68 JUAN M. GRANADOS ROJAS F. Schnider and W. Stenger proceed by generalizing Wuellner’s premises and applying them to the undisputed letters. They set the boundaries of the section termed “self-recommendation” (Selbstemp- fehlung) by combining two criteria: formal epistolary marks 19 and the rhetorical function of the section 20. However, many of the episto- lary marks mentioned do not really delimit introductory sections; see, for example, some negative and positive formulas of knowledge (Rom 7,1; 1 Cor 15,1). The same observation is valid for report formulas (Rom 11,25; 1 Cor 10,1; 12,1). We also find a very arguable case in Gal 1,8-10.11: according to Schnider and Stenger, 1,8-10 functions as self-recommendation and 1,11 opens the epistolary corpus. But we do not see any formal marks in 1,8-10 to delimit an introduction, and we could hardly read the report formula in 1,11 separately from the preceding text 21. After close examination, we cannot avoid some questions: is it methodologically correct to generalize Wuellner’s remarks on Ro- mans to apply to all the undisputed letters? Do we find a clear-cut section in all Pauline letters functioning as self-introduction? 22 Are not Schnider and Stenger imposing a rhetorical scheme (mainly W.J. Brandt’s outline) on all Pauline letters? Turning our attention to Wolter’s study on Colossians, we raise two questions: does his qualification of 1,24–2,5 as self-presentation correspond to the train of thought of the section? Does Col 1,24–2,5 have the rhetorical function of recalling the sender’s (Pauline) authority? Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans”, CBQ 38 (1976) 336; see also W.J. BRANDT, The Rhetoric of Argumentation (Indianapolis, IN 1970) 218-219. The vocative avdelfoi, + negative and positive formulas of knowledge: 19 ouv qe,lw de. u`ma/j avgnoei/n (Rom 1,13; 2 Cor 1,8); ginw,skein de. u`ma/j (Phil 1,12) / auvtoi, ga.r oi;date (1 Thes 2,1); formulas of exhortation parakalw/ (1 Cor 1,10; Phlm 10). See SCHNIDER – STENGER, Studien zum neutesta- mentlichen Briefformular, 54. That is, turning the attention of the readers / hearers to the speaker’s 20 authority. In Gal 1,11 the ga,r is there to explain Gal 1,10, that is, why the apostle 21 does not seek to please human beings. See the whole critique and several examples of incorrect delimitation 22 in the undisputed letters in J-N. ALETTI, “La dispositio de Colossiens. Enjeux exégétiques et théologiques”, «Il verbo di Dio è vivo». Studi sul Nuovo Tes- tamento (FS A. VANHOYE, S.I.) (eds. J.E. AGUILAR CHIU – F. MANZI – F. URSO – C. ZESATI ESTRADA) (AnBib 165; Roma 2007) 323-336. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati