A Critique of Ben Witherington’s Analysis of Pauline Rhetoric in Galatians as Found in 'Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St Paul's Letter to the Galatians'

A Critique of Ben Witherington’s Analysis of Pauline Rhetoric in Galatians as Found in Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.

Whether read in English or Greek, Paul’s letter to the Galatians presents itself as a rather interesting communiqué from one of the early church’s most prominent leaders. Throughout the epistle, Paul makes use of language that is forthright, to put it mildly. “You fools!” is not, perhaps, the way in which most twentieth-century writers have been taught to address the recipients of their letters. When we read such things in the New Testament, our inclination is to ask why it is there. A current trend in New Testament scholarship has been to examine New Testament documents in light of ancient, Greco-Roman, rhetorical practices. Ben Witherington’s recent commentary on Galatians[1] is an example of this trend. As with any piece of scholarship, it behooves us to think critically about the method being utilized and the ways in which the author concerned makes use of that method. This essay will examine the rhetorical background of the New Testament and will critique Ben Witherington’s rhetorical analysis of Galatians in his aforementioned commentary on that book. I will begin by drawing attention to the relevant aspects of the historical and social context in which Galatians was written. Then I will proceed to offer a critique of Witherington’s commentary.

By the first century A.D., the art of rhetoric in the Greco-Roman world had already undergone nearly five centuries of practice and development. The art itself was even older, but critical reflection on the art and serious attempts to study it had their origins in fifth-century B.C. Greece. That century witnessed an explosive growth of interest in both the practice and the philosophy of rhetoric. There were those, most notably Plato, who disapproved of the art, but it was widely accepted that rhetorical skill was indicative of sophistication and intelligence.[2] The benefits that accompanied rhetorical prowess led many to pay for training in the art. Rhetoricians abounded, and people turned out in crowds to listen to them speak. Handbooks offering instruction on how to speak well also proliferated. These were practical manuals aimed at teaching the reader what to say, usually in a forensic context.[3] This interest in rhetoric continued throughout the fourth century B.C., the century in which Aristotle and Isocrates wrote their famous works on rhetoric.

Little development occurred in the third and second centuries B.C., but the first century B.C. witnessed a renewal of interest in reflection on rhetoric. The practice of the art had not waned in the intervening centuries, but there was little critical reflection on it.[4] Cicero, of course, was the major figure of the first century B.C., and Quintilian of the first century A.D. The second century A.D. experienced the full force of the ‘Second Sophistic’, but that movement was already underway in the first century A.D.[5]

All the while the masses clamored for oratory. One can hardly underestimate how universal the phenomenon of oratory for entertainment was in the Greco-Roman world.[6] Experts in the subject hailed from all over the Mediterranean, and came from several different cultures (including from among the Jews). The political environment of the first century A.D. did little to encourage the freedom of speech that was the hallmark of classical Athens, and it may have been due in part to this that oratory was used less for the discussion of important public matters than for the pleasure of the people.[7]

Indeed, the pleasure of the people had always been an important factor in the practice of rhetoric. Aristotle conceived of rhetoric as the art of persuasion. The audience was, therefore, judge and jury—ofttimes literally. The history of thought about rhetoric was ever cognisant of this fact.

Though the crowd delighted in rhetoric, they were also suspicious of it…. This ambivalence on the part of the people, a curious amalgam of approbation and skepticism, seemed to manifest itself in an astonishingly wide range of responses to the orators: the audience might cheer and applaud with enthusiasm, or raise an uproar, shouting the speaker down; they might sit, silent and indulgent, or pelt the speaker with stones out of rage; they might listen raptly in awe, or respond with jeering, hissing, derisive laughter, or crude jokes. In short, the audience had it in its power to terrify and dominate the speaker if it cared to.[8]

This was the world in which Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Gentiles. Understanding this part of the ancient world makes one pause and wonder how Paul’s audiences would have listened to him when he spoke. Did they listen because they wanted to hear a fine speech? What were their expectations of him? How did Paul respond to those expectations? These are valid questions, and they may be asked of Paul’s epistles as well. We take it for granted today that reading is a silent exercise practiced in private. But in Paul’s day, the opposite was the case. Reading was an oral exercise. Because Paul’s extant epistles were, for the most part, written for the benefit of entire churches or groups of churches (as is the case with Galatians), we may assume that those epistles were read aloud to groups of people. Witherington even goes so far as to suggest that they were not just read but performed;[9] that is, the presentation of the letter to Paul’s target audience was an occasion for the practice of rhetoric. So, we are justified in asking of Paul’s epistles, “What is the rhetorical effect of what we read (i.e., hear)?”

I will now proceed to discuss Witherington’s contribution to a rhetorical study of Galatians. The first point to note is that Witherington’s work is itself a critique of earlier scholarship on Galatians, especially H.D. Betz’ groundbreaking commentary.[10] Betz thought Galatians was what may be called either forensic or judicial rhetoric. Forensic rhetoric had its primary place in the courtroom, and could take the form of an apology (in the classical sense). In Galatians, Betz saw Paul as offering a defense of himself, re-establishing the grounds for his apostolic authority in view of the accusations of his opponents. But Witherington takes a different view—and many of his rhetorical observations hang on his ability to adequately support his view—the view that Paul is attempting to persuade the Galatians to examine what they believe and to hold fast to the Faith that Paul past on to them and not to change course and submit to new teachings. This type of persuasion is called deliberative rhetoric. Witherington is not alone in identifying Galatians as deliberative. George Kennedy, an eminent Classicist, has also identified Galatians as deliberative rhetoric.[11] Witherington’s arguments supporting his classification of this epistle are cogent.

At first glance, one has the feeling that the cumulative effect of Witherington’s rhetorical arguments is only to offer another outline of Galatians. In the first several sections of his commentary, Witherington seems frequently in danger of using the ends to justify the means; that is, he seems sometimes to slip into making identification of the rhetorical species of Galatians a main object, instead of using an hypothesised species as a means of understanding the rhetorical figures he finds in the text:

This last appeal [i.e., to imitation of himself] is one more sign that we must be dealing with a deliberative form of argument in this document, because not surprisingly the appeal to imitate oneself is not really appropriate in the rhetoric of defense, when one’s character is thought by the audience to be in doubt. To put it the other way around, Paul’s appeal in Gal. 4.12 suggests strongly that Paul assumes that the Galatians do basically trust and admire Paul, and would be willing to follow his example.[12]

Note the use of the text to support the hypothesis, not the hypothesis to illuminate the text. Of course, his hypothesis must be supported, but it would be more helpful if his hypothesis were to aid in understanding the text. To his credit, Witherington does, in the later half of the above quotation, show how the application of the rhetorical species to the text can aid in understanding what is happening in the text.

The identification of the rhetorical species Paul uses in Galatians is significant. Witherington shows that it can help us understand what Paul is attempting to accomplish through the letter. In his discussion of the proem, Witherington states that a function of the deliberative oration is to persuade the audience to move in a particular direction. In Galatians Paul is trying to keep the Galatian Christians from moving away from the true Gospel, and to get them moving forward in it. “This rhetorical piece is not about ‘getting in’ or even about ‘staying in’ but about how Christians should ‘go on’, and especially how they should not ‘go off’ the right track and so commit what Paul views as apostasy.”[13] Paul is persuading the Galatians to move in a particular direction (deliberative rhetoric).

The identification of the rhetorical species in Galatians is also very significant to the history of modern scholarship on the early church. If Betz is correct in his conclusion that Galatians is forensic rhetoric, then we have here a document in which Paul is defending himself against his adversaries. Betz’ argument, then, lends strength to theories of Pauline/Petrine antitheses in the early church. Even Kennedy notices this (and comments on it!): “He [i.e., Betz] may… have been influenced by his own extensive knowledge of the dispute between parties in the early Church and a desire to bring out that dissension more sharply than may be immediately apparent to many readers of the Bible.”[14] But if Witherington is correct, then Galatians is not so much concerned with Paul’s personal defense as with the course of actions the Galatians should now take, and the question of whether Paul wishes to defend himself against Peter becomes a non-issue for the book of Galatians.

There are, however, some important weaknesses in Witherington’s rhetorical criticism of Galatians. His observations do not form a significant part of his interpretation of the text. The main flow of his discussion of Gal. 1.13-2.14 (the narratio) could be carried on quite independently of the few rhetorical observations he does make. Most of his notes are sociological, historical, grammatical or lexical in nature. Witherington punctuates his discussion of the narratio with reminders that the whole speech is deliberative, intended to persuade the Galatians to remain faithful to the true Gospel, but the rhetorical discussion does not go much further than this.

Scattered throughout the commentary are sentences like this: “The issue of compelling Titus to be circumcised apparently arose because of certain false brothers who were ‘secretly smuggled in’. This is military language later used in political rhetoric as here.”[15] These types of statements give the appearance of rhetorical criticism, but in actuality they do nothing to further our understanding of the text and serve only to assist in its classification.

Early in his commentary, Witherington mentions very few matters of style, and none of arrangement or invention apart from the general outline of the text. Even then he does not really elaborate on the type of argument Paul makes or explain how that form of argumentation supports his proposition. One begins to wonder whether the rhetorical criticism Witherington attempts is very useful.

There are, however, several points in those first sections of Witherington’s commentary at which his rhetorical critical observations truly bring light to the text. For example, Witherington suggests that Paul calls upon the Galatians to imitate what he describes in Gal. 1-2: “In other words, Paul is providing exempli in his narratio, both positive and negative and by means of a sugkri,sij or comparison he intends to show his audience what sort of behavior to emulate and what sort to avoid.”[16] Here Witherington uses rhetorical criticism and the identification of the rhetorical structure of Galatians to arrive at an elucidation of the text, not just another outline of the book.

His elaboration on the conventional content of the narratio is also helpful. Through it, we may understand why Paul’s autobiographical statements are so terse and filled with gaps, as well as why Paul uses such negative language when speaking about his opponents—it is an attempt to get the audience to see the opponents from the speaker’s point of view.[17] His discussion of the narratio also adds support to his opinion that the events narrated in Gal. 2 are in chronological order.[18]

In another example of helpful commentary based on rhetorical analysis, referencing Quintilian, Witherington helps us to understand why Paul uses such seemingly strong language throughout the epistle:

Polemics and strong emotional language do not in themselves indicate a forensic speech. One must ask what the intended effect of such language is, and in Galatians the emotional language is intended to make the Galatians rethink things and change their behavior if they are already Judaizing.[19]

These comments all show some awareness of the larger issues of rhetorical criticism (e.g., the purpose behind the form, not just the form itself). Witherington is not just applying the ‘rules of rhetoric’ to Galatians; he is considering how Paul may have made use of the various rhetorical tools at his disposal

The early portions of Witherington’s book, then, have moments in which he makes insightful application of rhetorical criticism to interpretation of the text, but on the whole his rhetorical analysis fails to contribute substantively to his greater discussion of the text. The situation changes, however, when Witherington begins to discuss the propositio (2.15-21).

Witherington begins his comments on the propositio by describing the purpose of the propositio in ancient deliberative rhetoric: it is to outline the course of argument to be followed in as succinct and clear a manner as possible, mentioning the points at which the parties involved are in agreement and the points at which they are not.[20] The immediate application he makes of this information is that 2.15-16 contains the undisputed points, and 2.17-18 contains the issues upon which there is not agreement.[21] Witherington asks several questions like, “Does the Law still have a function in the new economy of God?”[22] after which he says,

The propositio simply tries to set these kind of questions going in the mind of the Galatians before Paul actually gets to his proper arguments. Notice how some of the key terms and ideas that will be used in the rest of Galatians are introduced here in the propositio.[23]

Next he lists several words that appear in the propositio and several times in the rest of the letter.[24] These words are the aforementioned “key terms and ideas.” This observation is very useful in drawing a connection between this section and what will follow. Witherington has begun to assess the rhetorical figures Paul is using and examine how they function in the rhetorical structure of the entire letter.[25] This improvement continues through into the probatio, where he takes time to explain the content and structure of Paul’s argument.[26]

There are, however, some disappointing things about Witherington’s commentary. For one, he spends a lot of time analysing the ‘arrangement’ of the oration, as well as the aspects of ‘invention’ that relate to hv,qoj, pa,qoj, and lo,goj, but very little time looking into the other aspects of invention (both av,tecnoj invention and ‘accessories’), or matters of style. And in his discussion of 3.6-14, where Witherington includes an excursus on Paul’s use of scripture,[27] it is disappointing to see that he does not avail himself of the opportunity to examine the rhetorical implications of Paul’s use of Scripture, and limits himself instead to a discussion of Pauline hermeneutic. Furthermore, the rhetorical portions of the commentary tend to be a bit dogmatic. Witherington does not often state other possibilities for interpreting the rhetorical figures to which he points; rather, he indicates to them and proclaims, ‘This is what they mean.’

At the outset of the commentary, it is clear that Witherington intends not only a rhetorical, but also a sociological criticism of Galatians. Initially, I wondered whether it would be too ambitious for one person to attempt both rhetorical and sociological criticism in the same commentary. My question was, “Is Witherington skilled enough to do justice to both fields of specialisation?” Witherington may indeed be skilled enough to do justice to both fields on a small scale, but I think that a commentary may have been the wrong place to exercise his skill. He, perhaps, ought to have chosen one or the other method to concentrate upon. His rhetorical criticism in particular seems to suffer at key points.

However, it may be wrong to isolate the two types of criticism, to attempt a rhetorical study of the letter without also performing an in depth sociological study. The goal of oratory, as we have already mentioned, was to persuade the audience. How can one possibly state that such and such a rhetorical tactic was intended to have such and such an effect on the audience without knowing something about the social setting in which the discourse takes place? There is good reason to pursue a sociological analysis along with the rhetorical analysis, because the sociological analysis will aid in determining what effect a statement might have had on the orator’s audience.[28]

There will always be room for improvement, especially for pioneers. Ben Witherington’s commentary leaves something to be desired, but it really does accomplish what it seeks to do—it demonstrates how Paul uses ancient rhetorical conventions to convey his message in the book of Galatians. His book is worth reading… and so is Witherington’s.

[1] Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).

[2] Duane Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 44.

[8] Litfin, 126-127. Litfin cites Dio Chrysostom Discourses 40.6; 7.25, 39; 38.6-7; 32.11; 48.3; 32.22; 34.6; 7.25; 32.26; 33.5; 43.3; 32.11; 32.22.

[10] Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). Witherington offers insightful critiques of Betz’ analysis throughout his commentary; see, for instance, the particularly telling footnote #3 on page 200.

[11] George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 145.

[14] Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 144.

[15] See Witherington, 136; see also the discussion of avne,sthn, 151.

[19] Witherington, 31. There are other instances of rhetorical analysis that illuminates the text; e.g., on the pejorative terms used in 2.4 ff., see 127; on the rhetorical effects of the oath in 1.20, see 122-123; see also 30 for the excursus on honor and shame and Paul’s use of sugkri,sij.

[24] Witherington, 171. The words are (dikaiosu,nh, diakio,w, no,moj, ev,rgon, pi,stij, and za,w). They are taken from a chart by Matera.

[25] Another good example is his treatment of the rhetorical question in 2.17

[28] For example, Witherington discusses the ‘evil eye’ and baskai,nw (Gal. 3.1) and says that Paul is perhaps playing on the fears of the audience and their innate suspicion of the ‘evil eye’ (sociological criticism) as a rhetorical device intended to cast suspicion on the agitators (rhetorical criticism); see 203-204. There are other examples in Witherington’s commentary of the need to combine sociological and rhetorical criticism, particularly of Paul playing on his audience’s sense of shame and honor.