Is Galatians an Ironic Letter?

Matthew Pawlak

doi:10.1163/15685365-12341694

Abstract

Abstract This article queries whether Paul wrote Galatians with reference to epistolary conventions for ironic letters. First, the author explores the use of the θαυµάζω + conjunction “epistolary formula” in the non-literary papyri to determine the relationship between this expression, irony, and Gal 1:6. Then, he weighs the evidence for an ironic reading of Gal 1:6 itself before turning to the extant ancient letter writing handbooks to assess the extent to which Gal 1:6 meaningfully parallels the ironic letters in the handbooks. The author argues that while an ironic reading of Gal 1:6 is plausible, there is no evidence that Paul has crafted Galatians with reference to epistolary conventions for ironic letters.

Highlights

Ever since Betz’s seminal commentary on the letter, ancient rhetorical theory has featured significantly in scholarship on Galatians
Building on conclusions drawn from the papyri, the body of evidence used to assert that Galatians qualifies as a letter of ironic rebuke depends on comparison with the two extant epistolary handbooks ascribed to Demetrius and Libanius, which define and provide examples of ironic letters, rebuking letters, and letters that blend multiple forms.[6]
Investigation of whether Galatians can appropriately be deemed an ironic letter has taken us from the papyri, through ancient discussions of irony, and into epistolary theory

Summary

Points of Agreement and Caution

As far as irony is concerned, Kremendahl agrees with Roberts that θαυμάζω ὅτι/πῶς/εἰ is not inherently ironic, and that the possibility of irony in such expressions must be determined from context.[26]. Recognizing this typical means of communicating sarcasm supports the exegesis of scholars who see ἕτερον and ἄλλο here as essentially synonymous.[52] Schröter objects, arguing that if ἕτερον and ἄλλο are synonymous, ἄλλο becomes unnecessary He sees it as a problem that they “stand in syntactical opposition to each other here,” and that with the ἄλλο clause Paul immediately retracts his initial statement that his opponents’ message is a gospel.[53] Such repetition and opposition do not indicate inconsistency on Paul’s part or create an exegetical problem. This sort of immediately contrastive statement is very common in ancient irony and would be somewhat out of place here if there was no element of ostensible praise or positive affect to undercut in either Paul’s θαυμάζω ὅτι opening or use of εὐαγγέλιον. Without access to these elements, we must speak in terms of plausibility rather than certainty

Conclusion

Caution

Conclusions