Review of D. Kremendahl. Die Botschaft der Form. Zum Verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 46)

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragRecension av bok/film/utställning etc.

Standard

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Review of D. Kremendahl. Die Botschaft der Form. Zum Verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 46)

AU - Übelacker, Walter

N1 - Reviewed Work(s): Die Botschaft der Form. Zum Verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 46) (by D. Kremendahl)

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - This dissertation handles the question of the rhetorical formula, the genre and the rhetorical disposition of Galatians. There is also an excellent summary with further perspectives. The title of the book already gives a glimpse of the main result, namely that the form has more bearing on the message than usually acknowledged. Here it is the question of the epistolographical form which often is treated with unfairness in rhetorical analyses. The thesis of K. is more balanced arguing that epistolography and rhetoric have to be combined for a proper understanding of Galatians as a whole. It is no problem to agree to this point. It is however unsatisfying that K. underestimates the paraenesis in Gal 5:7-6:18 as some kind of specifying addition. In rhetorical argumentation the main result or the main point often occurs at the end. It is therefore a shortcoming that K. never defines the term ”paraenesis”, which I consider as some kind of exhortation to act in a certain way and which therefore Galatians should be characterized as deliberative rhetoric. K. denies this characterization of Galatians.

AB - This dissertation handles the question of the rhetorical formula, the genre and the rhetorical disposition of Galatians. There is also an excellent summary with further perspectives. The title of the book already gives a glimpse of the main result, namely that the form has more bearing on the message than usually acknowledged. Here it is the question of the epistolographical form which often is treated with unfairness in rhetorical analyses. The thesis of K. is more balanced arguing that epistolography and rhetoric have to be combined for a proper understanding of Galatians as a whole. It is no problem to agree to this point. It is however unsatisfying that K. underestimates the paraenesis in Gal 5:7-6:18 as some kind of specifying addition. In rhetorical argumentation the main result or the main point often occurs at the end. It is therefore a shortcoming that K. never defines the term ”paraenesis”, which I consider as some kind of exhortation to act in a certain way and which therefore Galatians should be characterized as deliberative rhetoric. K. denies this characterization of Galatians.

KW - genre

KW - Epistolography

KW - Galatians

KW - Rhetoric

KW - rhetorical structure

M3 - Review (Book/Film/Exhibition/etc.)

VL - 79

SP - 52

EP - 53

JO - Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift

JF - Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift

SN - 0039-6761

IS - 1

ER -