Matt argues that using a rhetorical-critical approach to the text will not only help one better appreciate the text as it stands, but serves as a corrective to some of the tendencies of previous scholarship that focused too much on its sources than its final product. I agree with Matt on the use of rhetorical criticism. I also look forward to seeing how he hashes out his theory that the Didache contains “a strong polemical, defensive rhetoric claiming to be the continuation of the true Israel, not a false, rogue Messianic sect and certainly not a new religion, but a very very old one.” The subject of my Master’s thesis actually dealt with this topic in part, and so it should be nice to see how he works this out. I do hope he writes a post on his methodology because “rhetorical criticism” is a very broad category.

Though I think looking at the text as a whole using a literary or rhetorical approach is very valuable, I still think that the old Wissenshaft methods of source, form, and redaction are still worth using and applying to the Didache. I would disagree with his statement that “[s]ource criticism has left the poor Didachist as a confused compiler who had no theology to offer his readership.” But that’s for another post.

Hendrickson has made available Betz’s chapter from The Galatians Debate. Apparently I already knew that as I have a copy but I’m sure I haven’t told you about it, so here it is.

Betz, Hans Dieter. “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation. Edited by Mark D. Nanos. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. 3-28.

This is excellent news! The article was originally published in New Testament Studies in 1975 and was later incorporated into his Hermeneia commentary, which I talk about here. Thanks for drawing this to our attention, Thomas.

Thirty years ago, Hans Dieter Betz first published his Hermeneia commentary on Galatians. The Hermeneia series was still relatively young in the late 1970s, and all of its volumes were translations of earlier German commentaries. Not only did Betz’s commentary take the series to a new level by being the first original contribution, but his work had the added bonus of being particularly novel and stimulating as well.

Betz observed that the “formal and compositional structure” of the letter went largely ignored, despite the fact that most commentaries and introductions performed analyses of the outline and argument of Galatians. The problem with these other studies was that they generally lacked the criteria on which to base such outlines. “This is astonishing,” Betz writes, “because the letter is composed in accordance with the conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric and epistolography” (xiv). He contends that we should expect Paul to write as a figure who was situated in the Greco-Roman world would write. In 1975, Betz wrote an important article in NTS, which explored the literary structure and function of Galatians. Not only does he incorporate this study into his commentary, but it becomes a large focus of the work. He argues that Galatians is an “apologetic letter” (14) and that we should read it as judicial (or forensic) rhetoric (see Kennedy 144f. for a critic of this). Betz’s analysis of Galatians leads to the following outline comprised of seven major sections:

1. The Epistolary Prescript [1.1-5]
2. The Introduction (Exordium) [1.6-11]
3. The Statement of Facts (Narratio) [1.12—2.14]
4. The Proposition (Propositio) [2.15-21]
5. The Proofs (Probatio) [3.1—4.31]
6. The Exhortation (Exhortatio) [5.1—6.10]
7. The Epistolary Postscript (Conclusio) [6.11-18]

One of the great accomplishments of Betz’s work on Galatians was that it initiated a large interest in rhetorical criticism by New Testament scholars. Though he was not the first to look at classical rhetoric, his studies on Paul and rhetoric were highly influential. Major works have arisen since by scholars such as George Kennedy, Carl Joachim Classen, Margaret Mitchell (Betz’s student), Vernon Robbins, and many others. Just read the bibliography compiled by Duane Watson and you’ll get an idea of how expansive this field has been in the past three decades.

The commentary itself remains very useful and it is always the first book I consult on Galatians, which just goes to show that despite the ever-increasing number of commentaries, the good ones are hard to replace. Personally, I think Fortress Press should reissue the commentary in a deluxe, gold-plated edition to commemorate the occasion, but I doubt that would ever happen.

References:

• Hans Dieter Betz, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 353-79.
• George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Studies in Religion; Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1984).
• Duane F. Watson, The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographic Survey (Tools for Biblical Study; Blandford Forum, UK: Deo, 2006).

[Click to view a large image of the commentary]