Means Or Meaning: the Logic of Paul's Rhetoric in Galatians 3:10-14
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Means or meaning: the logic of Paul's rhetoric in Galatians 3:10-14 Carver, Andrew Hall How to cite: Carver, Andrew Hall (2000) Means or meaning: the logic of Paul's rhetoric in Galatians 3:10-14, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4345/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Means or Meaning: The Logic of Paul's Rhetoric in Galatians 3:10-14 by Andrew Hall Carver The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published in any form, including Electronic and the Internet, without the author's prior written consent. All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged appropriately. Thesis submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Durham, U.K. Department of Theology September 2000 1 7 SEP 2001 Means or Meaning: The Logic of Paul's Rhetoric in Galatians 3:10-14 by Andrew H. Carver Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Durham 2000 Abstract Gal. 3:10-14 is still one of the most controversial and challenging passages in Paul's letters. The logic of Paul's rhetoric is that which mainly baffles. Study of this text has been hampered by an inadequate appreciation of the ranges of possible meanings, at all semantic levels. We seek to redress this lack in chapter 2. We survey the science of logic. We discover overlooked semantic possibilities for three key word-groups in Paul's rhetoric. AUatog and irionq could be "discourse" lexical concepts. By epya Paul very possibly intends "accomplishments" rather than "endeavour." Chapter 3 finds the indicated senses Paul's. Effectively multiplying our data via sociolinguistic cognizance that identical words may denote different "realities" for speaker and hearer, we discover that Paul's usage implies a three-fold working semantic hypothesis: For Paul "faith" believes in a covenantal condition besides itself, namely obedience (endeavour to fulfil God's commands); Paul is basically denying that justification depends upon any particular amount of accomplishment of God's commands; and the issue Paul is addressing is not that of the true means of justification, but that of the true meaning of ("righteousness" and thereby of) "justification" in the context of God's covenant. The remainder of the thesis confirms and elaborates this overall meaning for Gal. 3:10-14. In verse 10 Paul points out that logically those who hold to the epya vdfwv theory of "justification" have circumstances which contradict that theory; thus he is arguing by a "circumstantial" ad hominem type of argument. In verses 11-12 he circumstantially undermines his opponents' "accomplishments" righteousness-criterion by its incompatibility with Hab. 2:4. In verses 13-14, the "rescue" works entirely by causa cognoscendi: it is not a means of propitiation or repayment, either for man or for God. Our findings support our hypothesis. A. H. Carver, 2000 Table of Contents Page 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgment 8 Copyright and Declaration 9 Chapter 1: Introduction 10 1.1 A tour of the interpretations of Gal. 3:10-14 11 1.1.1 Verse 10 12 1.1.1.1 The traditional view: the Law as impossible to fulfil 12 1.1.1.2 Bultmann, Schlier, Bruce, Reinbold 13 1.1.1.3 Bring, Fuller 13 1.1.1.4 Burton 14 1.1.1.5 Stanley, Braswell, Ziesler, Bonneau, Williams, Witherington, Young. 15 1.1.1.6 Sanders, McKnight, Smiles 16 1.1.1.7 Noth, Caneday, Wright, Scott 17 1.1.1.8 Dunn, Cranford, Garlington, Wisdom 17 1.1.2 Verses 11-12 18 1.1.3 Verses 13-14 19 1.2 Some observations on the state of the problem 20 Chapter 2: Some neglected semantic possibilities pertinent to Galatians 24 2.1 Possibilities with respect to argumentative and propositional forms and types.. 25 2.1.1 Rhetorical genre? 26 2.1.2 Aristotle's classification of argument-types 30 2.1.3 Conveying unstated propositions (and other meanings): pragmatics 33 2.1.4 Logos: basic concepts 39 2.1.4.1 Implication, logic, causa essendi vs. causa cognoscendi 39 2.1.4.2 Propositions, their types, and their possible logical relationships; symbolic logic; exclusive and exceptive hypothetical propositions 44 2.1.4.3 The basic real-life argument-modes; pure hypothetical "syllogisms"; dilemmas; circumstantial ad hominem arguments 48 2.1.5 Logos: formal logic 62 2.1.5.1 The four "categorical forms" of simple propositions; exclusive and exceptive categorical propositions 62 A. H. Carver, 2000 Table of Contents Page 4 2.1.5.2 The logical relationships between the forms; immediate implication; conversion and obversion; definitive vs. descriptive propositions 65 2.1.5.3 Categorical syllogisms; sorites and other polysyllogisms 71 2.2 Neglected semantic potential in three key Pauline word-groups 74 2.2.1 Lexical senses, denotation, and lexical "meanings" 75 2.2.2 Neglected semantic potential in dUaiog and buaioavvq 79 2.2.3 A neglected possibility with respect to epya vdfwv 86 2.2.3.1 The common (if not universal) multivalency of "do"-words, including epyov 86 2.2.3.2 The nonanalytical, traditional interpretation of epya vofiov 89 2.2.3.3 The Qumran use of "works of the Law": a technical phrase? 92 2.2.4 Neglected semantic potential in irtang and irioTeva) 95 2.2.4.1 "Trust" as a discourse lexical concept 95 2.2.4.2 Survey of uses of m<mc 97 Chapter 3: Approaching our passage: the contexts 101 3.1 The literary structure of Gal. 3:2-14 101 3.2 "Context" and hermeneutical circles 104 3.2.1 Breaking a "parts-whole" hermeneutical circle 104 3.2.2 Breaking a "words-things" hermeneutical circle 105 3.3 Paul, sociolinguistics, "heteroglossia," and the potential individuality of semantic structure 106 3.3.1 Bakhtinian sociolinguistics and "heteroglossia": multiplicity of social languages 108 3.3.2 Breaking the Pauline "words-things" hermeneutical circle by comparison and contrast with his opponents' social language 113 3.4 Paul, his opponents, "righteousness," and "justification" 114 3.4.1 Rom. 10:5 and Paul's lexical sense of "righteousness" 115 3.4.2 Paul's topic: means, or meaning? 117 3.4.3 Support from Paul's forensic meaning of bwaiowdai 119 3.5 Paul, his opponents, and epya voftov 127 3.5.1 Contextual "logical relations " between predications of "obedience " and of "acts/accomplishments" of the Law, for Paul and for his opponents respectively 128 3.5.2 "Works of the Law " in Qumran 131 3.5.3 "Works" in Rom. 4:1-8 137 3.6 Paul, his opponents, and iriang 137 3.6.1 Paul's lexical sense of iriaTiq 138 3.6.2 An apparent problem for the discourse-concept-manq hypothesis, yet a way around it 140 A. H. Carver, 2000 Table of Contents Page 5 3.7 A working hypothesis concerning Paul's outlook and rhetorical purpose in Gal. 2:16-3:14 142 3.8 The focus in Gal. 2:14-3:1: "the Law" or "works of the Law"? 152 Chapter 4: The structure and meaning of 3:10 155 4.1 Significance of oaoi instead of oi, which Paul used in 3:9? 157 4.2 Significance of lOb's textual differences from the LXX? 158 4.2.1 What does the added phrase "written in the book of" signify, if anything?... 158 4.2.2 What does the term "all" (things written in the Law), a term absent from the MT but present in the LXX, signify here, if anything? 159 4.3 The sense of yap in 3:10a 160 4.4 The force of "cursed": as inherently powerful and effectual, or merely as pronouncement of guilt/liability? 165 4.5 Type of argument: ultimately denying 10b? 169 4.6 The meaning of EK in e£ epywv voftov in 3:10a 170 4.7 The meaning of the two main verbs in 3:10b, enfievei (+ dative) and TOV noi-qam 171 4.7.1 Lexicographical issues 172 4.7.1.1 Lexicography of e^ijueVco and syntax of TOV iroifjaai 172 4.7.1.2 Lexicography of Dip (Hifil) 180 4.7.1.3 The limits of lexicography 181 4.7.2 Semantic neutralisation in the original context? 183 4.7.3 Conclusions on Deut. 27:26 184 4.8 Type of argument: pure logos (causa cognoscendi), or deliberative "argument from consequences"? 188 4.9 Understanding Paul's logic in 3:10 189 4.9.1 Paul's unstatedpremise(s): cursed because (sinful) human beings? 190 4.9.2 Paul's unstatedpremise(s): cursed merely because they are e£ epyuv voiiov? 192 4.9.3 The unstated basis of the argument 199 4.9.4 The structure and content of 3:10 206 4.10 The connection of 3:10 with 3:9, its contribution to Paul's argument, and its relevance for our hypothesis about that argument 209 Chapter 5: The structure and meaning of 3:11-12 212 5.1 Paul's use of on (twice) in 3:11 212 5.2 The conjunction Be and the connection with 3:10 214 5.3 The sense and function of irapix T(j> 0e<j) in 3:11a 214 5.4 The sense and function of ev v6fu$ in 3:11a 215 5.4.1 The sense of the terms 215 A.