^{page 353 note 1} Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1865; 10th ed. 1890), pp. 65–7.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 2} Die Griechische Literatur des Altertums, in: Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Teil 1, Abteilung 8 (2nd ed.Berlin and Leipzig, 1907), pp. 159 f.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 3} Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, 11 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1926), pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 4} Über die Anfänge der patristischen Literatur (Historische Zeitschrift 48, 1882), pp. 417–72.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 1} Die urchristlichen Literaturformen (2nd and 3rd ed.Tübingen, 1912), pp. 342 ff. In regard to Galatians Wendland says (p. 349): ‘Eine Exegese, die sich zum Ziele setzt, den Inhalt dieses Briefes in eine planvolle Disposition zu fassen und von logischen Gesichtspunkten ihn als Einheit zu begreifen, geht in die Irre.’Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 2} Die antike Kunstprosa (5th ed. repr. Stuttgart, 1958), pp. 492 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 3} An example of this is Koepp, W., Die Abraham-Midraschimkette des Galaterbriefes als das vorpaulinische heidenchristliche Urtheologumenon (Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock, 2. Jg., H. 3, Reihe Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaften, 1952–3), pp. 181–7.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 4} At the outset I would like to acknowledge my great indebtedness to the members of the S.B.L. Seminar on ‘The Form and Function of the Pauline Letters’, in particular Nils A. Dahl, Robert W. Funk, M. Luther Stirewalt and John L. White. Although in the present paper I take a somewhat different approach, I would never have been able to do so without their continuous stimulation and gracious sharing of ideas.

^{page 354 note 5} See also my book Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (Tübingen, 1972), chapter 2.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 6} The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, Mass., 1971)Google Scholar: see also idem, Second Thoughts on Greek Biography (Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, nieuwe reeks, deel 34, no. 7; Amsterdam, 1971).

^{page 354 note 7} Momigliano, Biography, p. 62.

^{page 354 note 8} Ibid. pp. 58–60, with further bibliography.

^{page 354 note 9} Ibid. pp. 60–2.

^{page 355 note 1} Ibid. p. 60, note 16, with the literature mentioned there. In addition see now the discussion about Edelstein, L., Plato's Seventh Letter (Leiden, 1966);CrossRefGoogle Scholarcf. the reviews by Müller, G., Gött. Gelehrte Anz. CCXXI (1969), 187–211;Google ScholarSolmsen, F., Gnomon XLI (1969), 29–34; and the papers by N. Gulley and G.J.D. Aalders, in Pseudepigrapha 1 (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique, 18 [Vandoeuvres-Genève, 1972]);Google Scholarfurthermore, Goldstein, J. A., The Letters of Demosthenes (New York, 1968), chapter 7: ‘The Forms of Ancient Apology and Polemic, Real and Fictitious’.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 2} Momigliano, Biography, p. 62.

^{page 355 note 3} Momigliano does not mention the so-called ‘Cynic Epistles’, a body of epistolary literature which deserves to be carefully studied with regard to early Christian letters. See the editions by Hercher, R., Epistolographi Graeci (Parisiis, 1873), PP. 208–17, 235–58;Google ScholarReuters, F. H., Die Briefe des Anacharsis, griechisch und deutsch (Berlin, 1963);Google ScholarMondolfo, R. and Tarán, L., Eraclito: Testimonianze e Imitazioni (Firenze, 1972), with bibliography.Google ScholarSee also Strugnell, J. and Attridge, H., ‘The Epistles of Heraclitus and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha: a Warning’, H.Th.R. LXIV (1971), 411–13.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 4} Momigliano, Biography, p. 62.

^{page 355 note 5} It is precisely at the points of expansion where we find close relations between the prescript and various parts of the body of the letter: the title and its definition (Gal. i. 1), and the christological-soteriological statements (i. 4).

^{page 356 note 1} Rom. xvi. 22: ⋯σπ⋯ομαι ὑμ⋯ς ⋯γὼ T⋯ρτιος ⋯ γρ⋯Ψας τ⋯ν ⋯πιστολ⋯ν ⋯ν κυρ⋯ῳ.

^{page 356 note 2} For matters pertaining to Graeco-Roman rhetoric we have used as major tools I. Chr.Ernesti, Th., Lexicon Technologiae Graecorum Rhetoricae (Leipzig, 1795);Google Scholaridem, Lexicon Technologiae Latinorum Rhetoricae (Leipzig, 1797);Google ScholarVolkmann, R., Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer (2nd ed.Leipzig, 1885);Google ScholarLausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, 2 vols. (München, 1960);Google Scholarsee the reviews by Dockhorn, K., Gött. Gelehrte Anz. CCXIV (1962), 177–96;Google ScholarSchmid, W., Archiv für Neuere Sprachen und Literatur CXV (1964), 451–62;Google ScholarLeeman, A. D., Orationis Ratio, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1963);Google ScholarKennedy, G., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963);Google Scholaridem, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton, 1972);Google Scholarsee the review of this latest work by Clarke, M. L., Gnomon XLVI (1974), 87–9.Google ScholarOn the ‘handbooks’ see Fuhrmann, F., Das systematische Lehrbuch (Göttingen, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 3} For a treatment of this subject see Arist. Rhet. 3.19, p. 1419 b; Rhet. ad Alex. 20, p. 1433 b 29 ff.; Rhet. ad Her. 2.30.47–2.31.50; Cicero, De inv. 1.52.98–1.56.109; the longest discussion is found in Quint., 6.1.1 ff.

^{page 357 note 1} See below, section 3.

^{page 357 note 2} See the treatment in Volkmann, Rhetorik, §27; Lausberg, §§ 431–42.

^{page 357 note 3} See Quint. 6.1.1–2 (ed. M. Winterbottom): Rerum repetitio et congregatio, quae Graece dicitur ⋯νακεφαλα⋯ωσις, a quibusdam Latinorum enumeratio, et memoriam iudicis reficit et totam simul causam ponit ante oculos, et, etiam si per singula minus moverat, turba valet. In hac quae repetemus quam brevissime dicenda sunt, et, quod Graeco verbo patet, decurrendum per capita. Cicero, De inv. 1.52.98 (ed. H. M. Hubbel): Enumeratio est per quam res disperse et diffuse dictae unum in locum coguntur et reminiscendi causa unum sub aspectum subiciuntur. See for more material Lausberg, §§ 334–435.

^{page 357 note 4} See Cicero, De inv. 1.53.100: Indignatio est oratio per quam conficitur ut in aliquem hominem magnum odium aut in rem gravis offensio concitetur. See also Lausberg, § 438.

^{page 357 note 5} See Cicero, De inv. 1.55.106: Conquestio est oratio auditorum misericordiam captans. See also Lausberg, § 439.

^{page 357 note 6} See Lausberg, § 432.

^{page 357 note 7} That the final section of Gal. conforms to the enumeratio, indignatio and conquestio and that Paul was influenced by Greek rhetoric has been proposed already by C. Starcke, Die Rhetorik des Apostels Paulus im Galaterbrief und die ‘πηλ⋯κα γρ⋯μματα’ Gal. 6: 11 (in Programm Stargard i. P., 1911); B. Π.∑τογι⋯ννου, ‘H ὑπ⋯ το⋯ Πα⋯λου ׀δι⋯χειρος ⋯νακεφαλα⋯ωσισ τ⋯ς πρ⋯ς Γαλ⋯τας (ΔΕΛΤΙΟΝ ΒΙΒΛΙΚωΝ ΜΕΛΕΤωΝ 1, 1971, 59–79); differently Bahr, G. J., The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters, J.B.L. LXXXVII (1968), 27–41.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 8} Quint. 6.1.7 (see the quotation below).

^{page 357 note 9} Cf. Rhet. ad Her. 2.30.47: Amplificatio est res quae per locum communem instigationis auditorum causa sumitur. In 2.30.48 ten loci communes to be applied are listed; similarly Cicero, De inv. 1.53.101 ff. See Lausberg, § 438.

^{page 357 note 10} Cf. ii. 4–5, 11–14; iii. 1; v. 7, 10–12.

^{page 357 note 11} Cf., especially, i. 1, 11–12; ii. 19–21; iv. 12; v. 2, 10, 11; vi. 17.

^{page 358 note 1} Cf. Quint. 6.1.22.

^{page 358 note 2} Cf., especially, ii. 4–5, 11–14; v. 4–6, 25. It is interesting that according to Plutarch, Adv. Colot. 1118B, and Cicero, De fin. 1.19.53, Epicurus' Canons were believed to have come down from heaven (διοπετεῑς) See J. Schneider, R.A.C. 11, cols. 572 f.

^{page 358 note 3} Cf. 6.1.13: Metus etiam, si est adhibendus, ut faciat idem, hunc habet locum fortiorem quam in prooemio. Cf. 4.1.20–1 below, p. 361.

^{page 358 note 4} Cf. Gal. i. 1, 12, 16; ii. 19 f.; iv. 14; v. 24; vi. 14.

^{page 358 note 5} Quint. 6.1.21, trans, by H. E. Butler. Its connection with the ‘catalogue of περιοτ⋯σεις’ should be noted. See Betz, Der Apostel Paulus, pp. 97 ff.

^{page 358 note 6} Cf. Gal. i. 13, 23; iv. 29; v. 11; vi. 12.

^{page 358 note 7} Quint. 6.1.7, trans, of H. E. Butler.

^{page 358 note 8} The refusal to ask for mercy was attributed to Socrates (cf. Xenophon, mem. 4.4.4) and subsequently became part of the Socratic tradition. This tradition has influenced Paul, as I have shown in Paulus und die sokratische Tradition, pp. 15 ff.

^{page 359 note 1} Cf. Rom. xvi. 20; I Thess. v. 28; I Cor. xvi. 23; II Cor. xiii. 13; Phil. iv. 23; Phlm. 25.

^{page 359 note 2} I am disagreeing here with White, J. L., ‘Introductory formulae in the body of the Pauline letter’, J.B.L. XC (1971), 91–7, who has the body of the letter begin with i. 11 (pp. 93, 94). The difference comes about because White takes ‘the private Greek letters of the papyri as a basis of comparison’ (p. 62). Our analysis shows that this basis is too small for a comparison with Paul. The clarification of the relationship between the ‘private’ letters on papyrus, the ‘literary’ letters and rhetoric is another problem of research.Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 3} θαυμ⋯ω is a familiar rhetorical expression which became an epistolary cliché. It occurs often, e.g. in Demosthenes, Antiphon and Lysias. See Preuss, S., Index Demosthenicus (Lipsiae, 1892), s.v.;Google ScholarHolmes, D. H., Index Lysiacus (Bonn, 1895), s.v. Cf. also Plato, Apol. 17A, 24A; Crito 50C. For the epistles, see, e.g., Isocrates, Epist. 2.19; 9.8; also White, J.B.L. XC, 96; for the term in connection with the exordium, see Lausberg, § 270. A large collection is also found in an unpublished paper byGoogle ScholarDahl, N. A., Paul's Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure (1974), pp. 12 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 4} On the correctio see Lausberg, §§ 784–6.

^{page 359 note 5} For parallel language cf. Isocrates, Epist. 7.12 f.

^{page 359 note 6} On the exordium, see esp. Volkmann, Rhetorik, § 12; Lausberg, §§ 263–88.

^{page 359 note 7} 1.1.9 (p. 1354 b); 3.14–1 ff. (p. 1414 b 19 ff.); cf. Rhet. ad Alex. 28 ff., p. 1436a32 ff.

^{page 359 note 8} 1.4.6–7.11.

^{page 359 note 9} 1.15.20–17.25.

^{page 359 note 10} 4.1.1–79.

^{page 360 note 1} Rhet. 3.14.8 (p. 1415b). Cf. Rhet. ad Alex. 29 (p. 1437b35 ff.).

^{page 360 note 2} 1.4.7: Dociles auditores habere poterimus, si summam causae breviter exponemus et si adtentos eos faciemus;…

^{page 360 note 3} 1.4.8: Benivolos auditores facere quattuor modis possumus: ab nostra, ab adversariorum nostrorum, ab auditorum persona, et ab rebus ipsis. Cf. Arist., Rhet. 3.14.7 (p. 1415a); Cicero, De inv. 1.16.22.

^{page 360 note 4} Cf. 1.5.8: Ab adversariorum persona benivolentia captabitur si eos in odium, in invidiam, in contemptionem adducemus. In odium rapiemus si quid eorum spurce, superbe, perfidiose, crudeliter, confidenter, malitiose, flagitiose factum proferemus. In invidiam trahemus si vim, si potentiam, si factionem, divitias, incontinentiam, nobilitatem, clientelas, hospitium, sodalitatem, adfinitates adversariorum proferemus, et his adiumentis magis quam veritati eos confidere aperiemus. In contemptionem adducemus si inertiam, ignaviam, desidiam, luxuriam adversariorum proferemus.

^{page 360 note 5} Cf. Arist., Rhet. 3.14.2 (p. 1414 b), who names as the sources of epideictic exordia ἔπαινος ⋯ Ψ⋯γος (cf. 3.14.4 [p. 1415 a]).

^{page 360 note 6} Rhet. ad Her. 1.4.6: Principium est cum statim auditoris animum nobis idoneum reddimus ad audiendum. Id ita sumitur ut adtentos, ut dociles, uti benivolos auditores habere possimus.

^{page 360 note 7} 1.6.9: Tria sunt tempora quibus principio uti non possumus, quae diligenter sunt consideranda: aut cum turpem causam habemus, hoc est, cum ipsa res animum auditoris a nobis alienat; aut cum animus auditoris persuasus esse videtur ab iis qui ante contra dixerunt…

^{page 360 note 8} Note the present tense in Gal. i. 6–7; iv. 9, 21; also iv. 11, 12–20; v. 1, 4, 7–12, 13; vi. 12–16.

^{page 360 note 9} See Adamietz, J., Ciceros de inventione und die Rhetorik ad Herennium (Marburg, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 361 note 1} 1.17.25: Sin oratio adversariorum fidem videbitur auditoribus fecisse – id quod ei qui intelliget quibus rebus fides fiat facile erit cognitu – oportet aut…aut dubitatione uti quid primum dicas aut cui potissimum loco respondeas, cum admiratione. Nam auditor cum eum quem adversarii perturbatum putavit oratione videt animo firmissimo contra dicere paratum, plerumque se potius temere assensisse quam ilium sine causa confidere arbitratur.

^{page 361 note 2} See section 4, below.

^{page 361 note 3} Quint. 4.1.20–2.

^{page 361 note 4} 4.1.21: Sed adhibendi modus alter ille frequens et favorabilis, ne male sentiat populus Romanus, ne iudicia transferantur, alter autem asper et rarus, quo minatur corruptis accusationem…

^{page 361 note 5} 4.1.22: Quod si necessitas exiget, non erit iam ex arte oratoria, non magis quam appellare, etiamsi id quoque saepe utile est, aut antequam pronuntiet reum facere; nam et minari et deferre etiam non orator potest.

^{page 361 note 6} 18.324 (ed. C. A. and J. H. Vince): Μ⋯ δ⋯τ' ὦ π⋯ντες θεο⋯, μηδε⋯ς τα⋯θ' ὑμ⋯ν ⋯πινε⋯σειεν, ⋯λλ⋯ μ⋯λιστα μ⋯ν κα⋯ το⋯τοις βελτ⋯ω τιν⋯ νο⋯ν κα⋯ φρ⋯νασ ⋯νθε⋯ητε, εἰ δ' ἔχουσιν ⋯νι⋯τως, το⋯τυς μ⋯ν αὐτοὺς καθ' ⋯αυτοὺς ⋯ξώλεις κα⋯ προώλεις ⋯ν γῇ κα⋯ θαλ⋯ττῃ ποι⋯σατε, ⋯μῖν δ⋯ τοῖς λοιποῑς τ⋯ν ταχ⋯στην ⋯παλλαγ⋯ν τ⋯ν ⋯πηρτμ⋯νων φ⋯βων δ⋯τε κα⋯ σωτηρ⋯αν ⋯σφαλ⋯.

^{page 361 note 7} On the peroratio see section 2 (b) above.

^{page 362 note 1} See Lausberg, Handbuch, § 288.

^{page 362 note 2} 4.1.76–9.

^{page 362 note 3} 4.1.77.

^{page 362 note 4} 4.1.78.

^{page 362 note 5} 4.1.76: …id debebit in principio postremum esse cui commodissime iungi initium sequentium poterit.

^{page 362 note 6} 4.1.79: Quapropter, ut non abrupte cadere in narrationem, ita non obscure transcendere est optimum.

^{page 362 note 7} Ibid.: Si vero longior sequetur ac perplexa magis expositio, ad eam ipsam praeparandus erit. iudex…

^{page 362 note 8} See, e.g., Demosth., exordia 1.3; 19; 26.2; Quint. 4.1.9, 55–60. Cf. also Quintilian's polemic against Ovid (4.1.77 f.): Illa vero frigida et puerilis est in scholis adfectatio, ut ipse transitus efficiat aliquam utique sententiam et huius velut praestigiae plausum petat… The rejection of rhetorical tricks at the beginning of a speech was part of rhetoric. See, furthermore, Betz, Der Aposlel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition, 15 ff., 57 ff.

^{page 362 note 9} Both phrases describe the ‘art of rhetoric’. See, e.g., Plato, Gorg. 452 E; Prot. 352 E and Lausberg, Handbuch, § 257.

^{page 362 note 10} Cf., e.g., Plato, Rep. 364 C; and the proverb quoted in 390 E.

^{page 362 note 11} Rhet. ad Her. 4.26.35 provides examples of transitio, in which what follows next is set forth; e.g.: Mea in istum beneficia cognoscitis; nunc quomodo iste mihi gratiam rettulerit accipite.

^{page 362 note 12} On the narratio see A. Schäfer, De rhetorum praeceptis quae ad narrationem pertinent (Diss.; Freiburg i. B., 1921); F. Loheit, Untersuchungen zur antiken Selbstapologie (Diss.; Rostock, 1928); Volkmann, Rhetorik, § 13; Lausberg, §§ 289–347.

^{page 362 note 13} Quint. 4.2.84: Neque enim est una lex defensionis certumque praescriptum: pro re, pro tempore intuenda quae prosint, … Translation of H. E. Butler.

^{page 363 note 1} De inv. 1.19.27: Narratio est rerum gestarum aut ut gestarum expositio. Translation of H. M. Hubbell. Cf. Quint. 4.2.31 (see below). See Lausberg, § 289 for other definitions.

^{page 363 note 2} De inv. 1.20.28: Nunc de narratione ea quae causae continet expositionem dicendum videtur. See Lausberg, § 290, 1.

^{page 363 note 3} De inv. 1.20.28: Oportet igitur eam tres habere res: ut brevis, ut aperta, ut probabilis sit. See Lausberg, §§ 294–334.

^{page 363 note 4} De inv. 1.20.28 – 21.30.

^{page 363 note 5} 1.8.12 – 10.16.

^{page 363 note 6} 4.2.2–132.

^{page 363 note 7} 4.2.4 ff.

^{page 363 note 8} 4.2.9: Sed ut has aliquando non narrandi causas puto, sic ab illis dissentio qui non existimant esse narrationem cum reus quod obicitur tantum negat:…

^{page 363 note 9} 4.2.9 ff.

^{page 363 note 10} 4.2.12: ‘Non occidi hominem’: nulla narratio est; convenit:…

^{page 363 note 11} 4.2.1: …res de qua pronuntiaturus est indicetur.

^{page 363 note 12} Cf. 4.2.10.

^{page 363 note 13} 4.2.11: Ego autem magnos alioqui secutus auctores duas esse in iudiciis narrationum species existimo, alteram ipsius causae, alteram in rerum ad causam pertinentium expositione. Examples are given in 4.2.12–18.

^{page 364 note 1} Cf. Gal. i. 1.

^{page 364 note 2} 4.2.21: Neque enim narratio in hoc reperta est, ut tantum cognoscat iudex, sed aliquanto magis ut consentiat. See Lausberg, §§ 300–1, 308.

^{page 364 note 3} Cf. Quint. 3.9.5; 4.2.7, 30; its purpose is denned 3.9.2: proponere quidem quae sis probaturus necesse est. See Lausberg, § 289.

^{page 364 note 4} 4.2.21: Quare etiam si non erit docendus sed aliquo modo adficiendus narrabimus, cum praeparatione quadam…

^{page 364 note 5} 4.2.21–3.

^{page 364 note 6} See also the beginning of the narratio in Demosthenes' De corona (18.17): ἔστι δ' κα׀ ⋯ναγκαῖον ω ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῑοι, κα׀ προσ⋯κον ׀σως, ὡς κατ' ⋯κε⋯νους τοὐς χρ⋯νους ε׀χε τ⋯ πρ⋯γματ' ⋯ναμν⋯σαι, ἰνα πρ⋯ς τ⋯ν ὺπ⋯ρχοντα καιρ⋯ν ἓκαοτα θεωρ⋯τε.

^{page 364 note 7} 4.2.31: Narratio est rei factae aut ut factae utilis ad persuadendum expositio, vel, ut Apollodorus finit, oratio docens auditorem quid in controversia sit. Translation of H. E. Butler. See on definitions Lausberg, § 289.

^{page 364 note 8} Cf. 4.2.33. See Lausberg, §§ 289, 308.

^{page 364 note 9} Cf. 4.2.31–3. See Lausberg, § 294.

^{page 364 note 10} 4.2.34:… quod proposuerim eam quae sit tota pro nobis debere esse veri similem cum vera sit. CfSanders, J. T., ‘Paul's “Autobiographical” Statements in Galatians 1–2’, J.B.L. LXXV (1966), 335–43.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 1} Ibid.: Sunt enim plurima vera quidem, sed parum credibilia, sicut falsa quoque frequenter veri similia. Quare non minus laborandum est ut iudex quae vere dicimus quam quae fingimus credat.

^{page 365 note 2} See Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ 294–334.

^{page 365 note 3} 4.2.31, 36. See Lausberg, §§ 315–21.

^{page 365 note 4} 4.2.36: Erit autem narratio aperta atque dilucida si fuerit primum exposita verbis propriis et significantibus et non sordidis quidem, non tamen exquisitis et ab usu remotis, turn distincta rebus personis temporibus locis causis…

^{page 365 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 365 note 6} 4.2–37–9.

^{page 365 note 7} 4.2.38: tum autem optime dicit orator cum videtur vera dicere.

^{page 365 note 8} See, especially, Gal. i. 10 and the oath i. 20.

^{page 365 note 8} See Lausberg, §§ 297–314.

^{page 365 note 10} Quint. 4.2.40: Brevis erit narratio ante omnia si inde coeperimus rem exponere unde ad iudicem pertinet, deinde si nihil extra causam dixerimus, tum etiam si reciderimus omnia quibus sublatis neque cognitioni quicquam neque utilitati detrahatur;…

^{page 365 note 11} Ibid. 43: Nos autem brevitatem in hoc ponimus, non ut minus sed ne plus dicatur quam oporteat. Cf. Lausberg, §§ 298–308.

^{page 365 note 12} See Ibid. 41–7.

^{page 365 note 13} See Ibid. 47–51.

^{page 365 note 14} Ibid. 49–50: Et partitio taedium levat: … ita tres potius modicae narrationes videbuntur quam una longa. Cf. Lausberg, §§ 299–307, 311.

^{page 366 note 1} See Lausberg, § 338.

^{page 366 note 2} See Lausberg, §§ 322–34.

^{page 366 note 3} 4.2.52: Credibilis autem erit narratio ante omnia si prius consuluerimus nostrum animum ne quid naturae dicamus adversum, deinde si causas ac rationes factis praeposuerimus, non omnibus, sed de quibus quaeritur, si personas convenientes iis quae facta credi volemus constituerimus…See Lausberg, § 328.

^{page 366 note 4} Ibid. 54: Ne illud quidem fuerit inutile, semina quaedam probationum spargere, verum sic ut narrationem esse meminerimus, non probationem.

^{page 366 note 5} Ibid. See Lausberg, § 324.

^{page 366 note 6} Ibid. 57: Optimae vero praeparationes erunt quae latuerint. See Lausberg, § 325.

^{page 367 note 1} 4.2.83: Namque ne iis quidem accedo qui semper eo putant ordine quo quid actum sit esse narrandum, sed eo malo narrare quo expedit.

^{page 367 note 2} Cf. Ibid. 83–5.

^{page 367 note 3} Ibid. 87: Neque ideo tamen non saepius id facere oportebit ut rerum ordinem sequamur. See Lausberg, §317.

^{page 367 note 4} This rhetorical argument goes against the hypothesis of Zahn, Th., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 110 ff., that the Antioch episode took place before the Jerusalem meeting.Google ScholarCfMunck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Richmond, Va., 1959), pp. 74 f., 100 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 5} Ibid. 4.2.132: De fine narrationis cum iis contentio est qui perduci expositionem volunt eo unde quaestio oritur… Cf. Lausberg, § 307.

^{page 367 note 6} On the dilemma (complexio) see Cicero, De inv. 1.29.45, good examples. See also Lausberg, § 393.

^{page 367 note 7} The connection of this question with the causa (i. 6 f.) of the exordium and with the peroratio of the postscriptum (vi. 12–16) should be noted because it also conforms to rhetorical theory (cf. Lausberg, §§ 431–42). Cf. also ii. 3 (narratio) and v. 2 (beginning of the paraenesis). Paul's own position is antithetical: cf. i. 7 (causa); ii. 3, 5 (narratio); ii. 15–21 (propositio); iv. 9, 11, 19–21 (argumentatio); v. 1–12, esp. 6 (paraenesis); vi. 15 (recapitulatio).

^{page 367 note 8} Quint. 4.4.1–4.5.26; Cicero, De inv. 1.22.31 –23.33 calls it partitio, while the Rhet. ad Her 1.10.17 uses divisio. See Volkmann, Rhetorik, §15; Lausberg, § 346; J. Adamietz, Ciceros de inventione, pp. 36 ff.

^{page 367 note 9} Rhet. ad Her. 1.10.17: Causarum divisio in duas partes distributa est. Primum perorata narratione debemus aperire quid nobis conveniat cum adversariis, si ea quae utilia sunt nobis convenient, quid in controversia relictum sit,…Cf. Cicero, De inv. 1.22.31.

^{page 368 note 1} Rhet. ad Her. 1.10.17: Expositio est cum res quibus de rebus dicturi sumus exponimus breviter et absolute. Cf. Cicero, De inv. 1.22.32; Quint. 4.5.26–8.

^{page 368 note 2} Cf. Quint. 4.4.1: Mihi autem propositio videtur omnis confirmationis initium, quod non modo in ostendenda quaestione principali, sed nonnunquam etiam in singulis argumentis poni solet… See Lausberg, §§ 343–5.

^{page 368 note 3} This formal argument would then also decide the old controversy, whether or not vv. 15–21 must be regarded as a part of Paul's speech at Antioch. See on this problem Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (14th ed.Göttingen, 1971), pp. 87 f.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 4} This was recognized, without the formal considerations, by Schlier, pp. 87 f.

^{page 368 note 5} Cf. the connections with the exordium (i. 6 f.) and the recapitulatio (vi. 12–16).

^{page 368 note 6} Quint. 4.5.8: Itaque, si plura vel obicienda sunt vel diluenda, et utilis et iucunda partitio est, ut quo quaque de re dicturi sumus ordine appareat; at, si unum crimen varie defendemus, supervacua. See Lausberg, § 347.

^{page 368 note 7} Gal. ii. 17 apparently contains the ‘charge’, as Paul phrases it: εἰ δ⋯ ητο⋯ντες δικαιωθ⋯ναι ⋯ν χριτῷ εὑρ⋯θημεν κα⋯ αὐτο׀ ⋯μαρτωλο⋯, ⋯ρα χριστ⋯ς ⋯μαρτ⋯ας δι⋯κονος cf. ii. 2–4, 14; v. 11; vi. 12–16.

^{page 368 note 8} On the probatio see, especially, Volkmann, Rhetorik, §§ 16 ff.; Lausberg, §§ 348–430.

^{page 368 note 9} Quint. 5, prooemium 5. The Greek term is π⋯στις (Arist. Rhet. 3.13.4, 1414b), which Quintilian thinks is best rendered by the Latin probatio (5.10.8). See Lausberg, §§ 348–9.

^{page 368 note 10} Cicero, De inv. 1.24.34.

^{page 368 note 11} Rhet. ad. Her 1.10.18.

^{page 368 note 12} See the definition given by Cicero, De inv. 1.24.34: Confirmatio est per quam argumentando nostrae causae fidem et auctoritatem et firmamentum adiungit oratio. Rhet. ad Her. 1.10.18: Tota spes vincendi ratioque persuadendi posita est in confirmatione et in confutatione. Nam cum adiumenta nostra exposuerimus contrariaque dissolverimus, absolute nimirum munus oratorium confecerimus. See Lausberg, § 348.

^{page 369 note 1} See Quint. 5.14.27–35.

^{page 369 note 2} Ibid. 32. See Lausberg, § 257.

^{page 369 note 3} On the status qualitatis see Volkmann, Rhetorik, § 7; Lausberg, §§ 89, 123–30, 134–8, 171–96.

^{page 369 note 4} Lausberg, §§ 126, 175 who refers to Quint. 3.6.79: … qualitatis duplex ratio facienda sit, altera qua et factum defenditur, altera qua tantum reus.

^{page 369 note 5} See Gal. i. 6–9, 11; iii. 1–5; iv. 13–15.

^{page 369 note 6} See ε׀κ⋯ Gal. iii. 4; iv. 11; cf. also ii. 2, 15–21; v. 2–12; vi. 12–16.

^{page 369 note 7} Cf. iii. 1: … ο׀ς κατ' ⋯φθαλμοὺς᾽׀ησο⋯ς χριστ⋯ς προεγρ⋯φη ⋯σταυρωμ⋯νος also this statement uses a rhetorical topos; see Lausberg, § 810; Index, s.v. oculus, conspectus.

^{page 369 note 8} Cf. Aristot., Rhet. 1.15.15 f. (p. 1376a); Quint. 5.7.1 ff., and Lausberg, § 354.

^{page 370 note 1} See Cicero, De inv. 1.31.51: Inductio est oratio quae rebus non dubiis captat assensiones eius quicum instituta est; quibus assensionibus facit ut illi dubia quaedam res propter similitudinem earum rerum quibus assensit probetur; velut apud Socraticum Aeschinen demonstrat Socrates…53: Hoc modo sermonis plurimum Socrates usus est propterea quod nihil ipse afferre ad persuadendum volebat, sed ex eo quod sibi ille dederat quicum disputabat, aliquid conficere malebat, quod ille ex eo quod iam concessisset necessario approbare deberet. Cf. Quint. 5.11.3–5, and Lausberg, §§ 419–21.

^{page 370 note 2} On the interrogatio see the treatment by Quint. 5.7.8–37, and Lausberg, § 354.

^{page 370 note 3} Cf. Quint. 5.7.1: Maximus tamen patronis circa testimonia sudor est. Ea dicuntur aut per tabulas aut a praesentibus.

^{page 370 note 4} Cf. Cicero, De inv. 1.32.53: Hoc in genere praecipiendum nobis videtur primum, ut illud quod inducemus per similitudinem eiusmodi sit ut sit necesse concedere.

^{page 370 note 5} For a discussion of this point see my article ‘Spirit, freedom, and law. Paul's message to the Galatian Churches’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok XXXIX (1974), 145–60;Google ScholarGerman: ‘Geist, Freiheit und Gesetz: Die Botschaft des Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien’, Z.Th.K. LXXI (1974), 78–93.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 6} Gal. iii. 5:… ⋯νεργ⋯ν δυν⋯μεις ⋯ν ὑμῑν …

^{page 370 note 7} Cf. Quint. 5.7.35: His adicere si qui volet ea quae divina testimonia vocant, ex responsis oraculis ominibus, duplicem sciat esse eorum tractatum: generalem alterum, in quo inter Stoicos et Epicuri sectam secutos pugna perpetua est regaturne providentia mundus, specialem alterum circa partis divinationum, ut quaeque in quaestionem cadet. Quint, has also comments about the ambiguity of such divine testimonies (5.7.36). See Lausberg, § 176; Volkmann, Rhetorik, p. 239.

^{page 370 note 8} Gal. iii. 2, 5.

^{page 370 note 9} Gal. iii. 2, 5: ⋯ξ ⋯κο⋯ς π⋯στεως.

^{page 370 note 10} On this subject see, especially, Quint. 5.11.36–42. Quintilian mentions among such arguments the precepts of the Seven Wise Men and lines from poets, particularly Homer, and makes this remark (39): Nam sententiis quidem poetarum non orationes modo sunt refertae, sed libri etiam philosophorum, qui quamquam inferiora omnia praeceptis suis ac litteris credunt, repetere tamen auctoritatem a plurimis versibus non fastidierunt. See also Lausberg, § 426.

^{page 371 note 1} See Quint. 5.5.1–2; 5.7.1–2. Cf. also Aristotle on συγγραφα⋯ (Rhet. 1.2.2, p. 1355b; 1.15.20–5, p. 1376b), on ancient witness 1.15.17, p. 1376a.

^{page 371 note 2} Cf. Quint. 5.11.42: Ponitur a quibusdam, et quidem in parte prima, deorum auctoritas, quae est ex responsis, ut ‘Socraten esse sapientissimum’. Id rarum est, non sine usu tamen…Quae cum propria causae sunt, divina testimonia vocantur, cum aliunde arcessuntur, argumenta.

^{page 371 note 3} Cf. Quint. 5.11.43, where also the reason is stated: quod ea non inveniret orator, sed acciperet. See Lausberg, §§ 351–4.

^{page 371 note 4} On exempla see Volkmann, Rhetorik, § 23; Lausberg, §§ 410–26.

^{page 371 note 5} Quint. 5.11.1 describes it thus: Tertium genus, ex iis quae extrinsecus adducuntur in causam, Graeci vocant παρ⋯δειγμα, quo nomine et generaliter usi sunt in omnisimilium adpositione et specialiter in iis quae rerum gestarum auctoritate nituntur. This definition is found in 5.11.6: Potentissimum autem est inter ea quae sunt huius generis quod proprie vocamus exemplum, id est rei gestae aut ut gestae utilis ad persuadendum id quod intenderis commemoratio. See also Lausberg, § 410.

^{page 371 note 6} See Lausberg, §§ 410, 426.

^{page 371 note 7} See Lausberg, §§ 411–14.

^{page 371 note 8} Note the term διαθ⋯κη, Gal. iii. 15, 17; iv. 24.

^{page 371 note 9} Gal. iii. 26 – iv. 7, 28, 31.

^{page 371 note 10} This is Quintilian's term. See his definition of the various forms of praeiudicia in 5.2.1: Iam praeiudiciorum vis omnis tribus in generibus versatur: rebus quae aliquando ex paribus causis sunt iudicatae, quae exempla rectius dicuntur, ut de rescissis patrum testamentis vel contra filios confirmatis: iudiciis ad ipsam causam pertinentibus, unde etiam nomen ductum est…aut cum de eadem causa pronuntiatum est…See Lausberg, § 353, for further material.

^{page 371 note 11} Gal. iii. 15, 17; iv. 1–3.

^{page 371 note 12} Cf. Rhet. ad Her. 2.13.19: Iudicatum est id de quo sententia lata est aut decretum interpositum. Ea saepe diversa sunt, ut aliud alio iudici aut praetori aut consuli aut tribuno plebis placitum sit; et fit ut de eadem re saepe alius aliud decreverit aut iudicarit,..

^{page 371 note 13} See above p. 370 n. 5.

^{page 372 note 1} Cf. also Gal. ii. 2, 5.

^{page 372 note 2} CfOepke, A., Der Brief an die Galater (3rd ed.Berlin, 1973), pp. 140 f., who makes the most of this: ‘Nun schlägt die Leidenschaft völlig in heiβes Liebeswerben um. Durch den abgerissenen, oft überkurzen Ausdruck ist das Verständnis erschwert. Rein verstandesmäβige Zergliederung führt solch einem Text gegenüber nicht zum Ziel.’Google ScholarDe Witt Burton, E., The Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh, 1921), p. 235, believes that Paul is ‘dropping argument’.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 3} See for references and bibliography G. Stählin, φ⋯λος κτλ., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament IX, 144 ff.; Treu, K., Freundschaft (R.A.C. 8, 1970, cols. 418–34).Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 4} Cf. e.g., Quint. 5.11.41, who quotes as the first example the proverb: Ubi amici, ibi opes (see below, n. 6). See also Steinmetz, F. A., Die Freundschaftslehre des Panaitios. Nach einer Analyse von Ciceros ‘Laelius de amicitia’ (Wiesbaden, 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 5} See Koskenniemi, H., Studien zur Ideologic und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis auf 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki, 1956), pp. 115 ff.;Google ScholarBrinckmann, W., Der Begriff der Freundschaft in Senecas Briefen. Philos. Diss. Köln 1963;Google ScholarThraede, K., Grundzüge griechisch-römischer Brieftopik (München, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 6} Quint. 5.11.41: Ea quoque quae vulgo recepta sunt hoc ipso, quod incertum auctorem habent, velut omnium fiunt, quale est: ‘ubi amici, ibi opes’ et ‘conscientia mille testes’, et apud Ciceronem: ‘pares autem, ut est in vetere proverbio, cum paribus maxime congregantur’ neque enim durassent haec in aeternum nisi vera omnibus viderentur.

^{page 372 note 7} Cf. Quintilian's discussion 5.11.43–4.

^{page 373 note 1} See the discussion in Quint. 5.12.2 ff.; and Lausberg, § 413.

^{page 373 note 2} The connection between this allegory and Hellenistic rhetoric is seen and discussed by van Stempvoort, P. A., De Allegorie in Gal. 4: 21–31 als hermeneutisch Probleem (Nijkerk, 1953), pp. 16 ff. Cf. also the relationship between Seneca, Epist. 88.24–8, and Philo's allegory in De congressu; on this seeGoogle ScholarStückelberger, A., Senecas 88. Brief (Heidelberg, 1965), pp. 60 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 3} Actually, Paul employs both ‘allegory’ and ‘typology’. For this method see Volkmann, Rhetorik, pp. 429 ff; Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ 895–901; Pépin, J., Mythe et Allégorie (Paris, 1958);Google ScholarBuffière, F.. Les mythes d'Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris, 1956);Google ScholarBarr, J., Old and New in Interpretation (London, 1966), pp. 103 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 4} Many scholars see the problem, but explain the matter psychologically by calling the passage ‘an afterthought’ (see e.g. Burton, p. 251; Schlier, 216; U. Luz, Ev. Th. XXVII (1967), 319; F. Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (Freiburg i. Br., 1974), pp. 316 f.), or as the result of a ‘Diktierpause’ (Oepke, p. 147; E. Stange, Z.N.W. XVIII, 1917, 115).

^{page 373 note 5} Quint. 5.12.1 ff.

^{page 373 note 6} Quint. 5.12.14: Quaesitum etiam potentissima argumenta primone ponenda sint loco, ut occupent animos, an summo, ut inde dimittant, an partita primo summoque, ut Homerica dispositione in medio sint infirma aut animis crescant. Quae prout ratio causae cuiusque postulabit ordinabuntur, uno (ut ego censeo) excepto, ne a potentissimis ad levissima decrescat oratio.

^{page 373 note 7} Cf. the definition in Rhet. ad Her. 4.34.46: Permutatio [⋯λληγορ⋯α] est oratio aliud verbis aliud sententia demonstrans. See also Lausberg, §§ 421, 564, 755 ff., 894, 895–901.

^{page 373 note 8} Because of its ambiguity, ‘allegory’ can easily go over into ‘aenigma’. See Lausberg, § 899.

^{page 373 note 9} Cf. De eloc. 2.99–101, 151, 222, 243 (ed. W. Rhys Roberts, Loeb Classical Library).

^{page 373 note 10} Ibid. 100.

^{page 374 note 1} Ibid. 101: Δι⋯ κα⋯ τ⋯ μυστ⋯ρια ⋯λ ληγο⋯αις λ⋯γ εται πρ⋯ ςἔπληξιν κα⋯ ϕρ⋯κην, ⋯σττερ ⋯ν σκ⋯τῳ κα⋯ νυκτ⋯. ἔοικε δ⋯ κα⋯ ⋯ ⋯λληγορ⋯α τῷ σκ⋯τῳ κα⋯ τῇ νυκτ⋯. On allegory in connection with the mysteries see especially Griffiths, J. G., ‘Allegory in Greece and Egypt’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology LIII (1967), 79–102;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 100 f.;Google ScholarMerkelbach, R., Roman und Mysterium in der Antike (München and Berlin, 1962), pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 2} Cf. the function of the allegory in Philo; see especially Brandenburger, E., Fleisch und Geist (Neukirchen, 1968), pp. 200 ff.;Google ScholarChristiansen, Irmgard, Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegungswissen-schqft bei Philon von Alexandrien (Tübingen, 1969).Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 3} De eloc. 4.222:…ὃτι οὐ π⋯ντα ⋯π᾽ ⋯κριßε⋯ας δεῑ μακρηγορεῑν, ⋯λλ᾽ ἔνια καταλιπεῑν κα⋯ τῷ ⋯κροατῇ συνι⋯ναι κα⋯ λογ⋯εσθαι ⋯ξ αὑτο⋯.

^{page 374 note 4} Ibid.: συνε⋯ς γ⋯ρ τ⋯ ⋯λλειϕθ⋯ν ὑπ⋯ σο⋯ οὑκ ⋯κροατ⋯ς μ⋯νον, ⋯λλ⋯ κα⋯ μ⋯ρτυς σου γ⋯νεται, κα⋯ ἄμα εὐμεν⋯-στερος. συνετ⋯ς γ⋯ρ ⋯αυτῷ δοκεῑ δι⋯ σ⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯ϕορμ⋯ν παρεσχηκ⋯τα αὐτῷ το⋯ συι⋯ναι, τ⋯ δ⋯ π⋯ντα ὡς ⋯νο⋯τῳ λ⋯γειν καταγινώσκοντι ἔοικεν το⋯ ⋯κροατο⋯.

^{page 374 note 5} For the epistolographic cliché cf., e.g., Isocr., Ep. 2.24; 8.8. It is related to the rhetorical dubitatio, examples of which are found in Acts xxv. 20; Hermas, sim. 8.3.1; 9.2.5, 6. See Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ 776–8.

^{page 374 note 6} Cf. p. 370 above.

^{page 375 note 1} δι⋯, ⋯δελφο⋯, οὐκ ⋯σμ⋯ν παιδ⋯σκης τ⋯κνα ⋯λλ⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯λευθ⋯ρας

^{page 375 note 2} Merk, Differently O., ‘Der Beginn der Paränese im Galaterbrief’, Z.N.W. LX (1969), 83–104, who provides a useful survey of the various opinions in regard to the beginning of the paraenesis. However, since the conclusions are not based upon a composition analysis they are not convincing.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 3} Investigations are usually aimed at elements of paraenesis, rather than the paraenetical section of the letter; for bibliography see Doty, W. G., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia, 1973), pp. 49 ff. For the larger question and bibliography seeGoogle ScholarGaiser, K., Protreptik und Paränese bei Platon (Stuttgart, 1959);Google ScholarRabbow, P., Seelenführung (München, 1954), esp. pp. 270 f.;Google ScholarHadot, I., Seneca und die griechisch-römische Tradition der Seelenleitung (Berlin, 1969);CrossRefGoogle ScholarPeter, H., Der Brief in der römischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1901), pp. 225 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 4} M. Dibelius, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, n, 65. Dibelius' treatment of the subject (pp. 65–76) is little more than a random collection of diverse material from a wide range of authors. See also Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (3rd ed.Tübingen, 1959), pp. 234–65, esp. pp. 239 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 5} Cancik, H., Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae morales (Hildesheim, 1967).Google ScholarSee the review of this important dissertation by Maurach, G., Gnomon XLI (1969), 472–6;Google Scholaridem, Der Bau von Senecas Epistulae morales (Heidelberg, 1970), passim.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 6} Cancik, pp. 16 ff.

^{page 375 note 7} Ibid. p. 17.

^{page 375 note 8} Ibid. p. 23.

^{page 375 note 9} Even Quintilian has no special treatment of it, but only incidentally refers to other orators as having a related doctrine; see 3.6.47; 9.2.103. According to Aristotle there are two kinds of ‘deliberative’ speech:… τ⋯ μ⋯ν προτροπ⋯ τ⋯ δ⋯ ⋯ποτροπ⋯ (Rhet. 1.3.3, p. 1358b). This doctrine is also found later (cf. Rhet. ad Her. 1.2.2; Quint. 9.4.130), but has no apparent connection to paraenesis.

^{page 376 note 1} See Volkmann, Rhetorih, pp. 294 ff.; Lausberg, §§ 61, 2; 1109; 1120; Ernesti, Lexicon Technologiae Graecorum, Latinorum, Rhetoricae, s.v. προτροπ⋯, suasio (παρ⋯νεσις, etc., is not even listed).

^{page 376 note 2} See Oltramare, A., Les origines de la diatribe romaine (Lausanne, Genève, Neuchâtel, 1926); W. Capelle and H. I. Marrou, Diatribe (R.A.C. 3, esp. 990–1009).Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 3} For further literature see Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition, pp. 57 if.

^{page 376 note 4} See e.g., the analysis of Seneca's epist. 76 by Cancik, pp. 18 if.

^{page 376 note 5} Epist. 85.1: Illud totiens testor, hoc me argumentorum genere non delectari. Pudet in aciem descendere pro dis hominibusque susceptam subula armatum. The edition and translation quoted is that by R. M. Gummere in LCL. I am indebted to the passage by Cancik, pp. 22 f. See also Trillitzsch, W., Senecas Beweisführung (Berlin, 1962), pp. 69 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 6} The restatements refer to iv. 31, the conclusion of the probatio section and, by implication, to the result of the entire preceding argument. Cf. the κανών in vi. 16 (14–15).

^{page 376 note 7} The investigation of Paul's gnomic sentences remains another desideratum of New Testament scholarship. For the form in general, see Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ 872–9; K. Horna, Art. ‘Gnome, Gnomendichtung, Gnomologien’ (RE, Suppl. vi, 1935, cols. 74–87); K. von Fritz, Ibid., cols. 87–90; Chadwick, H., The Sentences of Sextus (Cambridge, 1959);CrossRefGoogle ScholarFischel, H. A., Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy (Leiden, 1973).Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 1} The last words, μ⋯λιστα δ⋯ πρ⋯ς τοὺς οἰκεἰους τ⋯ς π⋯στεως corresponding to an epistolary cliché. See Pap. Oxyr. 293, 16; 294, 31; 743, 43; and Meecham, H. G., Light from Ancient Letters (London, 1923), p. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 2} On this point see the studies by Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki, 1956), pp. 88 ff.; Funk, R. W., ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance’, in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. Farmer, W. R., Moule, C. F. D., and Niebuhr, R. R. (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 249–68; Thraede, Grundzüge griechisch-römischer Brieftopik, passim;Google ScholarKarlsson, G., Idélogie et cérémonial dans l'épistolographie byzantine, 2nd ed. (Uppsala, 1962).Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 3} On the pronuntiatio see Lausberg, § 1091.

^{page 377 note 4} Gal. iv. 18 f.:…κα⋯ μ⋯ μ⋯νον ⋯ν τῷ παρεῖνα⋯ με πρ⋯ς ὑμ⋯ς…ἤθελον δ⋯ παρεῑναι πρ⋯ς ὑμ⋯ς ἄρτι καἰ ⋯λλ⋯ξαι τ⋯ν ϕων⋯ν μου,…

^{page 377 note 5} I am indebted to Professor Gustav Karlsson (Uppsala and Berlin) for calling my attention to this epistolary topos.

^{page 377 note 6} For a more extensive discussion of this problem see my paper, ‘In defense of the Spirit: Paul's Letter to the Galatians as a Document of Early Christian Apologetics’, to be published in a volume containing the Rosenstiehl Lectures of 1974, edited by Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza of the University of Notre Dame.

^{page 378 note 1} Cf. above, p. 370.

^{page 379 note 1} No satisfactory investigation of the genre exists. J. Sykutris mentions it in his article ‘Epistolographie’ (RE, Suppl. v, 1931), col. 207; see also J. Schneider, ‘Brief (RAC 2, 1954, cols. 572 f.); Stübe, R., Der Himmelsbrief (Tübingen, 1918). Both authors refer to the Papyri Graecae Magicae as examples. Actually, the oldest letter in Greek literature is a magical letter (Homer, Il. 6.167 ff.). In a conversation with Dr Jan Bergman of Uppsala it became clear that there may be also yet unexplored connections with ancient Egyptian funerary inscriptions;Google Scholarsee Sottas, H., La préservation de la propriété funéraire dans l'ancienne Égypte avec le recueil des formules d'imprécation (Paris, 1913);Google ScholarOtto, E., Die biographischen Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit, ihre geistesgeschichtliche und literarische Bedeutung (Leiden, 1954), pp. 53 ff. These inscriptions are like magical letters from the dead, addressing the potential visitor of the tomb, and threatening him with a curse, if he is a grave-robber; for those who perform the correct ritual there is a blessing.Google ScholarSee further, Gardiner, A. H. and Sethe, K., Egyptian Letters to the Dead, Mainly from the Old and Middle Kingdoms (London, 1928), no. 4, 5;Google ScholarBjörck, R. G., Der Fluch des Christen Sabinus. Papyrus Upsaliensis VIII (Uppsala, 1938).Google Scholar