|
" Epagōgē and Paradeigma: "
Johnson, Curtis
Rossing, Barbara
| Document Type
|
:
|
Latin Dissertation
|
| Language of Document
|
:
|
English
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
1104682
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
TLpq2243731970
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Johnson, Curtis
|
|
|
:
|
Rossing, Barbara
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Epagōgē and Paradeigma:\ Johnson, CurtisRossing, Barbara
|
| College
|
:
|
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
|
| Date
|
:
|
2019
|
| student score
|
:
|
2019
|
| Degree
|
:
|
Ph.D.
|
| Page No
|
:
|
235
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
I argue that Paul employs personal proofs (and a non-personal one) from the past and that these proofs are analogous to rather than the opposite of the situation that took place in Galatia. I prefer to call these personal proofs "paradeigmata," which are inductive in nature are independent of one another in time and space and yet each one reinforces the other rhetorically. In addition, Paul's paradeigmata are not self-referential in the sense that he attempts to draw attention to himself or defend his apostolic authority. Instead, he employs them to establish the ethos (the truth) of his gospel he received through revelation (1:1, 12) and to support his causa and sub-issues (1:6-9, 10-12). Although I recognize that Paul employs several paradeigmata in Galatians, I will only select four for critical analysis. In the first one, Paul gives an account of his visit to Syria and Cilicia (1:21-24). Here, Paul employs an inartificial proof through the means of an example to verify the independent nature and truth of his gospel through the testimony of the Churches in Judea. In the second one, Paul employs a recent or present example of a meeting that took place in Jerusalem (2:1-10). His inclusion of the discourse are to demonstrate that he defended the truth of his gospel against the false brethren and to explain that the pillar apostles agree with his presentation of the circumcision – free gospel. In the third one, Paul constructs another recent example that transpired in Antioch (2:11-14). The emphasis in this example is Paul's recollection of the confrontation he had with Peter and perception that the truth of the gospel was at stake in Antioch. In the fourth and final one, Paul employs a historical example through the person of Abraham (3:6-9). I contend that Paul presumably counters the agitators' use of Abraham as an argument by example (3:6), and therefore Paul employs the patriarch not only as a personal example of faith but also to prove that the divine origins of his gospel antedated the law. The common thread in Paul's employment of these four paradeigmata is to state the idea more directly that the truth of the gospel is at stake.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Biblical studies
|
|
|
:
|
Philosophy of religion
|
|
|
:
|
Rhetoric
|
| |