Paul's Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12

As one of the most important texts of the apostle Paul, Galatians offers a good
starting-point for an investigation of Paul’s argumentation. The letter is polemical and contains a substantial amount of argumentative passages. Paul evidently wanted to persuade by using the best arguments possible to convince his addressees. Although the argumentation of Paul is often an issue within New Testament exegesis, few have attempted an argumentation analysis of Pauline texts.

Using a state-of-the-art method from the discipline of argumentation analysis,
Paul’s argumentation can be analysed with a precision that standard exegetical methods cannot provide. The pragma-dialectical method developed in Amsterdam facilitates an analysis which is both descriptive and normative. On the one hand, Paul’s argumentation can be described, such as the relationship between premisses and conclusions, the structure of the arguments, and features relating to elements of logos, ethos, and pathos. On the other hand, the method makes it possible to evaluate Paul’s argumentation against a set of rules for sound reasoning. Fallacies and problematic arguments can be described accurately. The spiritual nature of Paul’s matters do not relieve him of rationality, and Paul himself does not argue as if it did.

The individual arguments are disentangled and described in a new way, in several cases indicating new interpretations. Paul’s argumentation is found wanting. Most importantly, the ‘higher-order conditions’ are not in balance: Paul presents his arguments with authority and threat. This creates a tension in the text: Paul works a great deal to argue his claims while at the same time giving the impression that he merely wants to declare his standpoints and does not want to carry out an argumentation at all. Many of the conclusions are presented as self-evident, even when they are not. Paul’s style is far from an ideal model of the resolution of a dispute and seems best suited to convince those to whom Paul’s authority in itself is a good reason to accept his arguments. The letter indicates the use of an argumentative strategy whereby the use of rhetoric is an integral part of Paul’s argumentation.

The analysis shows that a contemporary method of argumentation analysis provides the tools necessary to understand and adequately describe both individual arguments and the overarching strategy of the argumentation in a Pauline text.