The Style of Galatians Especially since the publication of H. D. Betz’s commentary in 1979 much attention has been given to rhetorical analysis of Paul’s letter to the Galatians (1). Discussion has focused on the species of Galatians’ rhetoric, i.e., whether it is forensic, deliberative or epideictic; little attention has been given to its style (2). In what follows I will attempt to supply that lack. In De Oratore 3.37 Cicero identifies four virtues of style: 1) correct diction, 2) lucidity, 3) ornament, and 4) appropriateness (3). He discusses ornament at length in 3.96-208; in the midst of this (in 3.199- 200) he discusses three general styles, namely the full, plain and middle styles. Cicero organizes ornament into two general categories. Vocabulary is ornamented by use of 1) rare words 2) new coinages, and 3) metaphors and other tropes. Syntax is ornamented by 1) avoidance of harsh clash of consonants and hiatus of vowels, 2) rhythm, and 3) figures of speech and thought. Elsewhere (e.g., Orator 204) Cicero speaks of periodic style as a means of ornament. (1) H.D. BETZ, Galatians. A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1979). On the history of rhetorical criticism of Paul’s letters in general and Galatians in particular, see R.A. BRYANT, The Risen Crucified Christ in Galatians (SBLDS 185; Atlanta 2001) 30-37, 44-52. The history of recent rhetorical criticism of Galatians is also described in The Galatians Debate. Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (ed. M. NANOS) (Peabody, MA 2002) xv-xxii, 3-113. Rhetorical analysis of Galatians that is not mentioned in these summaries includes S. TSANG, From Slaves to Sons. A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians (Studies in Biblical Literature 81; New York 2005). P.H. Kern has questioned the validity of such analysis (see his Rhetoric and Galatians. Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle [SNTSMS 101; Cambridge 1998]). (2) BRYANT, Risen Crucified Christ, 128-140, comments on the style of Gal 1,1-10, and elements of the style of Galatians have been discussed by many authors, some of whom will be noted below. However, no one has tried to describe the style of Galatians in general. (3) The discussion of stylistic norms here and elsewhere in this essay is dependent on the discussion in T. CALLAN, “The Style of the Second Letter of Peter”, Bib 84 (2003) 202-224. For another discussion of style see BRYANT, Risen Crucified Christ, 91-104.