Betz |
Brinsmead |
Kennedy |
Standaert |
Hall |
Smit |
Longenecker |
Hester |
Russell |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1-5: epistolary prescript | 1.1-5: epistolary prescript | 1.1-5: salutation | 1.1-5: intro-duction épistolaire | 1.1-15: salutation - exordium | 1.1-5: epistolary prescript | 1.1-5: salutation | 1.1-5: epistolary prescript | 1.1-5: prescript - salutation |
1.6-11: exordium | 1.6-10: pro-oemium | 1.6-10: proem | 1.6-12: annonce du thème | 1.6-9: proposition | 1.6-12: exordium | 1.6-10: exordium | 1.6 -10: exordium | 1.6-10: prologue - proem - exordium |
1.12-2.14: narratio | 1. 12-2.14: propositio | 1.11-5.1: proofs | 1.13-2.14: narratio | 1.10-6.10: proof | 1.11-12: stasis | 1.11-6.10: proof - probation - confirmatio | ||
1.11 —2.21: first heading | 1.10-2.21: narration | 1.11-2.14: narratio | 1.13-2.21: narratio | 1.11-2.21: historical argument | ||||
1.11 -12: topic | 1.11-12: thesis state-ment | |||||||
1.13-2.14: narrative | 1.13-2.21: narratio | 1.13-2.14: auto-biographical material | 2.11-14: chreia | |||||
2.15-21: propositio | 2.15-21: propositio | 2.15-21: epi-cheireme | 2.15-21: peroratio | 2.15-21: propositio | 2.15-21: elaboration of chreia | |||
3.1-4.31: probatio | 3.1-4.31: probatio | 3.1-5.1: second heading | 3.1-4.31: refutatio | 3.1-6.10: further headings | 3.1-14.11: confirmatio | 3.1-4.11: probatio | 3.1-4.31: probatio | 3.1-4.31: experiential argument |
4.12-5.12: conclusio | 4.12-6.10: exhortatio | 5.1-6.10: exhortatio | 5.1-6.10: causal argument | |||||
5.1-6.10: exhortatio | 5.1-6.10: refutatio | 5.1-6.10: injunctions | 5.1-6.10: probation - exhortatio | 5.13-6.10: inter-polation | ||||
6.11-18: epistolary postscript (peroratio) | 6.11-18: epistolary postscript | 6.11-18: epilogue - postscript | 6.11-18: épilogue | 6.11-18: epilogue | 6.11-18: amplificatio | 6.11-18: subscription | 6.11 18: epistolary postscript (peroratio) | 6.11-18: postscript - epilogue - conclusio |
Helpful reading:
Mark D. Nanos (has, by far, advanced as far as it can go the theory that Paul wrote at least the "genuine" epistles roughly as we have them)
The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (editor, 2002)
The Irony of Galatians: Paul's Letter in First-Century Context (2002)
Philip H. Kern (points out many inconsistencies and shortcomings in the rhetorical analyses of previous critics)
Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul's Epistle (1997, 2007)
Have fun!
DCH (still gots that dam toof! Nows I gotta gits it pullt)