Abstract
In this article Paul’s argumentation is analysed from the perspective of sophistic rhetoric. In the first section the question is discussed what it means to label Paul’s rhetoric in his Letter to the Galatians ‘sophistic.’ To that end, an attempt is made to reconstruct the view of a contemporary critical reader who did not share Paul’s presuppositions and who was well acquainted with the discussions in the philosophical and rhetorical schools about acceptable and non-acceptable rhetorical methods. This approach is compared with other approaches to analysing Paul’s argumentation. The second section investigates more closely what it means when ‘sophistic rhetoric’ is used as a key to analyse Paul’s theology. To that end, some models which start from a ‘Platonic’ view of rhetoric are compared with a model which combines a ‘(neo-) sophistic’ or constructionist view with a ‘rhetoric of power.’
Highlights
The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which it is helpful to analyse Paul’s argumentation from the perspective of sophistic rhetoric
A different line is taken by Francois Tolmie in his book Persuading the Galatians
I hope to be able to answer questions about the continuity and discontinuity between modern and ancient criteria for what is acceptable with regard to argumentation
Summary
The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which it is helpful to analyse Paul’s argumentation from the perspective of sophistic rhetoric. I will do this by comparing ‘Platonic’ and ‘(neo-)sophistic’ perspectives. Dr J.S. Vos, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam & Visiting Scholar, Department of New Testament, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
