A Discourse Analysis of Galatians and the New Perspective on Paul by David I. Yoon (review)

A revised version of Yoon’s doctoral dissertation supervised by Stanley E. Porter and accepted in 2018 by McMaster Divinity College, this monograph offers “both an outline of SFL [Systemic Functional Linguistics] discourse analysis, including theory and methodology, and an application of that theory to identify the context of situation in Galatians in view of [the] New Perspective on Paul [NPP]” (p. viii). The book is equally divided into two parts, theory and analysis, closed by a summary and conclusion, and is supplemented by three appendixes providing supportive linguistic data, a bibliography, and two indexes.

The first part of Y.’s study serves as the framework for his SFL discourse analysis of Galatians. Chapter 1 traces the origin of the New Perspective on Paul, discussing contributions of its leading proponents as well as responses by sympathizers, dissenters, and mediators. Y. concludes that all sides of the debate describe the Jewish soteriological system in terms of either legalism (Old Perspective) or covenantal nomism (New Perspective). In chap. 2, Y. surveys approaches to discourse analysis in both modern linguistics and NT studies, arguing that SFL discourse analysis “is far more comprehensive and heuristically beneficial” (p. 63) than other approaches as it describes “more than simply the textual meaning” (p. 63). Chapter 3 outlines the systemic and functional components of SFL discourse analysis in general and the concept of register in particular. Y. explains that the context of the situation determines register, which can be described in terms of field, tenor, and mode. He argues that the field of discourse is realized by the ideational metafunction of language, referring to the main ideas of a text as determined by the transitivity network (i.e., the processes, participants, and circumstances of a primary clause) and lexis; the tenor of discourse is realized by the interpersonal metafunction of language, denoting the social dynamics among the participants in a text as determined by speech functions and social roles; and the mode of discourse is realized by the textual metafunction of language, reflecting the structure and organization of a text as determined by cohesion, thematization, and prominence.

In the second part of his study, Y. applies the criteria set for mood, field, and tenor analysis to Galatians. His mood analysis in chap. 4 reveals that 2:14b–21 addresses hypocritical more than improper behavior; that justification is not thematized; and that 3:15–25 on the promise and the law is the letter’s “prominent peak” (p. 189). Analyzing the field of Galatians in chap. 5, Y. concludes that justification is not a major subject of the letter. He also finds that Paul often contrasts faith with the law, writing positively about the former and negatively about the latter. This is supported by a lexico-semantic excursus on the phrase “works of the law” (erga nomou). With regard to tenor, Y. in chap. 6 concludes that Galatians “reflects a dire and grave situation . . . that demanded immediate reaction” (p. 260). For Y., all of this is to suggest that the context of the situation in Galatians seems to indicate that Paul feels threatened by a form of legalism more than covenantal nomism. This is not to say that Paul is addressing petty legalism, nor that the law can never serve as a set of boundary markers.

As the first monograph-length study that approaches the New Perspective on Paul from a merely linguistic point of view, Y.’s dissertation is a welcome contribution. Y. is to be commended for providing accessible surveys of such complex issues as are the New Perspective on Paul and (SFL) discourse analysis. Introducing linguistic criteria that realize the mode, field, and tenor of discourse, which Y. applies to Galatians, is particularly helpful. These criteria warrant his conclusions, of which some are new in Pauline studies. It is to be expected that not everyone will agree with these conclusions, but, unlike many other scholars, Y. at...