 30 (2004) 13-39, against rhetorical
approaches to Paul’s letters in general.
HESTER, “Placing the Blameâ€, 305-306.
16
GAVENTA, “Autobiography as Paradigmâ€, 314. Similarly, R.G. HALL,
17
“ Historical Inference and Rhetorical Effect: Another Look at Galatians 1 and
2 â€, Persuasive Artistry, 318.
GAVENTA, “Autobiography as Paradigmâ€, 315-316. See also F.J. MATERA,
18
Galatians (ed. D.J. HARRINGTON) (SP 9; Collegeville, MN 1992) 61, 64.
GAVENTA, “Autobiography as Paradigmâ€, 316-317. DOCKERY, “Paul’s
19
Defense â€, 162, adds that Peter and the Galatians should have withstood the
false teachers just as Paul had in 2,1-5.
GAVENTA, “Autobiography as Paradigmâ€, 317. As with the view that
20
Paul defends his apostolate, the identification of Paul with his gospel is
common to many who hold the paradigm view, e.g., B.W. LONGENECKER, The
Triumph of Abraham’s God. The Transformation of Identity in Galatians
(Nashville, TN 1998) 148; LYONS, Pauline Autobiography, 143; SCHÃœTZ,
A p o s t o l i c Authority, 134. C.E.J. H O D G E , “Apostle to the Gentiles:
Constructions of Paul’s Identityâ€, Biblical Interpretation 13 (2005) 288, notes
that people shift and prioritize multiple identities, and she therefore interprets
FOLLOW US