JSNT 30.

2 (2007) 173-203 Copyright 2007 SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore http://JSNT sagepub com DOI: 10.1177/0142064X07084775

Joiin-MlJorihf&uAojl.h? \e* Tesamaii

The Rhetoric of '\\ in Paul: Galatians 2.16,3.22, Romans 3.22, and Philippians 3.9*
R. Barry Matlock
Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK r.b.matlock@sheffield.ac.uk

Abstract
The question of -ns in Paul (Gal. 2.16, 20; 3.22; Rom. 3.22, 26; Phil. 3.9; cf. Eph. 3.12) is impossible to avoid and has proved particularly resist ant to resolution. The single most frequent exegetical argument made against the objective genitive reading ('faith in Christ') on behalf of the subjective geni tive reading ('the faithfulness of Christ') is that the former creates an unaccep table redundancy in several instances, where one finds two or more TTOTIS/ phrases side by side (Gal. 2.16; 3.22; Rom. 3.22; Phil. 3.9). Using this question of redundancy as a point of departure, this article offers a fresh look at these four verses, accounting forfiveof the seven TTOTI phrases. This is not primarily a negative critique of this redundancy argument, however, but rather a positive inquiry into the inter-relation of and interaction between these ^/ phrases and the other elements of their respective contexts and the role such considerations might play in their ownrightin disambiguating moT\s . The aim is not to offer a complete exegesis of the texts in question, but to attend specifically to matters that bear on - , and more particularly to matters of rhetoric/style/structure. In this way, I will offer a number of exegetical observations that weigh heavily in favor of the objective genitive reading.

Key Words
pistis Chris tou, objective genitive, subjective genitive, redundancy, rhetoric, structure

* I would like to thank the (British) Arts and Humanities Research Council for its support for the larger research project from which this material is taken, and the par ticipants in the New Testament Seminar at King's College, University of Aberdeen, 15 February 2007, and the Pauline Epistles Section at the 2005 SBL Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, at which portions of this material were presented.

174

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

Introduction

The question of TTOTIS in Paul has been persistently pressed now for a generation, having arisen intermittently throughout the last century. Paul's (undisputed) letters present the reader with seven phrases, in six verses, in the form of TTGTIS or variations (Gal. 2.16, 20; 3.22; Rom. 3.22,26; Phil. 3.9; cf. Eph. 3.12), lately perceived as posing a choice between an Objective genitive' rendering, 'faith in Christ', and a 'sub jective genitive' rendering, 'the faithfulness of Christ' (Dunn 1997; Hays 1997).1 For two related reasons, these phrases exert an influence out of all proportion to their number: they always occur at the same critical juncture in Paul's theological argument regarding Christ, the law and 'righteous ness'; and for many they have come to represent a pivot point between competing contemporary construals of Paul's theology (Matlock 2000; 2002). The question is impossible to avoid. It has proved equally resistant to resolution. Brand new evidencesay, a previously unknown Pauline letter written to clear up this messis not a realistic hope. One may well ask whether it is any more realistic to hope to say anything new about these old familiar texts, but that is just what I aim to do here. The single most frequent exegetical argument against the objective genitive reading of - ('faith in Christ') is that it creates an unacceptable redundancy in several of the Pauline texts. In four of the disputed texts, one finds alongside the ^ phrase(s) (under lined) an additional verb or noun phrase (double underlined).2
Gal. 2.16: [] ccvSpcoiros , , , . ('yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ [or, the faith of Jesus Christ]. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ [or, the faith of Christ], and

1. To speak thus of a simple choice between ' subj ective ' and ' obj ective ' genitive options is a useful oversimplification. At bottom, the choice is between taking the in question to be that of Christ or of 'believers'; some question the conven tional labels from either side (e.g., Martyn 1997: 270; Meyer 2004: 115-16 n. 82; Watson 2004: 73-76), and a few, rather than choose, argue for both (e.g., Williams 1987; 1997: 67-71). 2. Here and throughout, English translations are NRSV (except occasional instances where individual words or phrases are given a simple literal translation for ease of reading), with marginal readings in square brackets.

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of maris in Paul

not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law'.) Gal. 3.22: , . ('But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ [or, through the faith of Jesus Christ] might be given to those who believe'.) Rom. 3.22: .. . ' _ . ('.. .the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ [or, through the faith of Jesus Christ] for all who believe'.) Phil. 3.9: .. . , , ('...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ [or, through the faith of Christ], the righteousness from God based on faith'.)

175

The point has been repeatedly made that, if we read TTOTIS as an objective genitive, then these extra phrases are rendered superfluous, whereas if, with the subjective genitive reading ('the faithfulness of Christ'), we distinguish between the two sets of phrases, then Paul speaks of the TTOTIS of'believers' alongsideand following on fromthat of Christ. At the risk of some redundancy myself, I will run through a number of recent objections to the objective genitive reading along these lines. On Gal. 2.16, it is claimed that the objective genitive reading 'rejoic[es] in a triple redundancy of \\ phrases within the verse', a redundancy that 'discredits' this reading, since in that case 'Paul seems to make the same point three times consecutively' (Campbell 1992:216); it 'produces an un-Pauline, wooden redundancy' (Keck 1989:454), a sentence 'full of redundancies and tautology' (Howard 1992:758), making Paul out to be 'unnecessarily verbose' (Matera 1992:100); 'surely three references in as many lines to the same human disposition is at least strained' (Wallis 1995:71). The objective reading of Gal. 3.22 renders the sentence similarly 'redundant': 'Paul could have omitted either ' or without changing the meaning' (Hays 1983: 158). Likewise, the objective reading of Rom. 3.22 creates a 'ponderous' and 'peculiar redundancy' (Hays 1983: 171; 1997: 46), 'mentioning faith in Christ twice with a bizarre awkwardness' (Stowers 1994: 353 n. 4), a 'needless redundancy' that is 'doubly unusual' given the 'compact and carefully crafted' character ofthe surrounding text, creating an 'oscillation between prosaic brevity and verbose repetition in the same section [that] is an embarrassment for an objective genitive reading' (Campbell 1992:

176

Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

62-63). On the objective reading of Phil. 3.9, Paul has 'rather surprisingly repeated the statement about man's trust' (O'Brien 1991:400), making 'a surprising and possibly redundant second reference to human "faith"' (Bockmuehl 1998:211-12).3 Here I propose to use this question of'redun dancy ' as a point of departure for a fresh look at these four verses, account ing for five of the seven ^ phrases.4 To be sure, this argument has sometimes been subject to qualification. Richard Hays cautions in a footnote that 'redundancy would not in itself necessarily constitute a decisive objection' against the objective genitive translation, since 'one could easily enough point out other places where Paul's writing would benefit from the judicious application of a red pencil' (1983:184 n. 80); thus the poor style posited by proponents of the objective genitive reading could in theory be Paul's fault, not theirs. Ann Jervis, who likewise adopts the subjective genitive reading, mentions 'the fact that [this] translation clears up the redundancies in a verse like Gal. 2.16' but rests no weight on it, since 'repetition was an honored rhetorical strategy' (1999:21); in that case, there is nothing necessarily wrong with the repetition that results from the objective reading. Morna Hooker agrees that 'Paul is perfectly capable of using redundant phrases' (whether that is taken to be a good or a bad thing), but she adds another, more important qualification: 'this argument is only significant because the same phenomenon occurs almost every time the phrase is used: this fact does give some support to the subjective genitive interpretation' (1989: 329). Hooker's observation directs us to the four texts in question as a group: Gal. 2.16, 3.22, Rom. 3.22 and Phil. 3.9. Whatever form the redundancy argument takes, the repetition that obtains on the objective reading arouses suspicion: it represents an anomaly of the old paradigm that motivates a paradigm shift turning on the subjective reading of TTIOTIS . But then, as the debate regarding TTOTIS has played out, it seems that one person's (superfluous) 'redundancy' is another's (meaningful) 'repetition'.5 To determine

3. See also, e.g., Martin 1980: 132-33; L.T. Johnson 1982: 79, 83; 1997: 59; Williams 1987: 435-36,443-46; 1997: 68; Hooker 1989: 322,323,336; 2000: 528; Keck 1989: 455,456; Matera 1992: 101. 135; Wallis 1995: 75; Witherington 1998: 180; Wright 2002: 470. 4. The two remaining phrases (Gal. 2.20; Rom. 3.26) would typically be seen to be dependent on Gal. 2.16 and Rom. 3.22. 5. See, e.g., Moo 1996: 224-26 and Schreiner 1998: 181-84, in contrast to those cited above.

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of maris in Paul

111

whether this stalemate is inevitable, we need to take a step back and con sider how and why the argument works (or fails to work). Any assertion of'redundancy' implicitly raises two, related questions: whether there is dipattern to the repetition, and whether there is a rationale for itwhether there is any rhyme or reason either for the repetition or for the pairing of these ^/ phrases. This is a crucial methodological point, though there is at best only an indirect and unsystematic recognition of it in the debate thus far. For example, on behalf of the objective genitive reading it is argued that the repetition is a matter of 'emphasis', which is to suggest a (very general) rationale.6 Proponents of the subjective reading sometimes posit a recurrent pattern of paired ^/ phrases having a soteriological rationale, namely that of maintaining a proper bal ance between the 'objective' ground of'justification' and the 'subjective' response, and a proper ordering of the two, moving from Christ 's maris to that of believers.7 It is incumbent upon one who would wield this redundancy argument (or indeed one who would counter it) to inquire closely into the structure of these four verses. Without this follow-up, the argument amounts at best to inconclusive point-scoring (and at worst to mere bluff). Hence my exegetical inquiry into 'the rhetoric of TTOTIS' in Gal. 2.16, 3.22, Rom. 3.22 and Phil. 3.9. This is not primarily a negative critique of this redundancy argument, even if prompted by the latter. It is, rather, a positive inquiry into the inter-relation of and interaction between these ^/ phrases and the other elements of their respective contextsand the role such considerations in their own right might play in disambiguating ^ . The aimis not, thus, to offer a complete exegesis of the texts in question, but rather to attend specifically to matters that bear on ^ , and more particularly to matters of rhetoric/ style/structure. I will work through these four texts in reverse order. Philippians 3.9 We begin, then, with Phil. 3.9. In her recent Philippians commentary, Hooker seems to ignore her own earlier cautions regarding the redundancy argument. Now she flatly states of Phil. 3.9 that 'it is difficult to explain

6. See, e.g., Dunn 1988a: 166; 1993: 139; 1997: 72, 74, 75, 78. 7. See, e.g., Martin 1980: 133; Williams 1987: 443-46; Hooker 1989: 336, 33940; Longenecker 1990: 87-88; O'Brien 1991:400; Hays 1997: 54; Bockmuehl 1998: 211-12; Witherington 1998: 181-82 (the 'objective ground' is represented by the subjective genitive, and the 'subjective response' by the objective genitive).

178

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

why Paul should think it necessary to repeat the reference to faith if he has already said that the righteousness from God comes to us through our faith in Christ' (2000:528). Elsewhere in her commentary, though, Hooker draws attention to the 'skillful use of repetition and expansion' by which Paul 'emphasizes the point he is making' (2000:527). The text that elicits this remark is Phil. 3.7-8. Here Hooker correctly observes that these verses 'reiterate and amplify' the sense of'overwhelming gain in Christ', which is 'repeated, with slight variations, three times over' (2000: 526-27; cf. 1989:331-32). And one could as easily highlight w . 10-11, o r w . 12-14, as an example of Paul's skill at repetition and expansion (cf. Fee 1995: 329; 339-41). Or indeed the long participial clause of v. 9:
,

On my reading, the second line clearly 'reiterates and amplifies' the first. Repetition is, on the very surface, a formal feature of this (and the surrounding) text.8 If we are to raise the question of 'redundancy' in Phil. 3.9, we have to attend carefully to the relations between the various elementsagain, pattern and rationale are of the essence of the question of purposeful repetition versus meaningless redundancy. Wolfgang Schenk proposes a chiasticstructure(1984:310;cf.250-51;followedbyO'Brien 1991:394).9

D C ' '

This arrangement recognizes repetition as a rhetorical feature of the text, and it casts the ^ phrase into particular prominence (though Schenk himself stands outside that debate as it is conventionally under-

8. I should point out that I arrived independently at my own analysis of the struc ture of Phil. 3.9, laid out below, before investigating the alternative analyses summa rized here; but for the sake of presentation, I have reversed that order. This allows me to show how anomalies in these other approaches are avoided in my own, even though my analysis was not consciously designed in view of such. 9. For consistency and comparison, I have used the same convention for displaying a chiasm here and below7.

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of maris in Paul

179

stood).10 But it obscures, and thus ends up pressing, the question of the repetition specifically of ^. Although this analysis is initially striking, given the smaller formal chiasm between Schenk's and ', when it is pushed that last step further it falls apart: how can it be that the second TTOTIS phrase corresponds better to 'not having my own' than to the first 11 TTOTIS phrase? As Gordon Fee bluntly remarks, Phil. 3.9 is 'obviously' not structured as a chiasm (1995: 321 n. 34). Markus Bockmuehl analyzes the structure of Phil. 3.9 discursively in terms of the two kinds of righteousness described (1998: 209): The contrast is merely between my own righteousness and the kind that derives from God and rests on faith. One is unacceptable, the other is to be adopted. Thefirstof these two kinds ofrighteousnessis defined as my own and as derivedfromthe Torah. Each of these two phrases is paralleled by a contrasting quality of the secondrighteousness:my own stands in contrast with through the faith of Christ, and derivedfromthe Torah (ek nomou) contrasts with derivedfromGod (ek theou) on the basis of faith. These comments can be diagrammed thus: : :

It is apparently on the basis of such an understanding of the parallels that Hooker comments: 'Th[e] final phrase"based on/by faith"is not bal anced by any comparable phrase about the righteousness that comes from the law' (2000: 528). Now it is distinctly odd to pair 'my own' with 'through the faith of Christ' and 'derived from the Torah' with 'derived from God on the basis of faith'. 'My own' and 'through the faith of Christ' hardly seem to be operating on the same level. Even more problematic is the asymmetry between 'derived from the Torah' and 'derived from God on the basis of faith', doubly unusual precisely because the second phrase 'is not balanced by any comparable phrase about the righteousness that comes from the law' and has once again become orphaned from the first TTOTIS phrase. I submit that the rhetoric of Phil. 3.9 is based on antithesis, parallelism, and repetition. I would analyze the pattern of salient parallels and contrasts in Phil. 3.9 as follows: 10. Schenk understands in Phil. 3.9 'als Synonym fr "Evangelium" und seinem Inhalt', as in Gal. 1.23,3.2,5,23,25 on his reading (1984: 311-13; cf. 1972). 11. Alternatively, if the analysis is limited to the smaller chiasm (e.g., A. Plummer, I.-J. Loh and E.A. Nida, and J. Reumann, cited in Fee 1995: 321 n. 34 and Koperski 1996: 222-24), is again left dangling.

180

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

II

'

^ ,

The second line () parallels the first (I). The first formulation is more complex: formally an antithesis (not..., but rather... ), it thus includes both negative and positive elements. The second is formally simpler, including only positive elements. There is movement between the two lines. The second formulation amplifies the first, adding the final missing element, the counterpart to 'my own', namely 'from God'; and it reiterates the instrumental element, 'by (this) faith', omitting the negative 'by law'. Each formulation thus characterizes both upstream ('my own'/ 'from God') and downstream ('by law'/'by faith'), as it were; the first is characterized in one go, the second in two stages. This analysis falls out clearly and precisely from the syntax and word order of Phil. 3.9, as the four articles handily indicate: thefirsttwo articles function much like relative pronouns, pointing back to the first occurrence of and qualifying it with two prepositional phrases in the third attributive position ( , ^ ); the third article intro duces the second , enclosing a third prepositional phrase ( ) in the first attributive position, the same position as ; the fourth article ( ) is anaphoric, pointing back to the first occurrence of $. 12 Flanked by two complete, three-part characterizations of , the phrase $ is cast in reliefa function of the antithesis, of the anaphora, and of the overall parallel structure. Recall that Bockmuehl pairs 'my own' with 'through the faith of Christ', and ' derived from the Torah' with ' derived from God on the basis of faith'. On my analysis, 'my own' stands opposed to 'from God'. This may be justified not only in terms of syntax and word order, but also by appeal to the similar wording of Rom. 10.3, with which Phil. 3.9 is often compared. As to and , the two are of course verbally parallel, but not functionally or conceptually (Bockmuehl's translation 'derived from' obscures this): is 'from God', is 'by law'. Thus, 'by law' belongs together with 'through ^ ' and 'on the basis of faith' in the same structural position. Again, this may be justified not only in terms of syntax and word order, but also by appeal to wider Pauline usage. 12. Fee (1995: 325 n. 45) correctly notes the significance of the fourth article, though he does not attend to the others. On the usage represented by thefirsttwo, see Wallace 1996: 213-15, who in fact employs Phil. 3.9 as an example, though without relating the matter to - (which Wallace reads as subjective).

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of maris in Paul

181

In a striking recurrent pattern, Paul sets maris and - in antithesis, with instrumental or (or occasional stylistic variants), where the middle term is or (and variations): with : Gal. 2.16; 3.2, 5, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12, 18, 21, 22, 24; 5.5; Rom. 3.20, 26, 30; 4.2, 14, 16; 5.1; 9.30, 32; 10.5, 6; Phil. 3.9 with : Gal. 2.16, 19, 21; 3.14, 26; Rom. 3.20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 31; 4.13; Phil. 3.9 other: Gal.2.20;3.11;5.4();Rom.3.28(simpledative); Rom. 3.21,28; 4.6 (xcopis); Rom. 4.11, 13 (simple genitive); Phil. 3.9 (). My structural analysis of Phil. 3.9 thus takes account of its conformity to an antithetical rhetorical pattern encompassing all the mans contexts.13 The troubles with the analyses of Bockmuehl and Hooker seem to arise from the attempt to differentiate and the need, for the sake of the subjective genitive reading, to find meaning in the distinction between the two, as part of a supposed recurrent pattern of repetition in Gal. 2.16,3.22, Rom. 3.22 and Phil. 3.9. On my analysis, the structure of Phil. 3.9 frustrates that attempt. Naturally, Paul cow/t/have written differently, say, a single antithesis corresponding to Bockmeuhl's analysis: ^ . And had Paul done so, he would have left us with an odd reduplication of ^ phrases that might have led us to differentiate the two. As Phil. 3.9 stands, the two ^ phrases must be equivalent, the absence of either would be felt, and the presence of both has the effect if not the design of placing a certain emphasis on ^ (). But there is more to the repetition than just this emphasis. This can be briefly suggested by attending now to the two missing articles. The usage represented by thefirsttwo articles could have been repeated with the final prepositional phrase ( )that is, if the point were simply to emphasize mans, this would be even more emphatic. And is anarthrous, in contrast to . The force of this in and of itself is to qualify the first 'righteousness' as compared to the second.14 Paul could have dis13. Among recent commentaries, Fee's distinguishes itself not least for its sensitive and insightful attention to matters of rhetoric/style/structure. While his analysis of 3.9 differs from mine (1995:321-22), it is instructive nonetheless; and some of his actual comments on the text mightfindsupport in my analysis (and vice versa). On Phil. 3.9 and - , see also Koperski 1993: 213-16. 14. This may be approximated by a paraphrase such as 'my own righteousness, as it were', or by placing'righteousness' in inverted commas; cf. Fee 1995: 324n.40and

182

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

tinguishedbetween 'righteousness' andia with a single use of , and in fact does so in the first instance: $ . What is implicit in this initial formulation is then made explicit with a second use of : there are two righteousnesses in question. Paul's distinction in Phil. 3.9 between two kinds of 'righteousness' has provided more grist for the mill of perspectives old and new than I can possibly sift here. 13 For present purposes it may suffice simply to note that the repetition in Phil. 3.9 is as much about as it is about mans : $ is initially bound grammatically to thefirst(supposed) , but is immediately re-assigned to the second (true) , to which it properly belongs. This graphically highlights the qualitative shift from the first to the second 'righteousness', and implicitly denies that mans is a matter of 'one's own righteousness' (whatever one takes this to be). Paul's very rhetoric rings the changes on 'righteousness' in Christ. Now there is no reason why proponents of the subj ective genitive read ing should not concede this structural analysis, so far as it goes. That is, one could simply drop the redundancy argument and read both mans phrases in terms of Christ's 'faithfulness'. But the fortunes of ^ are not bound solely to rhetorical clues. There are in Philippians at least three clear contextual indications of the sense of $ in Phil. 3.9: the corresponding verb, , 'believe, have faith, trust' (1.29); the synonym , 'confidence' (3.4; cf. v. 3); and the (spatially and semantically) contiguous yvoxjis, , 'knowledge', 'know' (3.8, 10). And there are at least three clear contextual indications of the relation between mans and inPhil. 3.9: BIS , 'believing in him (Christ)' (1.29); , 'confidence in the flesh' (3.4; cf. v. 3); and riis ' , , 'the knowledge of Christ Jesus', 'that I might know him' (3.8,10). If we inquire into the relation between mans and in Phil. 3.9, then Phil. 1.29 immediately comes to our attention as the only other verse in the letter to O'Brien 1991: 394 (citing J.B. Lightfoot, M.R. Vincent, H.A.A. Kennedy, and M. Zerwick). 15. Two landmark positions on Phil. 3.9 are staked out by Bultmann, on the one hand, who says of the former that 'man's intention of becoming righteous before God by keeping the Law and thereby having his "boast" is already sin' (1951 : 267), and E.P. Sanders, on the other, according to whom 'the only thing that is wrong with the old righteousness seems to be that it is not the new one' (1983: 140). Reactions to these two cover much of thefield.To my mind, one of the most important advances in clarity here in recent years is Stephen Westerholm's distinction between 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary'righteousness(2004: 261-96).

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of mans in Paul

183

relate mans or and XpioTos. But there is more than just this to connect the two texts. The parallel between Phil. 1.29 and 3.9-10 is too striking to be coincidental: , s , 'For he [God, v. 28] has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in Christ ( t\s ), but of suffering () for him as well' (1.29); now compare Phil. 3.9-10, where Paul againjuxtaposes 'faith' and 'suffer ing', proceeding immediately from talk of his having a righteousness 'that comes through faith in Christ ( <^ ), the righteous ness from God based on faith ( )' to want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing ofhis sufferings () by becoming like him in his death... ' (cf. 1.30). Philippians 1.29 clearly anticipates 3.9-10, and the latter harks back to the former: '^ and $ are thus shown to be parallel constructions (just as in Gal. 2.16, on which see below); and this speaks both to the sense of ^ and the nature of the genitive ('faith in Christ', not 'Christ's faithfulness'). The second set of contextual factors is nearer to hand: Paul puts no confidence in the flesh ( , 3.4), but rather he boasts in Christ (.,. $, 3.3), he places his trust in Christ (^ , 3.9). As counterpart to ^ , the semantic parallel in Phil. 3 thus plays a role analogous to the formal parallel in Gal. 2-3 and Rom. 3, the other two mans contexts. Near est to hand, we find that ^ is flanked on either side by talk of 'knowing Christ', TT\S $ ' (objective genitive), in v. 8, and, following immediately on from , 'knowing him', , in . 10 (with the antecedent of understood from ^ ). The presence of yvcoois, further contributes to the selection of the semantically contiguous sense of - ('belief, faith, trust', not 'faithfulness'). As to the relationship between mans and , the claim is not that the objective genitive in v. 8 must determine that in v. 9, though neither does it hurt; nor is it that the repetition of 'know ing' must determine that of 'believing', though that does not hurt either; rather, it is the parallel direction of'knowing', 'believing', 'believing', 'knowing Chris f that is particularly significant (rhetorically and semanti cally). Notice finally that each of these three contextual parallels (1.29; 3.3-4; 3.8,10) provides semantic evidence both for the sense of ^ in 3.9 ('belief, faith, trust') and for the relation of ^ to (the direction or focus of'faith' is 'Christ'); and because they do so tacitly, and in three quite differentways, their cumulative weight in favor of the objec tive genitive reading is even greater than their three separate testimonies.

184

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

In Phil. 3, much as in Gal. 1-2, and more explicitly so, Paul presents himself as a paradigm of the work of the gospel (v. 17): he is granted the privilege not only of 'believing in Christ' but also of ' suffering with him', 'knowing him' first in humiliation and only then in glory (unlike those whose 'confidence in the flesh' makes of their own belly a god). Philip pians 3 is usually read as expanding on chs. 1 and 2, and this applies no less to 3.9. Paul makes no apology for his repetitiveness (3.1). Nor need we. Romans 3.22 Turning, then, to Rom. 3.22, wefindthat a few proponents ofthe subjective genitive reading offer a somewhat grudging admission of a possible ration ale for repetition in terms of an emphasis on 'all' (): 'the added note of "all" (pantas) lends some specificity, it is true, but not enough to make this added phrase necessary' (L.T. Johnson 1982: 79); 'it may be argued that the emphasis.. .is on and not on the fact of belief, but even then 'it must be admitted that...the construction is clumsy' (Campbell 1992: 62); on the objective genitive reading the second phrase 'becomes almost entirely redundant, adding only the (admittedly important) "all"' (Wright 2002: 470an intriguing formulation). Well should this much, at least, be conceded. For not only is , in its own right, a thematic word in Romans (1.5, 16; 2.9-10; 3.9, 19-20, 22-23; 4.11, 16; 5.12, 18; 10.4, 11-13; 11.26, 32; cf. Dunn 1988a: 40; 1988b: 689); it also keeps some interesting company with : in addition to in Rom. 3.22, we have (1.16), (4.11), (10.4) and (10.11). But more than just this general emphasis on 'all' in Romans, and more even than the repeated combination of and , is the matter of Paul's emphasis at this precise point: , , 'For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (3.23, the fifth repetition of in as many verses). In addition to all this, Rom. 3.22 is formally an amplification of v. 21, in which case repetition might not be thought out of place. Now, with these two / phrases, Paul does^zve things: he associates 'the righteousness of God' both with 'faith' and with 'Christ', he emphasizes its universal scope, and he associates 'faith' both with 'Christ' and with 'all'. Any alternative we would propose should do all of that, and better. So what would we have Paul write? To recommend that he drop the phrase would be to ask him to dispense with his signal counterpart to (Rom. 3.20; cf. Gal. 2.16). Simply

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of mans in Paul

185

dropping would not work either ( ' ?), nor can the 'all' element otherwise easily be added to the noun phrase ( only appears with the verb, and with the noun an auxiliary verb like would be needed, 'to all who have faith', which is not Pauline idiom). Would a single verb phrase be an improvement, say, ? Besides losing the formal correspondence of with , a verbal formu lation would introduce a subtle but important rhetorical shift. Verbs have to have subjects (and a substantive like just is a verbal subject), whereas a noun phrase like (objective genitive) foregrounds the object of faith while leaving the subject implicit. So, in writing ' , Paul places 'faith', 'Christ' and 'all 'to the fore, andhe links 'faith'with'Christ' awdwith 'all', while keeping the subject of faith in the background (for in this case the substantive simply stands in service of ). 'Ponderous redundancy'? 'Bizarre awkwardness'? 'Clumsy' and 'verbose'? Ifindno cause for 'embarrassment' here on the part of the objective genitive reading. As in the case of Phil. 3.9, proponents of the subjective genitive reading might prefer quietly to drop the redundancy argument, while still opting on other grounds to read ' as 'Christ's faithfulness'. Proponents of the objective reading will continue to see the combination of ' and as mutu ally interpreting. Is there any contextual evidence to break this impasse? Interestingly, attending to the question of redundancy in Rom. 3.22 itself casts further light on , by drawing attention to the phrases in Romans combining and . We turn now to one of these in particular, Rom. 10.11: . The continuation of this phrase is, of course, germane to our discussion here: ' . Naturally enough, Rom. 10.11 has sometimes been invoked in the debate as general evidence that Christ is an 'object of faith' in Paul (e.g., Dunn 1997:75 n. 60). But this text has not received the attention it merits, and when we take a closer look, we find that it has much more than just this general bearing on 3.22. Romans 10.11 in full runs thus: ' , 'The scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame".' That Paul is quoting scripture is thus prominently signaled; compare 9.33, where this same biblical text (Isa. 28.16) is quoted. This time Paul himself adds to the beginning of the quotation, which he now amplifies thus: ' ..., 'For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek... '

186

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

(10.12a). Who is this on whom (' ) one believes? He is the one whom () God raised from the dead, namely ' (10.9). Of this same one it is further said: , , 'the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved'" (10.12b-13). Joel 3.5, quoted in v. 13, justifies Paul's addition of to Isa. 28.16 (providing the fourth occurrence of in three verses, a concentration paralleled in 3.19-23). The two biblical quotations of w . 11 and 13 correspondi the 'believing' and 'confessing' of w . 9-10, which expand in turn upon the 'heart' and 'mouth' of v. 8 (Deut. 30.14). Together, these verses explicitly name 'Jesus' (v. 9) as the one on whose name one calls, as the risen 'Lord' who is the focus of 'faith'. He is the one 'heralded' and 'proclaimed' (, ) inPaul's 'gospel' (), 'the word of faith' ( ), the 'word of Christ' ( ), the one 'called upon' (), the one in whom ( , v. 14) 'faith' (/) is to be placed (w. 8, 14-17).16 What does it mean that no one who believes in him will be 'put to shame' (, 10.11)? This is not Paul's usual term but is lent him by Isaiah; nevertheless, it serves well enough as a place holder for andiKaioco, and (9.30-31,10.1,3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13). There is another important intertextual dimension to Paul's formulations in Romans: in Rom. 4.11, Abraham is said to be the 'father' of'all who believe' ( ), to whom 'righteousness' () is likewise 'reckoned' (),

16. There are (relatively few) dissenting views regarding the identity of the ('him/it') of Isa. 26.18 as cited in Rom. 9.33 (where the antecedent is ^, 'stone'), and to a lesser extent in 10.11. Barrett (1982 [1977]: 144) suggests that in 9.33 the referent is 'primarily the Torah', though 'in 10.11 must refer to Christ'. Meyer (2004 [1980]: 84) likewise suggests 'the Torah' in 9.33, without mentioning 10.11; subsequently (2004 [1988, 2000]: 198-200), he argues that 'God' is the referent in both 9.33 and 10.11. E.E. Johnson (1989: 154; 1995: 229-30) rightly argues that neither 'the Torah' nor 'God' can be sustained in light of 10.11, but then neglects to justify her own suggestion of 'the gospel' with respect to 10.11. Gaston (1987: 129, 131) and Toews (2004:260-61,266) argue for 'the gospel' and 'the law', respectively, in 9.33 (though meaning much the same thing), and both assert (incorrectly) that 'God' is the 'nearest antecedent' to in 10.11 (the 'nearest antecedent' to in 10.11 is patently in 10.9, the antecedent of which is ' ). Christ asrisenLord as the focus of 'faith' in Rom. 10 includes the notions of the action of God in Christ (10.9) and the message of this saving action (10.8); for whatever reason(s), these alternative readings of 10.11 seek to displace Christ as focus.

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of mans in Paul

187

echoing Gen. 15.6 (cf. 4.3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 22, 24). Here in Rom. 10, the phrase ////twicQ more echoes Gen. 15.6 (cf. 4.3, 5, 9, 22): , 'For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes' (10.4), and , 'one believes and is justified' (10.10). Returning to Rom. 10.11 : by adding to the quotation of Isa. 28.16 and by continuing with precisely the same wording as 3.22 ( ), Paul makes 10.11 the closest parallel to 3.22 outside 1.16-17, which latter Rom. 10.11-13 also echoes (, ,' ). For Paul, ' (10.11) is the biblical counterpart to his own (3.22). Together, Rom. 1.16-17, 3.22, and 10.11 form a mutually interpreting trio, offering the cumulative voice of'the law and the prophets' (3.21) regarding (Hab. 2.4; Gen. 15.6; Isa. 28.16; and, in antithesis, Lev. 18.5).17 Galatians 3.22 In the (otherwise distinct) cases of Phil. 3.9 and Rom. 3.22, the contested phrases are, on the very surface, part of an amplification. To that extent, at least, the argument from redundancy was questionable from the start. The case of Gal. 3.22 is different: , ' ' , 'But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe'. The final phrase, 7 , does not appear to reiterate or amplify the phrase. So here, perhaps, the charge that the objective genitive translation is 'redundant', as Richard Hays asserts, might hope to gain some purchase. To see whether this is so, we need to note the precise form of the translation to which Hays reacts: Galatians 3.22 poses significant difficulties for the usual interpretation of 17. It is remarkable that Richard Hays should write a monograph on (1983) and another on Paul's interpretation of scripture (1989) without ever mention ing Rom 10.11, and yet while claiming with great emphasis that 'Romans is from start tofinishthoroughly theocentric. Nowhere is there any statement comparable to Gal 2.16 which unambiguously presents Christ as an object of faith' (1983:170-71), and while minimizing 'christocentric hermeneutics' in Paul (1989: xiii, 84-87,98-99, 177).

188

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007) ' as 'faith in Jesus Christ'. The SFtranslation, which is an impossible distortion of Paul's Greek, reflects the awkwardness which results from attempting to make the text say what Paul is usually supposed to mean: 'But the Scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe'. The preposition cannot bear the meaning that RSV here forces upon it. Furthermore, the phrase ' should, on the analogy of Paul's usage in 2.16, 3.8,11,14,24, almost certainly be understood to modify the verb rather than the noun (1983: 157-58).

Hays then notes that a translation like E.D. Burton's avoids these problems but gives rise in turn to the problem of 'redundancy' : 'that, on the ground of faith in Jesus, the promise might be given to those who believe' (1983: 158). And Hays has a point: on this rendering, it looks as though the verb phrase 'to those who believe' ( ) could simply be omitted without loss. May we then declare the redundancy argument a success with respect to Gal. 3.22? Not just yetthere is this other reading represented by the RSV. But Hays actually seems to steer us toward the problematic, redundant reading, and away from the RSV, which he writes off as hope less. Human nature (or my nature) being what it is, I want to take a closer look at the RSV. Notice how the scorn that Hays heaps onto the RSV rendering pointedly spills over onto the objective genitive reading as such. Similarly Hooker: One thing can be said with certainty: the RSV is badly mistaken in trans lating the phrase as 'what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ'. By no stretch of the imagination can be translated as 'to', and something is badly wrong with interpretation when translators resort to such devices (1989: 329). Both take particular umbrage at the translation of as 'to'. But this seems to me to be a distraction. The real issue is the structure of the RSV trans lation: 'that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe'. Here the two / phrases are not redundant but coordinated, the first taken with the making of the promise, the second with the keeping of the promise. On this question of structure, Hays and Hooker are not very forthcoming. Hooker asks whether we should take with or with , but then asserts without explanation that 'if the phrase is understood to signify "faith in Christ", the former interpretation is impossible' (Hooker 1989: 329).18 18. Hooker goes on to assert that the promise 'was made on the basis of Abraham's faith' (1989: 329, her emphasis), and so her assertion of the impossibility of taking objective ' with seems to rest on the assumption

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of mans in Paul

189

Nor does Hays explain how Gal. 2.16,3.8,11,14,24 make for such cer tainty on this score.19 At any rate, the RSV is represented as being so selfevidently wrong that no serious exploration of its alternative construal of Gal. 3.22 is warranted. As if to get back in their good graces, the NRSV drops the offending translation of , and into the bargain it offers the subjective genitive as the marginal reading: 'But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ [or, through the faith of Jesus Christ] might be given to those who believe'. 'Through faith' now follows the normal pattern for , and so the only issue that remains is the real one: the NRSV persists in taking ' with the promise and with its reception. But Hays is still preoccupied with the RSV s handling of : The RSV made a hash of this sentence by translating as 'to': '...that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe'. The NRSV offers only minimal improvement by changing 'to' to 'through'. The sense of the passage is significantly clarified, however, if we read the phrase $ as a modifier of and translate, '.. .so that what was promised might be given through the faith fulness of Jesus Christ [i.e., his death on the cross for us, as in 2.20] to those who believe' (1997: 54). There is a sleight of hand here. Hays gestures dramatically to the question of the translation of , and then offers to restore the sense of the text by making a completely different and unconnected alteration, but one that he does not identify as such, nor offer any argument for. And an argument is owed us here, because taking ' with , on Hays's insistence, actually creates the possibility of redundancy, which he then exploits in favor of the subjective reading. The RSV/NRSV escapes this maneuver. But on Hays's telling, the RSV/NRSV translators are made to look incompetent or confused (with the implication that their

that this would entail that Abraham's faith was 'faith in Christ'. 19. Presumably what is meant is that, in these other instances, ^ is that by which presently one is 'justified' or receives 'the promise', rather than being a matter of the original promise; but this simply begs the question, and is undermined by Gal. 3.8. Hays subsequently drops this oblique argument and substitutes another: 'Certainly none of the Genesis texts to which Paul has appealed speaks of a promise "to faith in Jesus Christ'" (so RSV), but rather 'the promise was given only to Abraham and to Christ (3.16)' (1987: 279); but this seems still to be hung up on the translation of', and falls far short of a justification for taking ' ' with rather than .

190

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

problem lies ultimately with the very attempt to read the objective geni tive), and Hays wins by default. We come then to Hays's recent commentary on Galatians, where pre sumably he will finally have scope to direct some argument toward the substantive issue implicit in any charge of redundancy, the issue implicitly raised both by the RSV and the NRSV: namely, the question of the structure of Gal. 3.22b, the relationship between its several elements (, ' , and ). Again Hays makes an example of the NRSV: [It reflects] the awkwardness of attempting to interpret ' to mean 'through faith in Jesus Christ'. The NRSV reads the phrase as a modifier of the noun 'promise' (), producing the peculiar rendering, 'what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ'. This makes no sense, since neither the Genesis text nor Paul's exposition of it has referred to anything being promised through faith in Jesus Christ (2000: 269). For one known for his attention to the subtleties of Paul's interpretation of scripture, Hays shows a remarkable lack of curiosity in this 'peculiar' suggestion of a biblical promise concerning 'faith in Christ', dismissing it without discussion in a single line. At any rate, it is now clear that Hays takes it as read that there is no 'faith in Christ' in Genesis. Or is there? Let us start with Gal. 3.22 and work back, tracing the threads that Paul ties together here. The offending NRSV translation of 3.22b, again, is 'so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe'. Now the problem with this rendering cannot be that it 'makes no sense' in and of itself It follows the word order of Gal. 3.22 exactly, without any question of redundancy; and the assertion that the terms of the promise have not changed, that the promise is now being kept on the same terms as were in view when it was first made, is precisely the point that Paul labors to make in Gal. 3.6-21. Paul emphatically insists that the-coming-four-hundred-and-thirty-years-laterlaw ( ) cannot and does not alter the promise (3.17-18, 21); nor has he, Paul, altered the terms, but rather his adversaries in Galatia are attempting to do so (1.6-9; 5.7). One can easily see why Paul, as a matter of some urgency, would maintain that 'what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ [should] be given to those who believe' (3.22b): some would now have it be given rather to those who observe the law, placing the Galatians (the 'believers' most immediately in view) outside the promise unless they comply. For Paul, this is a matter of the integrity of the gospel (2.5,14), the integrity of Paul himself as apostle to the Gentiles (1.16,2.1-10), and, most impor-

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of mans in Paul

191

tantly, the integrity of God in making and keeping his promises (3.15-18). But Hays does not explore the sense that such a reading might make, because for him it is a complete non-starter. Why? Again, the only reason he offers is that 'neither the Genesis text nor Paul's exposition of it has referred to anything being promised through faith in Jesus Christ'. We need not wonder that Genesis should fail to speak of 'anything being promised through faith in Jesus Christ' as such. But what about Paul's exposition of it? In Galatians, three times , 'the Scripture', actively speaks: at 3.8, 3.22 and 4.30. In the first and third of these instances, a specific word of scripture is meant: Gen. 12.3 (with 18.18) at Gal. 3.8, and Gen. 21.10 at Gal. 4.30. In Gal. 3.22a, 'but the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin', the particular speech-action of 'the Scripture' effecting this 'imprisonment' is the curse pronounced by Deut. 27.26 on 'everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law' (Gal. 3.10), while the 'promise' in question in Gal. 3.22b is the blessing pronounced by Gen. 12.3/18.18, the first speechaction of 'the Scripture' in Galatians (Gal. 3.8). There, the promise, spoken to Abraham ( ), is that 'all the Gentiles shall be blessed in you' ( ). In speaking thus, 'declared the gospel beforehand' () to Abraham. It was able to do so because it commanded a view from which it could be seen 'that God would justify the Gentiles by faith' (.,. ). That is to say, 'the Scripture'foresaw Paul's very mission. Paul moves directly from talk of this 'blessing' to the 'curse' pronounced by the law on its transgressor. But through Christ's death, the outworking of the law's 'curse' is, paradoxically, that the pro mised blessing has been received , (3.10-14). This outcome was anticipated in both particulars: the promised blessing is that of being 'justified' (3.8), and the promise was spoken not just to Abraham, but to Abraham and to his seed ( '... ),namely, Christ (3.16, 19)'inyou' 20 (3.8) already includes Christ. The law could not alter the terms of the promisethat would not be a promise kept, but a promise broken (3.17, 18). Nor is the law against () God's promisesemphatically not ( )the law and the promise are not true rivals:

20. Dahl 1977:131,171 (followed by Hays 1983:209) argues that Gal. 3.14 echoes Gen. 22.18 (' in your offspring') and anticipates 3.16. But notice that the form of words in Gal. 3.16, 'to your offspring', is that of Gen. 13.15,17.8,24.7 (soNA27 margin), not Gen. 22.18, 'in your offspring'. Galatians 3.8, 14, 16 taken all together echo Gen. 22.18 (or, Gen. 22.18 confirms Paul's interpretive moves in Gal. 3.8, 14, 16).

192

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

, , 'For if a law had been given that could make alive, thenrighteousnesswould indeed come through the law' (3.21). God has promised that 'in/through Christ' he will 'justify' () the Gentiles (3.8,16). The promised cannot be (3.21). By juxtaposing Deut. 27.26 and Gen. 12.3/18.18 in Gal. 3.22, Paul brings to a single point the argument he has been running since 3.6: the law subserves the promise. The terms of the promise have not changedand not despite the law, but rather the law has played its own (paradoxical) role in this very outcome. The law actually enforces the original terms of the promise: 'But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe' (3.22).21 As for those who would confuse the Galatians on these matters, the next time 'the Scripture' speaks it will be to order their expulsion (4.29-30). Hays's complaint that 'this makes no sense' would more readily be anticipated as coming from these Pauline adversaries. Where, they ask, do the Scriptures ever say what Paul claims? As for Hays, he very well knows that Paul finds 'the gospel', 'faith' and 'Christ' in Genesis. The trouble is Hays is no more eager to find 'faith in Christ' in Paul than in his Bible. But if in Gal. 3.22 Paul asserts that the promise has been kept on the same terms as were in view from the beginning, this means that the two / phrases must be equivalent, by the very logic of Paul's argument, and without redundancy. And in that case, the objective genitive reading is selected ( ' and both speak of the of'believers'). 22 The question of redun dancy has led us to inquire more closely into the relationship between the two / phrases and the other related elements in Gal. 3.22. And by pursuing that inquiry in a direction that Hays did not appear anxious to go, where he finally declared nothing lay, we have found fresh light on . In the process, the RSV and NRSV have been 21. To read Gal. 3 in this way faces the formidable opposition of Martyn's magis terial Galatians commentary (see 1997: 307-73); but it is just here that his sharply discontinuous reading of Galatians is particularly open to challenge. My own perspec tive is nearer that of J.S. Vos, with whom Martyn is in frequent dialogue at this point: 'Nur auf indirektem Wege steht das Gesetz im Dienst des Lebens: auf dem Umweg der Snde macht es den Weg frei fr die Erfllung der Verheiung an Abraham' (1992: 266). 22. Notice that this reading does not require that Abraham had 'faith in Christ', which thought seemed to trouble Hays and Hooker (though even this might not be so fanciful for Paul, according to whom the promises made to and believed by Abraham entailed a particular future 'seed').

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of mans

in Paul

193

exonerated, along with the objective genitive reading for which they have 23 suffered such abuse. Galatians 2.16 The case of Gal. 2.16 is different yet again. Recall that some of the strongest formulations of the redundancy argument have, surprisingly, been reserved for Gal. 2.16'an un-Pauline, wooden redundancy', 'full of redundancies and tautology', a 'triple redundancy' that 'discredits' the objective genitive readingsurprising, I say, in that repetition is patently a stylistic feature of this text. Indeed, the first rhetorical feature to notice, obvious on even a cursory glance at the verse, is this threefold repetition of contrasting and / phrases (underlined): [] , ' . ' . For present purposes, I will confine myself to the structural question of the inter-relation of and movement between these six phrases. Indeed, I would expect this set of oppositions to figure prominently in any analysis of the structure of Gal. 2.16, an expectation confirmed by two recent commentaries on Galatians (both of which argue for the

23. The reading offered here of Gal. 3.22 is my own, formulated in the course of reflection on . It was only after the fact that I discovered both the corroboration suggested by the RSV and Hays's fixation with this translation. As to the offending translation of', I have no inside knowledge, but I doubt that the RSV translators suddenly thought that this preposition has the lexical meaning 'to'. At several points in Gal. 3, Paul extends his / contrast with ' phrases that are on anyone ' s view somewhat awkward, but for which Paul has particular contextual and intertextual reasons (cf. 3.7, 9,10, which are anchored in 3.8 and 3.11). I take it that at 3.22 the RSV departs from the Pauline form for the sake of what is perceived to be the meaning: 'what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ', that is, the original terms of the promise (3.8, 14, 16). One can of course contest this rendering in a principled way (and the NRSV wisely revises it). But to make sport of it as Hays and Hooker do amounts to a simple preference for literal translation; and to think that one is thereby exposing problems with the objective genitive reading as such is simply mistaken. At any rate, I dwell on Hays's peculiar handling of Gal. 3.22 in order to make an epistemic point, regarding the ignoring, or even suppressing, of contrary evidence. Of course it may rather be that Hays had no idea what lay down the path that he was (in that case inadvertently) blocking; but that would be small mitigation.

194

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

subjective genitive reading of ).24 Frank Matera comments on how 'the careful and balanced structure of v. 16 highlights the basic opposition between ex ergon nomou and ek psteos Christou\ which he displays thus (1992: 99): Knowing that a person is not justified but even we have believed in order that we might be justified and not because no one will be justified ex ergon nomou dia psteos Isou eis Isou ek psteos ex ergon nomou ex ergon nomou Christou Christou [sic] Christou

Notice that the third element, the verb phrase 'even we have believed in Christ Jesus', is halfway in, halfway out of the pattern of repetitions that Matera identifieswhich may serve the interests of the subjective genitive reading, but raises questions about the careful balance Matera himself remarked upon. J. Louis Martyn draws attention in a similar way to the same structural feature of Gal. 2.16, noting how Paul's basic 'antinomy' is stated 'three times in this one sentence' (1997: 250): The human being is not rectified (a) by observance of the Law, but rather (b) by the faith of Christ Jesus. Thus, even we Jewish Christians have placed our trust in Christ Jesus, in orderthat we might be rectified (b') by the faith of Christ and not (a') by observance of the Law; for not a single person will be rectified (a") by observance of the Law. Martyn removes the phrase entirely from the column of repeti tions, which is more straightforward from the point of view of the subjec tive genitive reading. But this disturbs the pattern that he himself identifies, for now, strictly speaking, the 'antinomy' is repeated two-and-a-half times, not three (cf. 1997: 252). However one decides the question of , all six phrases clearly belong together, structurally: the phrase is not coincidental but interacts with the and

24. As I pointed out in the case of Phil. 3.9 above, I would again note that my independent analysis of the structure of Gal. 2.16 preceded my attending to the alter native analyses summarized here; but for the sake of presentation, I have reversed that order, again to highlight certain anomalies that my approach avoids.

MATLOCK The Rhetoric of mans in Paul

195

phrases. But one can understand the reluctance of Matera and Martyn to include the verb phrase, since the rhetorical pattern is precisely one of repetition, which would of itself tend to create the expectation of an objec tive genitive reading of . So, Matera and Martyn both con firm the structural significance of the repeated contrast between and , while provoking further questions about the pattern of this repetition. Returning to Gal. 2.16, we can label the elements A and the / elements B, and attempt to discern a pattern.

'$ [] av0pcoTTOs ' , T\[iB\s ' , , .

If we simply list these elements seriallyABBBAAno pattern is yet evident. The verb (passive) appears three times as well, and is clearly the middle term between the contrasting and / phrases: one is 'justified' and not . Nevertheless, we do not find a simple threefold repetition of this same antithesis, one after the other. Another possibly significant structural fea ture is that three times a subject is specified: , and . These twelve items are unevenly distributed across four clauses. Though we have not yet arrived at a clear pattern, one thing is certain: repetition in Gal. 2.16 is not a product of the objective reading of . The verse is little else but repetition, suitably stitched together. But stitched together how? Some have proposed a chiastic structure. I will note three recent examples (all of which assume the objective genitive reading). William Walker suggests the following arrangement (1997: 520):
C ' ' ([ ] ), 7 ' ' ,

, .

196

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

Another chiastic arrangement is proposed by Michael Theobald (1999: 137-38):

, C ' ' , ' ' ' ,

A third possibility is offered by Michael Bachmann (1992: 59-62):

7 ' , ' C ' , D ' ' , ' , ' .

These three proposals share three features in common. First, all three are built upon the repetition of and / phrases (in agree ment with Matera and Martyn). Second, all three place the same clause in the key, central position: 'even we in Christ Jesus have believed' (in con trast to Matera and Martyn). Third, this result is gerrymandered in each case. Walker's version breaks its own pattern by placing two phrases in the final position (A'). The other two avoid this anomaly, but create others in turn. Theobald leaves off thefinal phrase, treat ing it separately as a concluding biblical allusion; but from the point of view of structure, this seems arbitrary, and in any case is Paul's own addition to the allusion. Bachmann is consistent in that he assigns the final phrase its own position just like the other phrases; but then he has to find a partner for it, into which service v. 15 is artificially pressed (the partner to v. 15 is surely v. 17). From what we know already, we could have predicted these difficulties. There are six and / phrases, three of each; and they occur in the order ABBB AA. These six phrases in that order do not form a chiasm or at least, not without help. Although this case is quite different in detail from that of Phil. 3.9,1 propose that the rhetoric of Gal. 2.16 is likewise based on antithesis, parallelism, and repetition.

MATLOCK The Rhetoric / in Paul

197

la Ib IIa IIb

[] ' , - vV / . \ , , , . , n .

This two-part structure is built around two antitheses: la and Eta. These are simply inverse formulations of the same antithesis: not , but rather ; , and not .25 In each

25. There are two, related semantic issues regarding : (1) the question of an overlap between and / in Hellenistic usage; (2) the question of English idiom and translation equivalents. I regard the overlap between and / as an unexceptional feature of New Testament Greek (see Zerwick 1963: 468-71). Thus and are used interchangeably in Mk 4.22, in Mk 9.8 we find where we might have expected (corrected to the latter in a few manuscripts), and in Gal. 1.7 we find where we might have expected . This puts in question the attempt to place the two in entirely separate categories, 'adversative' () vs. 'exceptive' (/ ). But even if it is felt necessary to insist that / is always 'properly exceptive, not adversative', it is still possible to read Gal. 2.16a as anti thetical in force, as Burton argues (1921:121 ; cf. Walker 1997): introduces an 'exception' not to the whole but to the 'principal part' of the preceding, . While Burton thus insists on separate categories, he correctly notes that, 'since the word "except" in English is always understood to introduce an exception to the whole of what precedes, it is necessary to resort to the paraphrastic translation "but only"' (1921:121). This implicitly raises our second semantic issue: and / are not co-extensive with the default English translation equivalents 'but' and 'except' (cf. Louw and Nida 89.125,131). Either way, an antithetical reading of Gal 2.16a is unproblematic. Nevertheless, uncertainty regarding an 'adversative' trans lation of in Gal. 2.16a is occasionally used as leverage for an alternative read ing. Seifrid (2003: 217-18 andn. 4) solves this supposedly 'perplexing problem' by reading together, as a way of saying 'a Jew': 'Recognizing that "a person of the works of the Law" is not justified except through faith in Christ'; but the semantic considerations noted here render this proposal unnecessary, and parallel cases like Rom. 3.28 (cf. Jas 2.24; Gal. 3.11) render it most unlikely. Dunn (1982:112-15) argued (notoriously) that Paul begins (v. 16a) with a common Jewish Christian assumption that 'works of law' and 'faith in Christ' are 'complementary' ( = except), but then pushes this into an 'outright antithesis' by the end of the verse; Dunn subsequently adjusted his reading linguistically to something like Burton's, while still emphasizing the deliberate 'ambiguity' of Paul's formulation (1990: 212; 1993: 137-38, 140). But again, this is semantically unnecessary and

198

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

case, the final element of the antithesis is reiterated in an amplifying clause: lb and lib. In the first instance, Paul affirms 'faith in Christ' on the part of 'we (' )' (cf. v. 15); in the second instance, he denies 'works of law' on behalf of'all flesh'. The pattern of repetition, then, is ABB / BAA. While not strictly speaking a chiasm, is thus the inverse of I. Notice that this structure in and of itself selects the objective genitive reading of : lb and IIb reiterate and amplify the final member of the antithesis stated in la and Ha, which establishes the equivalence of ' and ' . In general terms, the parallel between these two formula tions has long been held to argue in favor of the objective reading, an argument typically cancelled out by the subjective reading by appeal to redundancy. That stalemate gives way upon this closer inspection. There is one final dimension to the structure of Gal. 2.16 to be observed, which brings the rationale for Paul's rhetoric more clearly into view.
ESTES []

la

o ' ,

Antithesis. Generic Amplification. Personal Antithesis. Personal Amplification. Generic

Ib

IIa

< .

'

The first antithesis (la) is formulated in generic or impersonal terms: the subject is . It is amplified (lb) in specific or personal terms: the subject is . The second antithesis (Ha) is personal: the subject is continued in the first person plural form of . Its amplification (b) is generic: the subject is . Notice that this dimension reveals another inversion in the order of the repetition. The verse moves from impersonal to personal, then from personal to impersonal, a move-

contextually unlikely (there is simply no tension between Paul's two antitheses in Gal. 2.16). Das (2000: 530-32,537) and De Boer (2005:194-97), who argue that Gal. 2.16a is an early Jewish Christian formula, wOuld put Dunn's reading on a firmer footing; but on e their argument is statistical rather than semantic, and they x grossly over-interpret - . The wording of Gal. 2.16a conforms to a pattern of /- contrasts, noted above in connection with Phil. 3.9\ foundonly in Paul (or Pauline commentary: Eph. 2.8-9; Jas 2.24). This pattern of distribution offers no basis for a hypothetical common formula, and in fact argues strongly against it.

MATLOCK The Rhetoric / in Paul

199

ment reflected in the three named subjects, , and . With this final dimension of Gal. 2.16 in view, its carefully wrought structure is on full display: every piece is integral to the complete thought; and thus contextual pressure is simultaneously exerted from a number of directions to read the obj ective genitive. Fear of redundancy and tautology is utterly misplaced. But notice now that if we manipulate this structure, combining the generic and the personal clauses (la with Hb, Ha with lb), we can induce tautology and redundancy: 'we know that a person is not justified by works of law but through faith in Christ, since no one will be justified by works of law; in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law, even we have believed in Christ Jesus'. In this hypothetical case, Paul would indeed be attempting to prove his point simply by restating it, and there would be no clear reason for the repetition other than perhaps to create the appearance of argument. This helps us pinpoint the actual argumentative movement of the verse: here the Jewish Christian experience of the gospel is placed within a common human narrative. The repetition serves not merely for the sake of emphasis, but to make a point of this Jewish experience for the benefit of a non-Jewish audience: 'in placing our trust in Christ, we Jews have implicitly acknowledged our place alongside, not above, the Gentiles where righteousness is concerned'. 'We Jews' take our place, literally (in the literal sense of literal), between and . Once again, Paul's very rhetoricringsthe changes on 'righteousness' in Christ.26

26. While there is not room to develop the point here, this analysis of rhetoric/structure can help clarify Paul's (practical) reasoning. Firstly, it is often now stated that Paul is arguing herefrom'common knowledge', from a commonly agreed premise (so, e.g., Dunn 1993: 134 and Hays 2000: 236). While an improvement on the older tendency to pit Paul simplistically against his tradition, this suggestion of a ready-to-hand agreement jars with the polemical setting. Paul is not stating common knowledge, but neither does he take himself to be innovating. He is making explicit what he takes to be implicit in the practice of the gospel; the expected agreement will be a matter not of formal logic, but of belonging to a common life. Secondly, the force of' is clarified. This has been a matter of great concern to the subjective genitive reading of TTOTIS , in terms of avoiding a soteriological 'reciprocal exchange' (see Martyn 1997: 252, 276 n. 182). On my reading, the' introducing the second antithesis is no more objectionable than the introducing the first; indeed, both function more or less identically as serving to make the implicit explicit.

200

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

Conclusion This inquiry has operated within certain self-imposed limits. I have attended onlyto matters that bearupon the disputed formu lations in Gal. 2.16,3.22, Rom. 3.22 and Phil. 3.9, and at that principally to matters of rhetoric or structure. I have inquired closely into the inter relation of and interaction between the several / phrases encountered in these four verses, and the role such considerations might play in their own right in disambiguating . In response to this line of questioning, these old familiar texts have yielded several new pieces of evidence. In each case, the structural inquiry proper opens up into a number of contextual or intertextual considerations in favor of the objective genitive reading; and in the case of Gal. 2.16the first text, programmatic for Galatians if not for all the disputed textsthe structural analysis itself, narrowly conceived, weighs decisively in favor of the objective reading. To be sure, no one rests their case solely on the redundancy argument, nor I on countering it. But taking this as our point of departure has allowed us to attend not just to Paul's rhetoric but also to that of a number of his recent interpreters, and the resulting methodological clarification of the redundancy argument in principle is a matter of quite general interest. This has resulted more particularly in a damning critique of the epistemic performance of a number of proponents of the subjective genitive reading. For to claim, at times quite extravagantly, that the obj ective reading results in redundancy without following through with the kind of structural investigation carried out herean investigation precisely implicated in the claim itselfis truly to build with hay and stubble, as the man himself might say. A final methodological observation concerns the fact that the argument for the subjective genitive needed to find a common pattern to these four verses, whereas we have actually found that no two are quite alike. This amounts cumulatively to a further argument for the objective reading. For in four such different cases, we have found different contextual factors that consistently but differently select the objective genitive reading. That adds up to weighty evidence indeed.

MATLOCK The Rhetoric / in Paul

201

References
Bachmann, M. 1992 Snder oder bertreter: Studien zur Argumentation in Gal 2,15ff. (WUNT, 59; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck). Barrett, CK. 1982 Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster Press). Bockmuehl, M.N.A. 1998 The Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). Bultmann, R. 1951 Theology of the New Testament (vol. 1; trans. Grobel; New York: Scribners). Burton, E.D. The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark). 1921 Campbell, D.A. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26 (JSNTSup, 65; Sheffield: 1992 Sheffield Academic Press). Dahl, N.A. 1977 Studies in Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg). Das, A.A. 2000 'Another Look at in Galatians 2.16', JBL 119: 529-39. De Boer, M.C. 'Paul's Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2.152005 2l\ JSNT2S: 189-216. Dunn, J.D.G. 1982 'The New Perspective on Paul', BJRL 65: 95-122. 1988a Romans 1-8 (WBC, 38A; Dallas: Word Books). 1988b Romans 9-16 (WBC, 38B; Dallas: Word Books). 1990 Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK). 1993 The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). 1997 'Once More, ', in E.E. Johnson and D.M. Hay (eds.), Pauline Theology. IV. Looking Back, Pressing On (Atlanta: Scholars Press): 61-81. Fee, G.D. Paul's Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). 1995 Gaston, L. Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press). 1987 Hays, R.B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of 1983 1987 1989 1997 Galatians 3.1-4.11 (SBLDS, 56; Chico, CA: Scholars Press). 'Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ', CBQ 49: 268-90. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press). ' and Pauline Christology: What is at Stake?', in E.E. Johnson and D.M. Hay (eds.), Pauline Theology. IV. Looking Back, Pressing On (Atlanta: Scholars Press): 35-60. The Letter to the Galatians (NIB, 11 ; Nashville: Abingdon Press).

2000

202

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007)

Hooker, M.D. 1989 2000 Howard, G. 1992 Jervis, L.A. 1999 Johnson, E.E. 1989 1995

' ', NTS 35: 321-42. The Letter to the Philippians (NIB, 11; Nashville: Abingdon Press). '"Faith of Christ"', in ABD II: 758-60. Galatians (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9-11 (SBLDS, 109; Atlanta: Scholars Press). 'Romans 9-11 : The Faithfulness and Impartiality of God', in D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline Theology. III. Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 211-39. 'Romans 3.21-26 and the Faith of Jesus', CBQ 44: 77-90. Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Crossroad). '"Jesus" in Romans', JBL 108: 443-60.

Johnson, L.T. 1982 1997 Keck, L. 1989 Koperski, V. 1993 1996

'The Meaning of Pistis Christou in Philippians 3.9', LS 18: 198-216. The Knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: The High Christology of Philippians 3.7-11 (CBET, 16; Kampen: Kok Pharos). Longenecker, R.N. 1990 Galatians (WBC, 41; Dallas: Word Books). Martin, R.P. 1980 Philippians (NCBC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Martyn, J.L. 1997 Galatians (AB, 33A; New York: Doubleday). Matera, F.J. 1992 Galatians (SP, 9; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press). Matlock, R.B. 2000 'Detheologizing the Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective', NovT42: 1-23. 2002 '"Even the Demons Believe": Paul and TH'GTIS ', CBQ 64: 300-18. Meyer, P.W. 2004 The Word in the World: Essays in New Testament Exegesis and Theology (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox). Moo, D.J. 1996 The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). O'Brien, P.T. 1991 Commentaiy on Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Sanders, E.P. 1983 Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Schenk, W. 1972 'Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes und der Glaube Christi', TLZ 97: 161-74. 1984 Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).

MATLOCK The Rhetoric / in Paul

203

Schreiner, T.R. 1998 Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House). Seifrid, M.A. 2003 'Paul, Luther, and Justification in Gal. 2.15-2, WTJ65: 215-30. Stowers, S.K. 1994 A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press). Theobald, M. 'Der Kanon von der Rechtfertigung (Gal. 2,16; Rom 3,28)Eigentum des 1999 Paulus oder Gemeingut der Kirche?', in T. Sding (ed.), Worum geht es in der Rechtfertigungslehre? (QD, 180; Freiburg: Herder): 131-92. Toews, J.E. Romans (BCBC; Scottdale, PA: Herald). 2004 Vos, J.S. 1992 'Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11-12; Rmer 10.510)', NTS 38: 254-70. Walker, W.O., Jr. 1997 'Translation and Interpretation of in Galatians 2.16', JBL 116:51520. Wallace, D.B. 1996 Greek Grammar beyond the Basics. An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Wallis, I.G. The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (SNTSMS, 84; 1995 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Watson, F. 2004 Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark). Westerholm, S 2004 Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The 'Lutheran ' Paul and his Critics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Williams, S.K. 'Again Pistis Christof, CBQ 49: 431-47. 1987 Galatians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press). 1997 Witherington, B. 1998 Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St Paul's Letter to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). Wright, N.T. 2002 The Letter to the Romans (NIB, 10; Nashville: Abingdon Press). Zerwick, M. 1963 Biblical Greek (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.