203
CARL JOACHIM CLASSEN Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungetl zum Neuen Testament 128 Mohr Siebeck

Classen Rhetorical Criticism

  • Upload
    mar

  • View
    78

  • Download
    18

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

CARL JOACHIM CLASSEN

Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungetl

zum Neuen Testament

128

Mohr Siebeck

Page 2: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Herausgegeben von Martin Hengel und Otfried Hofius

128

Page 3: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Carl Joachim Classen

Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament

Mohr Siebeck

Page 4: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

earl Joachim Classen was born in 1928; he studied Classics at the Universities ofHam­burg. Göltingen and Oxford: 1952 Dr. phi!.: 1961 Habilitation: 1961..jj6 Dooent in GÖI· tingen; 1966-69 Professor of Classics 'Iilie TU Berlin. 1969-73 in Wünburg. 1973-93 in Göttingen: since 1993 Professor emeritus.

Die Deutsc1re Bibliothek - CIP·EinheitsaufnaJIJ7J~

Classen, Carl Joachim: Rhetorical criticism ofthe New Testament I Carl Joachim Classen.­Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck. 2000 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: 128)

ISBN 3·16-147370-1

I/:> 2000 by J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tübingen. P.O. Box 2040. 0-72010 TUbingen.

This book may not be reproduced., in whole or in part, in any form (beyand that per­mitted by copyright law) without tbe publisher"s written permission. This applies par­ticularly to reproductions, translations, microfllms and storage and processing in elec· tronic systems.

Tbe book was typeset by Computersatz Staiger in Pfäffingen using Times typeface, printed by Gulde·Druck in TUbingen on non·aging paper from Papierfabrik Niefem and hound by Buchbinderei Heinr. Koch in Tübingen.

Printed in Germany.

ISSN 0512-1604

Page 5: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Preface

Tbe papers in this collection differ in origin and nature. The first was writ­ten after I had become aware of the recent debate amongst New Testa­meDt scholars about the application of andent rhetorie to the Bible and to Paul's letters in particular. SubsequeDtly several questions arose which I am trying to answer in the following four chapters. First: whetber and to what extent Paul was familiar with ancient rhetorie, a question which cannot be aDswered satisfactorily witb the help of general eonsiderations about his educatioD or his manner of writing (ehapter 2). Next: How rhe­torical criticism may be practised today in application to different kinds of biblical texts, e. g. tbe gospels or a letter in the New Testament (ehapters 3 and 4). I was tempted to include an interpretation of a piece from the Old Testament; but for any attempt to understand a text it is essential to know the language in which it is written. Tbe ehapter on Melanchthon, finally, shows not only tbat rhetorica! criticism ofthe Bible has a long (often neg­lected) tradition, but also that a great variety of abilities and experiences is of tbe greatest help. if not necessary for its successful application: to be thoroughly familiar with the languages ofthe Bible (Hebrew. Greek and in view ofthe translations also Latln) as weIl as with most ofthe literature in these languages (proved for Melanehthon by his grammars. his editions and his commentaries), to be thoroughly familiar with the categories and methods of the critical instruments, i. e. the theories one is applying (proved for Melanchthon by his own handbooks on rhetoric and on dia­lectic with the new elements he introducesJ and 10 be thoroughly familiar with the dogmatic problems arising from the texts of the Bible (proved for Melanchthon by his theologica! writings).

What I mean by 'rhetoric' is defined in the first chapter, what I mean by 'rhetorical reading' in chapter Ihree; what [ mean by 'rhetorical criticism' is illustrated by what I am trying to do in chaplers three and four; and the qualities ideally required for this are described in ch.pter five.

Tbe first and the third papers bave been revised, the second and the fifth translated and revised, the fourth has been especially written for this

Page 6: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

VI Preface

coUeclion; in view of the numerouS commentaries on the gospels and of the enormaus amount of secondary literature a good deal of which seems to be dominated by very detailed Quellenkritik. the notes have deliberately been kept to a minimum in the fourth chapter. It iso DO doubt, of great importance to detennine the sources and models of the gospels; but it seems to me 10 be even more important to look not only at the raw material the evangelists made use of. but also at the finished products. as it were. and to analyse their narrative structure and argumentation.

I have to thank Professors David J. A. Clines andPhilip R. Davies ofthe Sheffield Academic Press for the kind pennission to reprint (in revised form) the papers on which chapters one and Ihree are based. and Martin Hengel for his constaut support. for his invitation Lo give a paper on the letter 10 TItus in bis seminar and a leclure on Melanchthon and for bis suggestion to publish this collection in his series. I am no less grateful to the publisher. Herr Georg Siebeck. for accepting this book.

Ash Wednesday 2000 C. J. Classen

Page 7: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Contents

Preface ................................................... . v

1. Paurs Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric ..... .

II. Paul and the Terminology of Ancient Greek Rhetoric ........ 29

m. A Rhetorical Reading of the Epistle to Titus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45

IV. Rhetorical Observations on the Introductory Sections of the Four Gospels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69

Mark .................................................. 69 Matthew ..................................•............ 75 Luke............................................ 82 John ............. " .. ....... . ... ..... . . . . .... . ... ..... 91

V. Melanchthon 's Rhetorical Interpretation of Biblical and Non-Biblical Texts.. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99

Introduction ............................................ 99 Melanchthon's Early Haodbooks ............................ III Exegesis before Melaocbthon ..•............................ 135 Melanchtbon 's Early Commentaries on Paul's Leiters ............. 144 Melanchtbon's Commentaries on otber Texts from the Bible ........ 160 Melancbthon's Commentaries on Pagan Authors ................. 168 Summary ............................................ " 175

Indices ................................................... . 179

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 179 Greek Words. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 181 Larin Word, ......................................... . .. 183 Index of Proper N ames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 185 Passage, from the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 188

List of the Original Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 195

Page 8: Classen Rhetorical Criticism
Page 9: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I. Paul's Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric

In August 1974 at the 29th General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas at Sigtuna (Sweden) H. D. Betz gave a lecture on "The Literary Composition and Function ofPaul's Letter to the Galatians" which seems to have initiated a new era in Biblical Studies or at least in New Testament Studies in the Uni ted States and, to a lesser degree, elsewhere. In 1979 he published "Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia" in wbich he repeated the claims he had made in bis paper and applied in detail the method which he had outlined five years before. And in 1988 a German translation of his commentary appeared in which he reproduced the original text without noticeable changes; only in the introduction Betz shows some awareness of the criticism and doubts some reviewers expressed,l

However, on the whole the reaction to the commentary was favourable and some reviewers even hailed Betz's work as marking the beginning of a new era in New Testament Scholarship.2 Today, numerous scholars in this

1 H. D. Setz. Tbe Literary Composition and Function cr Paul's Letter to the Gala­dans. New Testament Studies 21. 1975. 353-379; H. D. Betz (ed.). Galatians: A Cam­mentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Philadelphia 1979: 21984 and H. D. Betz (cd.), Der Galaterbrief: Ein Kommentar zum Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Ge­meinden in Galatien. München 1988; see further. H. D. Betz (ed.). 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters oftheApostle Paul, Philadelphia 1985 and H. D. Betz (ed.), 2. Korinther 8 und 9: Ein Kommentar zu zwei Verwaltungsbriefen des Apostels Paulus. Gütersloh 1993. The artic1e of 1975 is reprinted in: H. D. Setz, Paulinische Studien, Tübingen 1994,63-97 (wilh a Nachtrag [97J which merely tists a few more reeent books and artietes) togetherwHh same other ofhis articJes on Galatians (20-45: 46-62; 98-125) and on the problem ofrheloric and Iheology (126-162. see be­lown.6).

2 Reviews: C. K. Barren, Interpretation 34,1980,414-417; J.-N.Alelti. Recherchcs de sciencereIigieuse 69. 1981.601-602; W. D. Davies. P. W. Meyer and D. E. Aune. Re­ligious Studies Review 7, 1981. 310--328; W. A. Meeks. Journal of BibIical Lilerature

Page 10: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

2 I. Pauls Epislles anti AIlcient Greek and Roman Rlzetoric

field, especi.lly in the United States of America, try to employ the same method as BeIZ, and the terms ,rhetorica!' .nd ,rhetoric' figure more .nd more frequently in the titles of their books .nd papers.3 111e new element which BeIZ introduced or r.ther claimed to have introduced into New Testament Studies is the use of the c.tegories of ancient Greek and Roman, th.t is, classica! rhetoric and epistolography for the exegesis of Paul's letters.

Thls alone would explain and justify the interest of classicists in this development; and not surprisingly one of the leading experts in this field, George A. Kennedy, a few years later took his stand in his book "New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism", approving of this type of exegesis in general .nd applying it to various texts from the New Testament, but modifying Betz's results with reg.rd to the letter to the

100, 1981.304-307; J. Swetnam, Biblica 62, 1981,594-597; H. Hübner, Theologische Literaturzeitung 109, 1984,241-250,

3 See t.g. M. BUnker, Briefformular und rhetorische Disposition im 1. Korinther­brief, Göttingen 1984: R. Jewett. Tbc ThessaJonian Correspondence: Paulioc Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety. Philadelphia 1986, esp. 61-87, more cODvincing than bis pupil F. W. Hughes, Early Christian Rhetorie and 2 ThessaJonians, Sheffield 1989; D. F. Walson, Invention. Arrangement. and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter. Atlanta 1988: N. Elliott, The Rhetoric ofRomans, Sheflield 1990; more criticaland disceming W. G. Übelacker. Der Hebräerbrief als Appell. I: Untersuchungen zu uardium, narratia und postscript.m (Hebr 1-2 und 13, 22-25), Stockholm 1989; W. Wuellner's pupil L. Thur~n, 111e Rhetorieal Strategy of I Peter, Abo 1990; M. M. MitchelI, Paul and the Rhe­tode of Reconciliation. An Exegeticallnvestigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Tübingen 1991; and especially B. C. Johaoson. To All the Brethren: A Text~lingujstic and Rhetorical Approach to I Thessalonians, Stockholm 1987. whose ana~ Iyses are more convincing as they avail themselves also ofthe insights ofmodem rhetoric (see also below n. 74). These and many other also more recent titles 8rcnow Hsted by D. F. Watson and A. J. Hauser, Rbetorical Criticism of the Bible. A Comprehensive BibHo­graphy with Notes on History and Method, Leiden 1994, see further e. g. I. Saw, Paul's Rhctoric in 1 Corinthians 15. An Analysis Utilizing the Theories of Classical Rhetoric, Lewiston 1995; K. A. Morland, Tbc Rhetonc of Curse in Galatians. Paul Confronts Another Gospel. Atlanta 1995; Ph. H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians. Assessing an ap­proach to Paul's epistle. Cambridge 1998 and the bibliographies each of them provides. Today any volume of Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies. Novum Testamentum, Theologische Zeitschrift or Zeitschrift Tür die Neutestamentliche Wissen­schaft will fumish examples of articles on biblica) 'rhetonc·. lnterestingly seme scholars seem to remain totally unaffected by this approach, see e.g. W. L. Schutter, Henneneutic and Composition in I Peter, TUbingen 1989; M. Prior, C. M., Pau1 the Letter-Wriler and the Second Letterto Tunothy, Sheffield 1989. For abrief ,urvey see R, Majercik, Th. B. Dozeman and B. Fiore. Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism, in: D. N. Frecdman (ed.), The Anehar Bible Dietionary 1-6, New York 1992. 5, 710-719.

Page 11: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

l. Pauls Epistles and Ancient Greek and R"man Rhetoric 3

Galatians.· However, the enthusiasm for this new instrument for the interpretation of biblical texts is not shared in a11 quarters, and some scholars prefer simply to ignore it or to suspend judgment, while others, clearly, feel uneasy about their uncertainty or even ask for advice OT

assistance from classicists.S A new assessment seems to be called for. In his eommentary Betz claims: "Pau!'s letter to the Galatians ean be

analyzed aeeording to Greeo-Roman rhetode and epistolography. This possibility raises the whole question ofPaul's relationship to the rhetorical and literary disciplines and eulture, a question whieh has not as yet been adequately diseussed", and he adds in a footnote to the ftrst sentence:

4 G. A. Kennedy. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, Cha­pel HiU 1984, on Galatian.: 144-152: reviews: e. g. V. K. Robbins, Rbetoriea 3, 1985, 145-149; J. H. Patton, Quanerly Journal of Speech 71, 1985.247-249; R. M. Fowler. Journal of Biblical Literature 105, 1986, 328-330; H. D. Betz, Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 37, 1986. 166-167, see also D. F. Watson. Rhetorical Criticism (see n. 3), 109-112. In appreciation of bis work a Festschrift was offered to hirn: D. F. Watson (ed.), Persuasive Artistry. Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Sheffield 1991 with several useful conttibutions.

5 This paper grew out cf a talk given on March 26th. 1990 in Einsiedeln (Switzer­land) at the request of the group of Roman Catholic and Protestant Commentators on the NewTestament who showed a great variety of attitudes towards this new panacea; it was published as Paulus und die antike Rhetorik. Zeitschrift fUf die Neutestamentliche Wis­senschafl82. 1991. 1-33. The English velSion was written afresh and presented first at the University ofHelsinki on May 8th, 1991 (see Rbetorica 10, 1992,319-344) and later at the conference in Heidelberg. organized by Pepperdine University. see C. J. Classen. in: St. E. Porter and Th. H. Olbricht(edd.). Rhetoric and the New Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, Sheffield 1993. 265-291. Thc paper has again been thoroughly revised and adapted for Ihis collecrion. More reeent contributions to the debate are fouod in the volume just mentioned and in St. E. Porter and Tb. H. 01bricht (edd.), Rhetoric., Scripture and Thcology. Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, Shefficld 1996 and St. E. Porter and Tb. H. Olbricht (edd.), The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture. Essays from the 1995 London Conference, Sheffield 1997. see further R. D. Anderson Jr .. Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Kampen 1996 (review: C. J. Classen. Rhetoriea 16, 1998,324-329); SI. E. Porter, Paul ofTarsus and His Letters. in: SI. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rbetorie in Ibe Hellenistic Period 330 B. C.-A. D. 400. Leiden 1997.533-585; see also n. 3. Tbe artiele on Bibelrhetorik by H. Schweizer, in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik 1, TUbingen 1992, 1548-1572 is disappoint­ing, also G. Otto. F. Eybl, D. Gutzen and M. Otlmers, Christliche Rhetorik. ibid. 2, 1994. 197-208; 208-216; 216-222. more usefuIJ. Grondin, Hermeneutik, ibid. 3,1996,1350-1374, esp. 1350-1364; see furtber C. v. Bonuann. L. Sehmidt .nd W. Schenk. Henneneu· tik, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 15, 1986. 108-137; 137-143 and 144-150 and G. Sternberger, D.·A. Koch, E. MUhlcnberg, U. H. J. Körtner and H. Schräer, Sehriftaus· legung. ibid. 30. 1999,442-457; 457-471; 472-488; 489-495 .nd 495-499.

Page 12: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

4 I. Pouls Epistles and Ancient Greek aJld Roman Rhetoric

"This fact was apparently not recognized before."6 Next. however, he rather oddly gives a couple of references to Luther and Melanchthon as weil as to J. B. Lightfoot, thus admitting that he did have predecessors.1

This raises a nwnber of questions: (I) Are rhetoric and epistolography regarded by Betz as !wo separate disciplines, eaeh of them separately being of service to the interpretation of the New Testament, or are they taken together by him and if so, is thisjustified? (2) Is Betzreferring to the theory ofrhetoric andlor epistolography or to their praetical applieation or to both? (3) What exaetly is the aim of applying the aneient eategories? (a) Is it to demonstrate 10 what extent Paul was familiar with them, with rhetorie and/or epistolography, theory andlor praetiee (as the seeond sentenee seems to indicate), or (b) is it in order to help modem exegetes to arrive at a more thorough understanding of the Ietter(s)? (4) If tltis is the aim, the question arises whether one should restriet oneself to applying the eategories and insights of ancient rhetorie only, or perhaps even only to rhetorie prior to and eontemporary with Paul, or whether one may also employ whatever new aspeets have been added sinee antiquity. (5) If, however, the aim is solely a more adequate appreciation ofPauI himseIf. at least three further groups of problems eome up: (a) when, where and how is PauI likely 10 have beeome familiar with aneient rhetorie and epistolography: (b) exaetly which form or which aspect of rhetorie and epistolography and at which phase of their history is meant (provided it is possible to distinguish clearly several phases ofthe developrnent): (c) did he deliberately draw on such knowledge of rhetorica! theory and employ its categories eonsciously or not? (6) Finally, as Betz stresses the novelty ofhis method, it seerns obvious to ask: why was it not discovered and used

6 Oalatians 14 and Galater 54 (see n. 1); mOre recently Betz scems to ha\'e become more aware cf his predecessorS, cf. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. 129, n.2 and 2 Korinther 8 und 9.231-232 n. 2 (seen. 1) and bis The Problem ofRhetoric and Tbeology According to lhe Apostle Paul, in: A. Vanhoye (ed.), L' Apotre Paul: Personnalite. style et concep­tion du minist~re. Leuven 1986, 16-48. esp. 16-21 = Studien (see n.ll. 126-162. eop. 126-131.

7 Galatians 14 n. 97 aod Galater 54 n. 97 (see n. 1) he mentions Luther's commentary of 1535 (for details see his bibliography Galatians 337 and Galater 566-567. where he also lists Luther's earliee lectures and cornmentaries whicb he does not seem to have consulted) and J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, London 1865. 1°1890 and adds that G. EbeLing called his attention to Melanchtbon's commenwy on Romans, the edition cf 1532 as rcprinted in R. Stupperich cl aI. (edd.), Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl I-Vn. Gütersloh 1951-'1983. V 21983 (edd.: G. Ebeling and R. Schäfer). 25-371, with a "Disposition": 373-378.

Page 13: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I. Pa.ul:r Epistles and Andem Greek ond Roman Rhetoric 5

before; or, as he mentions Luther, Melanchthon and Lightfoot in a foolnote, were they the rrrst and what rud tbey do?

In view of these questions some general observations seem to be called for. When one turns to the categories of rhetoric as tools for a more ade­quate and thorough appreciation of texts, their general structure and their details, one sbould not hesitate to use the most developed and sophisti­cated form, as it will offer more help than any other.8 For there is no good reason to maintain that a text could and should be examined only accord­ing to categories known (or possibly known) to tbe author concemed. For rhetoric provides a system for the interpretation of all texts (as weil as of oral utteranees and even of other forms of communication), irrespeetively of time and cireumstances (e"cept, of course, for the fact that some rules of rhetoric irnmediately eoncern the extemal circumstances).9

When one turns to the categories of rhetorie in order to appreeiate more fully an author's writings, one sbould examine what is known about the writer bimself, his background, his education and other faetors that influeneed bim. When, however, lack of independent sources render this impossible and one has nothing hut a text or a group of texts, one has to bear in mind that in any speech or any piece of writing, elements or features oecur whieh are found in handbooks of rhetorie and whieh we are inelined to elassify and designate aeeorrungly, but whieh may, in fact, originate from four sources: from rhetorical theory (and its deliberate applieation), from a sueeessful iroitation of written or spoken practice, from uneonseions borrowing from the praetice of others, or from a natural gift for effective speaking or writing.

In applieation to Pan!'s letters, this means that one may eolleet the extemal evidenee regarrung the eonrutions under which he grew up and the experience of interpreting tbe Bible which he gained later. I shall not

8 On this problem see W. WueUner, Where Is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us'1, Tbe Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49, 1987,448-463 and hesitatingly SI. E. Porter, Ancient Rhetorieal Analysis and Diseourse Analysis of the Pauline Corpus, in: Sr. E. Porter and Tb. H. Olbricbt (edd.l, Tbe Rhetorical Analysis (see n. 5),249-274. I. Saw (see n. 3) tries at length tojustify wby he uses ancient rhetoric only (l1-31. also 63-79), see also R. Brucker. in: Sr. Allder and R. Bmcker. Exegese und Metbodendiskussion, Tübingen 1998,211-215.

9 See my paper in Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 82, 199 J, 1-33 (see above n. 5) and my artiete Die Rhetorik im öffentlicben Leben unserer Zeit. in: C. J. Classen a.d H.-I. MUUe.brock (edd.), Die Macht des Wortes, Marbllfg 1992.247-267.

Page 14: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

6 ,. Pauls Epist/es and Ancient Greek anti Roman Rheroric

attempt to da this here, as J am not competent; 10 but I should like to add two observations: (a) Anyone who could write Greek as effectively as Paul did must have read a good many works written in Greek. Ibus imbibing applied rhetoric from olbers. even if he never heard of any rules of rhetorica! theory; so that even if one could prove Ibat Paul was not familiar wilb Ibe rhetorica!lbeory ofthe Greeks,1I it could hardly be denied Ibathe knew it in its applied form; and (b) anyone who studied Ibe Old Testament as carefully as Paul undoubtedly did must have noticed Ibe rhetorica! qualit;es displayed lberel2 and must have given some Ibought to the best way of expressing himself.

In turning to Pau!'s letters now, one has to emphasize a point to which BeIZ does not pay attention sufficienUy - the difference between rhetoric and epistolography. Most ancient handbooks of rhetoric do not deal with letters, and where they da, they are content with a few remarks mostly on matters of style. 13 Manuals on letter-writing on the other hand differ substantia!ly from bandbooks on rbetorie in content and structure:14

Instead of dea!ing witb eilber Ibe officia oratoris ("tbe tasks of a speaker") or the partes arationis (" the parts of a speech") they list a large number of

J 0 The literature on Paul is tao vast to be referred to here. see e. &. H. Hübner and D. Flusser.Paulus. in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 26. 1996, 133-153 and 153-160 (li­terature: 149-153 and 159-160).

11 It seerns most likeI y that he was. See below chapter n. 12 Studies on the rhetoric in the 01d Testament are listcd in the firn part of D. F.

Watson and A. J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticisrn (see n. 3), 21-98 (by Hauser); on possible rabbinic rhetorical elements in Paul's writings see H. R. Lemmer, in: St. E. Porter and Tb. H. Olbrieht (edd.). Rhetoric. Scripture and Tbeology (see n. 5),161-179.

13 See the two best known examples: L. Radennaeher (cd.), Demetrii Phalerei qui dici tur de elocutione liber. Leipzig 1901.47-49 (223-235) witb Adnotationes: 109-11 0 and R. Giomini and M. S. Celentano (cdd.), C. Iulü Victoris ars rbetorica, Leipzig 1980. 105-106 (de episrolis).

J4 Cf. V. Weichert (ed.). Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntur TYITOI EITI:1:TOAI­KOI et Enl:1:TOAIMAIOI XAPAKTHPE:1:. Leipzig 1910. also R. Foerster and E. Ricbtsteig (edd.), Libanii Opera IX, Leipzig 1927.27-47; for other texts on aneient epistol.ry tbeory see R. Hereher (ed.). Epistolographi Graeei. Paris 1873. 6-13 (Ps.­Proelus) and 14-16 (philostratus and Gregory ofN.zi.nzus) and A. J. M.lherbe (ed.), Ancient Epistolary Theorists. AUanta 1988. On the various types oflelters see H. Görge­manns, Epistolographie, in: Der Neue Pauly 3. Stuttgart 1997, 1166-1169. see also id. and M. Zelzer. Epistel. ibid. 1161-1164 and 1164-1166 and P. L. Schmidt. Brief. ibid. 2, 1997,771-773 and 774-775 and on tbe relationship between rhetoric .nd epistologra­phy J. T. Reet!. Tbe Epistle. in: St. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook (see n. 5). 171-193 .nd with reference to Paul St. E. Porter, Tbe PauI of Acts. Essays in Literary Criticism. Rhe­torie and Theology, TUbingen 1999.98-125.

Page 15: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I. PanI ~ Episrles and Andent Greek and Roman Rhetoric 7

types of letters and give advice on stylistic problems. Obviously, a fundamental difference was feIt in antiquity between a speech or even a poem or another type of composition on the one hand and a letter on the other, and while for example brevity, cJarity or appropriateness of style are recommended for letters as for other pieces of writing or speaking,lS as regards the "structure" of letters (dispositio), no particular rule or advice seems to have been given.

I could now enter upon a detailed e"amination of BelZ's method, the new arguments which he formulates with the aid of rhetorical theory and the insights he thus gains, or I could offer a rhetorical analysis of Pau]'s letter 10 the Galatians or at least some commenlS on such elements and features, the function of which one would explain with the help of rhetorical categories in any work of aneient literature. Instead, I turn to the last question raised above: To what extent aneient rhetoric was made use of for the interpretation of the Bible before 1974. I cannot, of course, deal here with the history ofthe exegesis ofthe Bible in general.16 But even a brief glance at some arbitrarily selected earlier commentaries shows very quickly that this method is by DO means new. It was practised in antiquity and it was not tota!Iy neglected in the Middle Ages; it was frequently employed with great skill during the Renaissance, and it has never been forgotten ever since in some quarters, while others preferred to ignore it; and it was revived after the Second World War fIrst by such Old Testament scholars as J. Muilenberg,17 before Betz brought it back to New Testament Studies so effectively.

15 Cf. e.g. the references given by A. J. Malherbe (see n. 14), 13-14; forthese quali­ties in general sec H. Lausberg. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, Stuttgart 31990 aDd J. Martin. Antike Rhetorik, München 1974.362-374: Register s.v. brevislbrevitas. dilucidus. decorum etc.

16 See in general H. Graf Reventlow, Epochen der Bibelauslegung l-ill, MUnchen 199~1997, for the Church fathers H. J. Sieben, Exegesis Patrum: Saggio bibliografico sull'exegesi biblica dei Padri del1a Cbiesa. Roma 1983. for the Middle Ages H. de Lubac, Exegese mtdievale I-li, Paris 1959-1964 andB. Smalley, TheStudy oftbe Bible in the Middle Ages, Oxford 1941,31985, for the humanists and the Renaissance J. H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scbolarship in the Renaissance. Princeton 1983 and the bibJiographical references given by T. J. Wengert, PhHip Me­Ianchthon's Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to its Predecessors aod Contempora­ries, Geneve 1987,265-273; see now also M. Sa:b~ (cd.), Hebrew Bible10ld Testamenl. The History of its Interpretation. 1: From the Beginoings to the Middle Ages (Uoril 1300). Part I: Antiquity, Göttingen 1996 and below chopter V.

17 Form Criticism .nd Beyond, Journal ofBiblical Literature 88, 1969, 1-18;. brief survey ofthe history of rhetorical criticism of the Old Testament is given by A. J. Hauser

Page 16: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

8 1. Paul's Epistles anti Ancient Greek anJ Roman Rllelor;c

In this long and varied history, few have done more for the study of aneient rhetorie, for its development and its applieation to the needs and requirements of his own time and for its use for the interpretation of the Bible than Philip Melanchthon;18 and yet, few have experienced a more complete negleet later. Betz refers to him in a footnote, but not in (he bibliography where Erasmus and Letevre d'Etaples, Luther, Calvin and Bullinger are listed with their commentaries; G. A. Kennedy does not mention him at all.19 Some modem seholars seem to ignore him, because they disagree with his theological position, others beeause he wrote in Latin (or an old fashioned type of German).

How does he proceed? How does Melanchthon practise rhetorical criticism? To what extent does he anticipate Betz? What, if anything, can the modem scholar leam from him? His works and his methods will be diseussed at length in the fIfth chapter. Here I need to do no more than to remind the reader that Melanchlhon wrote three handbooks on rhetoric and three handbooks on dialeetie, the art of defming words and objeets, of dividing kinds and of finding and using arguments,20 also a large number

in: D. F. Watson and A. J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism (see n. 3), 3-20 and of the New Testament by D. F. WatsoD, ibid. 101-125; see now also L. J. de Regt et a1. (edd.), Li· terary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Assen 1996.

18 His warks: C. G.Bretschneider aod H. E. Bindseil (edd.), PhHippi Melanchthonis Opera I-XXVIII, Halle 1834-1860, with his commentaries on books of the Bible in xm: 761-1472, XIV aDd XV; see also R. Stupperich et a1. (edd.) (see n. 7) aod E. Bizer (ed.), Texte aus der Anfangszeit Melanchthons, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1966 (to be used with the correcDons by H. Scbeible, Zeitschrift für Kircbengeschicbte 79, 1968,417-419). His correspondence: H. Scheible and W. Thüringer (edd.), Melanchthons Brief­wechsel. Regesten I-X, Stuttgart 1977-1998 and R. Wetzel and Helga Scheible (edd.), Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte I-Il, Stuttgart 1991-1995. Forhis biograpby see K. Hartfelder, Philipp Melanchthon als Praeceptor Germaniae, Berlin, 1889, with detailed, though incomplete lists of bis publications aod lectures (577-620 and 555-566); W. Maurer, Der junge Melanchtholl zwischen Humanismus und Refonnatipn I-lI, Göt­tingen 1967-1969. Bibliography: H. Scheible. Melanchthon, in: Theologische Real· enzyklopädie 22.1992,371-410: on Melanchthon as interpreter ofthe Bible see most recently T. 1. WeDgen IOd M. P. Grab.rn (edd.), Pbilip Melanchthon (1497-1560) and the Commentary, Sheffield 1997.

I' Galatians 14 n. 97: 337 and Galater 54 n. 97; 566-567 (see n. I); G. A. Kennedy (see n.4). N. Elliott (see n. 3) grants Iüm no more than a footnote (22 n. 1).

20 De Rhetorica !ibri tres. Wittenberg 1519; Institutiones Rhetoricae. HagcIlau 1521 and EJementorum Rhetorices libri duo, Wittenberg 1531 (edition here uscd: Elemen­torum Rhetorices Ubri duo. Diligenler recogniti, Wittenberg 1536); Compendiaria Dia­lectices, Leipzig 1520; Dialectices libri quatuor. Hagenau 1528 and Erotemata diaJec­·tices. Wittenberg 1547. FOT details see Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereicb er-

Page 17: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I. Paul's Epislles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric 9

of commentaries on books of the Old and New Testament in addition to editing numerous tellts.21 And I shall content myselfwith a few remarks on his earliest editions,lecture-notes and commentaries to give same idea of the earliest stages of the development of his rhetorical criticism.

In preparation of bis lectures on the letter to Titus Melanchthon published an edition ofthe Greek text in 1518 in Wittenberg (which was printed again with a Latin translation in 1519 in Erfurt),22 in 1519 he contributed apreface to Luther's commentary on the psalms as weil as a preface and an epilogue to bis commentary on Galatians, lectured himself on the psalms, on the letter to the Romans and the gospel of Matthewand wrote the "Theologiea Institutio ... in EpistoJarn Pauli ad Rornanos".23 In 1520 he delivered a "Declamatiuncula in divi Pauli doctrinarn" on January 25th, the feast of Saint Paul, the patron of the Divinity Faculty in Wittenberg, and continued to lecture on the gospel ofMatthew, published an edition of Erasmus' Latin translation of the letter to the Romans with a preface and some notes in the margin and an "Ad Paulinae doctrinae studium adhortatio" (also printed separately) and perhaps an edition ofthe Greek text with more rhetorical notes in the margin, lectured on this letter and composed the "Artifitium Episto1ae Pauli ad Romanos";24 he also

schienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts 1-20, Sluttgart 1983-1993, 13, 1988,497-498: M 4179-4185: 417-418: M 3514-3527: 364-368: M 3101-3136: 327-328: M 2797-2809: 35{)-352: M 2996-3021: 381-384: M 3242-3273: see further J. Knape, Philipp Melanchthons >Rhetorik<. TUbingen 1993 (disappointing) and O. Berwald, PhiHpp Melanchthons Sicht der Rhetorik, Wiesbaden 1994 (review: C. J. Clanen. Gnomo. 70, 1998, 81): o. bis dialectic see G. Franle, in: J. Leonhardl (ed.), Me­lanchthon und das Lehrbuch des 16. Jahrhunderts, Rostoek 1997, 125-145 .nd on bis teaching manuals in general J. Leonbardt in: R. Friedrich and K. A. Vogel (edd.), 500 Jahre Pbilipp Melanehlhon (1497-1560), Pirckheimer Jahrbuch 1998, Wiesbaden 1998, 25-47

21 For the editions of aod commentaries on books of the Bible by Melanchthon and his contemporaries see Verzeichnis (see n. 20) 2.1984,401-739 B 2568-5312, Cor Me­lanchthon also ibid. 13, 1988,261-534 M 2330-4425.

22 For the lecture see K. Hartfelder (see D. 18). 555, for the editioDs Verzeichnis (see n.20) 2,1984,724 B 5174 and 5175.

lJ For the prefacessee Briefwechsel. Te<!e (see n. 18), I 110-113 (no. 47) and 121-124 (no. 54), for the epilogu. ibid. 14S-149 (no. 65), for the leetures on the psalms ibid. 115-117 (no. SO), on the letter to the Romans and on Matthew ibid. 158-159 (no. 68), see also ibid. 189-197 (no. 84) with important notes on liDe 67 (Matthew: for the Anno­tationes pubJished first probably in 1522 see below chapter V) and 70 (Romans), for the lext oethe Institulio see E. Bizer(ed.), Texle (see n.18), 90-99.

24 Forthe declamatiuncula. printed three times in 1520, see H. Kochn. Archiv für die Geschichte des Buchwesens 25.1984, 1323-1325 (no. 51-53) and Briefwechsel. Texte

Page 18: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

10 1. Paul:S Epistles and Aneie"t Greek and Roman Rhetoric

edited the Greek text of the letter to the Galatians with Latin translation and lectured on that letter.25 In 1521 he edited (perhaps) the Greek text of the letter to the Romans, certainly a Latin translation of texts of the two letters to the Corlnthians and also of that to the Colossians, lectured on these four letters26 and publisbed his "Loci communes".21 What do they contain, what do they teach us?

Tbe notes on the epis!le to tbe Galatians are rather elementary. How­ever, it seems appropriate to characterize them briefly here, as Betz applied his new method in a commentary on this letter.28 In accordance with the practice in such lectures, as we know it from contemporary lecture-notes on Ciceronian speeches,29 Melanchthon first determines the

(see n. 18), I 166-167 .nd 167-176 (no. 75 and 76), for Ibe lectures on Matthew see D.23, for the edition of the Latin translation of the letter to the Romans Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 18), I 211-212 (no. ~4.), with adhortatio 20~-210 (00. ~4) and H. Koehn 1325 (no. 54), separate printing: 1325-1326 (no. 55); for the edition of the Greek text 1520 is assumed as year of publication by St. Strohm et al., Griechische Bibeldrucke. Die Bibelsammlung der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart I 3, Stuttgart· Bad Caonstatt 1984,9 (C 9), see also K. Hartfelder (see n. 18), 580 no. 27, but 1521 by H. Scheible, Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 18),1292-293 (no. 142). Por lectures see Brief· wechsel. Texte (see n. (8), I 267-212 (00. 132), for theArtifitium .nd the marginal notes see E. Bizer (cd.), Texte (see n.18), 20-30. On the cbronology ofMelanchthon's early work on Romans see R. Schäfer, in: T. 1. Wengert and M. P. Graham (edd.), Pbilip Me­lanchilioo (seon.18), 79-104.

2.S For the edition see Verzeichnis (seen. 20) 2,1984,713 B 5068, forthe notes taken during his lecture E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see o. (8),34-37.

26 Forthe edition cf tbe letter to the Romans see n. 24. for that of the letters to the Co· rinthians see Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 18), I 279-280 (00. J38) and 357-358 (no. 172) and ofthat to the Colossians O. BeuttemWler, Vorläufiges Vef7.eichnis der Melanchthon­Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts, Halle 1960,28 (no. 117: yearuocertain) IOd SI. Strohm (see n. 24), 9 (C 11: (521); for the lecture. see K. Hartfelder (see n. (8), 556-557 and E. Bi7.er (ed.), Texte (see n. J8), 40-42 wbo priots 45-85 PA'I'OäIAI (sie !) EN I1A YAOY AD ROMANOS.

27 For detailssee Verzeichnis (see n. 20), 13, 1988,428-431 aod 431-433: M 3583-3613 and 3614-3632.

28 Not surprisingly there 1S a comparatively large number of recent srudies on this Jetter, see D. F. Watson andA. J. Hauser, Rhetorical criticism (see n. 3),194-198 and K. A. MorJand, The Rhetoric of Curse (see D. 3); Ph. H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians (see n. 3); R. E. Ciamp., The PreseDce .nd Punction of Scripture in Galatians I .nd 2. Tü­bingen 1998.

29 Por such nates cf. c. g. In omDes M. Tullli Ciceronis oratianes, quot quidem ex­tant, doctissimorum virorum enarrationes .... Basel 1553; on earlier and contemporary commentaries on Cicero see C. J. Classen, Cicerostudien in der Romania im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert,. in O. Radke (cd.), Cicero ein Mensch seiner Zeit, BerUn 1968. 198-245;

Page 19: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I, Paul's Epistles and AncienJ Greek and Roman Rhetoric 11

"kind" or "type" (genus) to which he thinks the work should be assigned and gives a summary of its content. Rather surprisingly, he regards it as belonging to the "instructing kind" (genus didacticum), a new genus, whieh he hirnself adds to the traditional canon of Ihree (')udicial", "de­liberative" and "epideietic": iudiciale, deliberativum, demonstrativum), as we leam from his manual of rhetorie in whieh he explains and justifies this innovation.3D Clearly, while Melanchthon is tboroughly familiar with the rbetorical tradition, be feels free to modify it and to introduce a new element where he considers it incomplete or inadequate; and he uses it here as in his opinion it is Pall)'s intention in this letter after censllring the Galatians to give them a brief demonstration of what Christianity is (epistola haec est generis Didactici qua arguit Apostolu .• Galalas Qui ab ii.r quae eos praesens docuerar declina\1erunt. Paucis denuo scribens Christianismi summam Quam si excesserint iam in errorem labi de­monstral: "This letter belongs to the instructing kind by which the aposde blames tbe Galatians who tumed away from what he bad taught them when he was tbere; again briefly outlining the whole of the Christian religion he shows that if they moved away from it, they wOllld then lapse into wrong views").3]

Humanistica Lovaniensia 37, 1988,79-114; 39, 1990, 157-176; Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 56, 1993,75-84.

30 Cf. E. Bizer(ed.), Texte (see n.18), 34; forthe new genus didacticum see De Rhe­torica 12-47; 64-65 and 91-93, esp. 13; Institutiones Rhetoricae, fol. AlIr-v (dialecti­cum) and Elementorum Rhetorices Iibri duo. fol. A 8v-B Ir and B 3r-B 6r: genus ~h6Qx't1.X6v (see D. 20). Tbe fourfold division may have been suggested to Melanchthon by the four quaIities which Maximus ofTyre expects the philosopbically trained orator to display in the Cour areas ofhis activity (or. 25, 6 p. 213 Trapp, p. 307 Koniaris); for he refers to Maximus in his Greek grammar of 1518 (see Operum Philippi Melanthonis Tomi Quinque, Basel 1541, V 168: or. 10,6 p. 83 Trapp, p.119 Koniaris) and to his ex­planation ofHomer's ~<ii"u (Od. 10,305: 07. 26, 9 and 29,6 pp. 225 and 242 Trapp. pp. 323 and 352 KOniaris) in 1519 in the preface to bis first rhetoric, a letter to Bemard Mau­rus, see Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n.18), I 140), see also De Rhetorica 7. FOT other possible SOUTees for Melanchthon 's new genus :sec my paper in: Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 82, 1991, 16-17 n. 54 and K. Bullerner, Quellenkri. tische Untersuchungen zum I. Buche der Rhetorik Melanchthons. Diss. phi!. Erlangen 1902, Würzburg 1902,36-41. It deserves to be noticed that a,ba.,m,,6~ ("capable of teaching") occurs in 1 TIm. 3,2 and 2 Tim. 2, 24.

31 Cf. E. Bi7.er (ed.), Texte (see ß. 18), 34. In the sense or"superscription on outside of a letter" btLYQacp~ is used in antiquity not by rhetoricians. but by others, see e. g. F. Preisigke and E. Kießling, Wörterbuch der griecbischen Papyrusurkunden I-rn, Bedin 1925-1931. 1547 or G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lericon, Oxford 1961-1968, 519 s. v, btlYQa.p~,

Page 20: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

12 l. PaL/l's Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric

He eharaeterizes the fIrst two verses by an unusual, but appropriate tenn (E1nYQaQl1'F "inscription", uaddress") and abrief deseription oftheir eon­tent and the third merely by a Latin tenn. salutatio (Ugreeting"), again not eommonly used in ancient handbooks of rhetorie, but familiar from eon­temporary works on epistolography.32 The seetion from 1, 6 to 2, 21 he re­gards as the "introduetion" (exordium), dominated by "feelings of anger" (affeetus indignationis), and he adds approvingly: "As elsewhere the best introduetions start from emotions" (Sieuti alias optima exordia sunt ab af­feetibus). Perhaps he has such precepts in mi nd as that given by Quintilian in the fourth book ofbis Institutio oratoria (1,33) that the audience may be made attentive by stirring its feelings. Being also aware of Quintilian's warning that such appeals to emotions should be used sparingly in intro­ductions (IV 1, 14), he interprets Pau!'s next sentence (1,7) appreciatively as "a toning down ofthe anger" (mitigatio est indignationis), possibly be­cause usually indignatiois shown with reference to the adversary (e.g. in the courts of law), not to the recipient of a letter.33 Next Melanchthon ex­plains the inferences Paul draws or the arguments he proposes in the following verses, sometimes expressly stating the "gist" (summa) of the matter in question, sometimes pointing to particular parts of an argumen­tation. On 1, 11 he remarks: "He accounts for what he said in the introduc­tion and shows by some inferences that his teaching is from God, and these inferences are briefly connected with each other" (rationern reddit proposili Exordii, et denzonstrat doctrinam suam esse a deo Coniecturis aliquot. EI breviter compleetuntur cOllieeturae), then quoting from 1, 12 and 1, 16-17, and on 2, 6: "Further he proves by another inference: Evidently I have thus also not learned anything from them wben I was with them" (Etiam probat alia eonieetura: Nimirorn ita neque cum apud eos essern aliquid ab eis dididici [sic!]).34 Before 3, 1 (0 stulti Galatae) he

32 For salutatio ef. e. g. Erasmus' De conscribendis epistoJis, cf. Opera Omnia Desi­deri Erasmi Roterodami 12, Amsterdlull 1971 (J.-C. Margolin [ed.)), 205-579, esp. 276-295); Melanchthon's remarks should be set against the rich discussion ofbis time on the roles oCletter-writing, see e. g. J. R. Henderson, in 1. J. Murphy (ed.), Renaissance EIoqueDce, Berkeley 1983, 331-355 (with references to funher literature) and W. G. Müller, Brief. in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik 2, 1994, 60-76. esp. 70-72 (short bibliography: 72).

33 In his Elementorum rhetorices libri duo (see n. 20), fol. C 1 \' Melanchtbon recorn­mends "milder feelings" (affectltS miriores) for tbc introductions; for his views on feel­ings and emotions (affectus) in general see Q. Berwald (see n. 20), 50-56.

34 Cf. E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n.18), 34. On Gal. 2, 1 he remarks: "Tbc gist: I have reproached Peter; therefore I have not Iearned anything from hirn, but through reve-

Page 21: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I. Paul's Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric 13

notes: "Issue or statement of the ease by means of rebuke" (Status seu propositio per obiurgatiolIem), thus marking the beginning of (he main part of the letter, and by adding a littie later "And tbis he proves to be so tbrough arguments" (ldque probat esse Argumentis), he eharaeterizes Paul's proeedure here, i. e. that he is produeing arguments.

There is no need to give further details of tbe manner in whieh Melanchthon eomments on the syllogisms.35 It deserves to be noticed, however, that more than onee he employs terms which are not eommon in traditional rbetorical theory, but wbieh he also uses in his own handbooks, e. g. declaratw ... per similia instead of [oeus e similibus ("demonstration through similarities"), inversio instead of anteoeeupatio or praesumptio ("anticipation of an opponent's argument") and paraenesis for exhortatio ("admonition").36

Thus we find Melanehthon interested in the general structure of the letter and in the arguments: He distinguisbes introduetion, proposition of the subjeet matter, argumentation and "peroration" (epilogus), he analyses a number of syllogisms and he gives labels from the manuals of rbetorie wbere they seem appropriate, while be adds new ones whenever the

larlon. to which he adds the justification for his reproach" (Summa: repreltendi Pelrum; Meo nihil ab eo didici, sed per revelatio1Jem. cui subiungit ralwnem suae reprehensio­nis); on Gal. 2, 15: "The gist: The Jews need the justrncation, therefore they are not justified by virtue oftheirworks" (Summa: Judaei indigenl iusrifr.cotione: ergo operibus non sunt iustijicari); on Gal.2. 17: "The gist: lfwe beingjustified through Christ are still in need of furthcr justifieation through OUf own warks. then Christ is the minister of si"" (Summa: Si iustificari in Christo ad hrlc habemus opus ulteriore iustificatione per opera - ergo Christus est peccali minister); on Oal. 2, 21: "Ifthey are justified through their wodes, then Christ does not contribute anything" (Si per opera iustificantur ergo Chri­stus nihil confert).

35 On 3, 10 Melanchthon remarks 0\l1J..0ytcrp.6; est which he then develops; E. Bi­zer (ed.), Texte (see n. 18), 35 notes the letten Bar and ba and roi (7) in the margin and identifies them as Barbaroi; clearly Melanchthon merely charactenzes the syllogism in the traditional manner (Barbara. see also H. Scheible [see D. 18],418), see Melanchthon himself Compendiaria dialectiees fol. E Iv; Dialectices Libri fol. F 6v-7v and Erotemata fol. D Yr and E Iv (see 0.20).

36 Cf. E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n. 18), 35-36. On declD.ratio per similia see his De Rhetoriea (see n.20). p.45 (locus e similibus: Quint. inst. or. V 10, 73); on inversio p. 100-101 and Institutiones Rhetorieae (see D.20). fol. B 3v: inversio qun docemus signum, qUbd conrra 1I0S producil. pro 1l0bis facen; on rJccupatio (instead of anteoc­cuptllio: eie. de or. III205; praesumptio; Quint. inst. or. IX 2, 16) see Elementorum Rhetorices libri duo (see n.20), fol. K Iv; on poroenesis (:n;aQaLvEal~) see what Me· lanchthon says on exlJortatio: De Rhetoriea, p. 34-35 and Elementorum Rhetorices libri duo, fo!. D Sv.

Page 22: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

14 I. Paul:S Epistles and Ancient Gruk and RomaJ1 Rhetoric

traditional system seems ineompiete to him and he feeis the need of suppiementing it. Thereby, he assists the reader in understanding the intention ofthe ietter as a whoie, the generalline ofthe argumentation and the structure of particuiar arguments. In doing so, he falis back upon the toois provided by ancient rhetorie and demonstrates that this system - even after many eenturies - renders usefui service in inlerpreting a text such as an epistJe by Paul. But as he introduees new eategories and new terms also, he implies that he sees 00 reason why the modem re.der or schoiar should limit hirnselr to what tradition has to offer; rather, he eneourages him to apply rhetorie in its most advaneed form or even to deveiop it further when .nd where need be, thus maintaining a view whieh, .s I have indicated, seems to require justifieation even today (see n. 8).

Melanehthon whose methods of eriticism will be diseussed in the f1fth ehapter was by no means the only humanist who m.de use of aneient rhetorie in interpreting the Bible nor was be the first. Lorenzo Valla seems to have been the first to avai! hirnself of the newly diseovered resourees from pag.n antiquity for the exegesis oftbe New Testament. However, he and Jater J.cques Lefevre d'Etaples and Desiderius Erasmus were primarily interested in the explanation of faetual details or textual critieism.37 But Martin Luther and Huldryeh Zwingli, Martin Bueer and Iohannes Brenz (who also wrote a rhetorie, however mainly with view 10

preaehing), Heinrich Bullinger and Iean Calvin deserve more than • plaee in the bibliography;38 for their works offer vaiu.bie insights [0 the modem

37 Cf. Laurentii Vallensis '" in Latinam Novi testamenti interpretationem .. , Adno­tationes appdme uliles .... Paris 1505, wrilten 1453-1457: tbe earlier version was not published tiJI 1970: A. Perosa (ed.), Collatio Dovi testarnenti, Fi.renze 1970; see J. H. Be_lIey (see _.16), 32-69, also 112-19300 Erasmus; cf. further J. LeRvre d'Etaples (ed.). S. Pauli epistolae XIV ex Vu]gata, adiecta lntelligentia ex graeco. cum commenta­riis. Paris 1512, see on this and his other works G. Bedouelle, Le.fevre d'Etaples ee l'inte1ligence des Ecdtures. Geneve 1976; Novum instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, Basel 1516; A. Reeve and M. A. Screech (edd.), Erasmus' Annotationes on the New Testament: Acts, Romaos, I and II Corinthians, Leiden 1990, see E. Rummel. Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testa­ment.. Toronto 1986; F. Krüger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung: Desiderius Eras­mus von Rotterdarn als Ausleger der Evangelien in seinen Paraphrasen, Tübingen 1986: M. Hoffmann. Rhetorie and Theology. Tbe Henneneutics ofErasmus. Toronto 1994~ see alsoehapterVn.lOl-lll.

38 H. D. Betz. GalatiaDs 337 and GaJater 566-567 (see n.1): Luther. CaJvin, Bul­linger only; in the Comrnentary on 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 they do not even figure in the bibliography.

Page 23: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I. Paul's Epistles anti Ancient Greek and Roman Rheloric 15

exegete and are worth studying.J9 But apart from tbe fact that they cannot a11 be presented here and discussed at length with their respective methods and merits, it seems fair 10 say that no one contributed more to the

39 Fot Luther see D. Martin Luthers Werke 1-68. Weimar 1883-1999; see aJso Ver­zeichnis (see n. 20), 12, 1988,3-557 L3306-7642 and J. Benzing and M. Claus, Luther­bibliographie. Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften Martin Luthers bis zu dessen Tod 12_II, Baden-Baden 1989-J 994: on bis exegesis see G. EbeJing. Evangelische Evange­lienauslegung. Eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Hennencutik, Darmstadt 21963 and H. Junghans, Der junge Luther und die Humanisten, Göttingen 1985. - Zwingli; M. Schu­ler and J. Schulthess (edd.). Huldreich ZwingJi's Werke I-VIII. Zürich 1828-1842. esp. V and V[ I; E. Egli, G. Finsler, W. Köhler et al. (edd.), Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke [-XIY, Berlin Zürich 1905-1963, esp. XII 1 (maIginal glosses) XIll and XIV (exegetical writings on the Old Testameet), see turmer Verzeichnis (see n. 20). 22, 1995, 626-650; Z 758-938; G. Finsler. Zwingli=Bibliographie. Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften von und über UlrichZwingli, Zürich 1897, 1-75; U. Gl!bler, Huldrych Zwingli im 20. Jahrhundert. Forschungsbericht und annotierte Bibliographie 1897-1972, ZUrich 1975. - Bucer: mere is DO complete modem edition ofbis works, see only Martini Bu­eeri Opera Latina, Paris 1954-1955 and Martini Bueeri Opera Omnia, Gütersloh and Leiden since 1960, esp. sero H, Opera Latina IT: 1. Backus (ed.), Eomatio in Evangelian lohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), Leiden 1988; the original works an: Iisted by R. Stup­perich. Bibliographia Bucerana, Schriften des Vereins fUr Reformationsgeschichte 169. 1952,45-67 and in: Verzeichnis (seen. 20) 3, 1984,447-465: B 8825-8958, see also R. Stupperich, Bucer, Mortin. in: Theologjsche Realenzyklopädie 7, 1981, 258-270 (bibliography: 269-270), furtber J. Müller, Mortin Buters Hermeneutik, Gütersloh 1965; B. Roussel. Martin Bucer lecteur de l'epitre aux Romains I-II. Strasbourg 1970 and id. in: eh. Krieger et al. (edd.). Martin Bueer and Sixtccnth Centul)' Europe I-Ht

Leiden 1993, I 39-54. - Brenz: Opera I-Vlß, Tübingen 1576-1590; this coUettion and the early single editions arelisted in: Verzeichnis (see n. 20) 3,1984,261-330: B 7469-8000 and by W. Kahler, Bibliographia Brentiana, Berlin 1904; see further M. Brecht, Die fi1lhe Theologie des Johannes Brenz. TUbingen 1966 (on the early commentaries) and in general id., Brenz. Johannes, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 7,1981.170-181 (bibliography: 180-181): on the later commentaries H. Ch. Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Jobannes Brenz, Tübingen 1991; on the rbetorie: eh. Hermann, Blätter für Württembergische Kirchengeschichte 64, 1964, 79-103 (quotation; rhf!IOricam lraetabimus quotenus eius usus est in rebus Eccleswstici.J: 81). - Bullinger: tbere is DO

complete modem edition of bis works, but see now Heinrich Bullinger, Werke, Zürich since 1972, esp. Abteilung 3: H. G. vom Berg (ed.), I: Exegetische Schriften aus den Jahren 1525-1527 and 2: Unveröffentlichte Werke der Kappeier Zeit. Theologiea, Zü­rich 1983 and 1991, further Abteilung I: F. Büsser (eci), Bibliographie: 1: J. Staedtke, Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der gedruckten Werke von Heinrich BuUinger. Zürich 1972, also 2: E. Herkenrath. Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der Literatur über Heinrich BuIlinger, ZUrich 1977; see further S. Hausammann. Römerbriefauslegung zwischen Humanismus und Reformation. Eine Studie ,..d Heinrich Bullingers Römerbriefausle­gung von 1525, Zürich 1970 and F. BUsser, BulIinger. Heinrich, in: Theologische Real­enzyklopädie 7,1981. 375-387 (bibliography: 385-387). - Calvin: G. Baum, E. Cunitz

Page 24: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

16 1. Paul:r Ep;stles andAncient Greek aM Roman Rhetoric

development ofrhetorieal eriticism ofthe Bible tbanMelanchthon. It is all the more surprising that later generations allowed bis observations and his acbievements to be virtually forgotten. Yet eonscientious study of the history of biblical exegesis shows that the applieation of rhetorieal eategories was never given up completely.

In a lecture "Histoire de ,I 'analyse rbetorique' en exegese biblique," delivered at the seventh congress of the International Society for the fEstory ofRhetoric in Göttingen in 1989 and published in 1990, Father R. Meynet deseribes a number of scholars and their methods from the middle of the eighteenth to the middle of the twentieth eentury and adds a speeimen ofbis own manner ofinterpretation wbieh shows thatrhetorical analysis is still praetised today by Jesuits as it always has been sinee the foundation of the order.40 The "lntroduelio hermeneutica in Sacros Novi Testamenti Libros," published in Vieona 1777 by the Benedictine Stephan Hayd, Professor of Greek and New Testament Hermeneuties at Freiburg, shows that members of other orders also practieed rhetorieal criticism of the Bible; in this case the author pays special attention to tropes and figures of style, but also to the structure of the argumentation.4l

Before trying to assess the eontribution of rhetorical eriticism to the understanding of biblieal texts, or rather the contribution made by individual scholars and the possibilities as weil as the limits of such a procedure, I may be permitted briefly to indieate how I thinkthe categories

and E. Reuss (edd.), Ioannls Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia 1-59. Bnunschweig 1863-1900, bibliography: 58-59, 1900,433-444 (listed as priDted in !his edition); 445-454 (alpbabetical order) and 455-512 (ehronologie,1 order, printOO also separately: A. Eriehson, Bibliographia Calviniana, Berlin 1900, 1-68): B. G. Armstrong et al. (edd.), Calvini Opera Omnia. sero rr Opera exegetica Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Gen~ve since 1992: H. Peld (ed.),ll, 1-2 (1997-1998: gospel ofIohn); 15 (1994: 2 Corinthians): 16 (1992: Ga!atiaos, Ephesians, Philippians and Co!ossians) and T. H. L. Parker (00.), 19 (1996: Hebrews); see also T. H. L. Parker (ed.), Ioannis Calvini Commentarius ... in Epislolam Pauli ad Romanos, Leiden 1981; B. Girardin, Rhetoriqueet tMologique. Cal· "in. Le Commentaire de l"Epitre aux Romains. Paris 1979; A. Ganoczy and St. Scheid. Die Hermeneutik Calvins, Wiesbaden 1983; D. L. Pucket, John Calvin's Exegesis ofthe Old Testament, Louisville 1992; P. OpilZ, Calvins theologische Hermeneutik, Neu· kirchen-Vluyn 1994.

40 See Rhetoriea8, 1990,291-320. "11 Sectio U, Caput VII: Tropi et figurae (166-259); arguments are analyzed in

Secrto III: Instirutiones analytico·hermeneuticae in singulos Novi Testamenti libros speciales (282-416). On St Hayd seeP. Reusch, Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 11, 1880,123.

Page 25: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I. Paul:r Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric 17

of ancient rhetorie and of andent literary theory and criticism42 may in general be e"ploited with profit today.

Anyone attempting to understand and appreciate a speech or a written composition will first determine the nature of the piece in a very general way: literary, non-literary or sub-Iiterary, casual or serious, personal or general, poetry or pro se, with emphasis on content or form, and so forth. In the case of a letter it seems advisable to take into eonsideration (if pos­sible) the following facts: the writer's education and e"perienees, the education and experiences of the addressee or addressees (one should re­member that a letter may be directed to an individual or agroup,43 but also, as in the form of a literary letter, to future generations), the circumstances ofthe writer, the circumstances ofthe addressee(s), present orfuture ('cir­cumstances' meaning time, place and events which have just happened or are imminent). Moreover, one should consider the relationship between writer and addressee(s) - such as personal knowledge, earHer correspon­dence, views and experiences shared or not shared, opposing views - and, finally, the intention of the writer, whether he wishes to communicate in­formation on actual facts, on events of the past or e"pected developments in the future, on personal feelings or on general views, or wh ether he hopes to give advice or eneouragement, consolation or waming, to express praise or disapp0intment and so forth. In addition one should remember that a letter is a letter and cannot be expected to have the strueture of a speech, though in parts it may be comparable.

After these general considerations I turn to Pau)'s epistIe to the Galatians.44 In his first sentence the apostIe makes it abundantly elear that he is writing a letter by using a forrnula by which letters generally were introdueed.4S But be supplements this forrnula, and by making additions he draws attention right from the start to what he considers important: "not

42 On the nature and function of literary criticism in antiquity and its relationship with rhetorie see my paper Mnernosyne sero 4, 48, 1995? 513-535.

43 In antiquity this means that it will not only be read aloud by an individuaI, but may be read aloud to a group.

44 Text: B. and K. Aland et al. post E. el E. Nestle (edd.), Novum Testarnentum Grae­ce, Stuttgart 21 1993, 493-503. There are too many commentaries to be Iisted here (see also n. 28), and I bad to refrain from eonsulLing them except for general observations on the strueture of the letter. In preparing this revised version of my paper I have through­out eonsulted the Revised English Bible wirh theApoerypha, Oxford 1989.

45 See F. Schnider and W. Stenger. Studien zum Neutestamentlichen Brieffonnular. Leiden 1987,3-25 (with referenees to earlier literature).

Page 26: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

] 8 1. Paul's Epistles and Andent Greek and RoT1UUl Rhetoric

from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father" (ou>< Cut' aVSQOlltWV oMt ö': Ct.vSQw:n:01J, an&. ÖLCt. 'Il'Jooii XQL<Ttoii ><at SEoii :n:a'tQo,). One could register a polyptoton here and an antitheton.46 However, wbat matters is not such a c\assifieation, but the function of the figures thus labelled. Nor does it really help to assign them to the "embellishment" (omatus); they are chosen to give special emphasis to what the writer is saying: And as these two figures here stress the same point, it galns considerable momentum, especially as each of the two members of the antitheton consists of a twofold expression: the first of a polyptoton, the seeond of the two nouns 'Il'Jooii, XQL<TtO, and Seo, :n:a't1\Q, conneeted by a partieiple47 wbieh describes the unique act which God performed for Jesus and at the same time his resurreclion, that is, bis divinity.

The following greeting "graee and peace" (1. 3: XO,QI, UlLLV ><al eiQ1\VfJ), also found elsewhere,4a is expanded by the referenee to God and Jesus Christ; Ibis repetition serveS to relegate the apostle, though being the writer of the letter, to the background. It is God the father and Jesus Christ who are aeting here; and wbile in the first sentenee (1, 1-2) God's aelivity (with respeet to his son) is deseribed by a partieiple, now in a eorresponding eonstruction Jesus Christ is eharaeterized with respeet to mankind (I, 4) after God has been called :n:a1:i]Q TJlL(Ov (1, 3). Tbis is even further elaborated in a subclause wbieb repeats for tbe Ihird time SEO<; (><al) :n:a't1\Q, again adding TJll(Ov and resorling to another polyptoton with three members: "from this worId" (E>< 'toii a,(Ovo,) and "for ever and ever" (El<; 'tou<; a{(Ova<; 'toov ut<i>vwv) in order 10 contrast the present world from whieb men will he saved (notice the parallel to Christ being resurreeted) witb God's etemity (1, 5).49 Attentive reading reveals that by means of additions to common formulae, by earefully eonstrued sentences and by equally weil chosen words the apostle most impressively eonveys what he wants bis readers to feel: That they are being addressed not so mueh by him, but in the name of God and together with bim of Jesus

46 See St. E. Porter, Paul of Tarsus (see n. 5), 580. but also 583; on polyptoton and antitheton in general see H. Lausberg (see n. 15), 325-329 .nd 389-398, on Paul N. Schneider, Die rhetorische Eigenart der paulinischen Antithese, Tübingen 1970 (very usefu!).

41 'tO'Ü ~YELQavto«; au'tov: "(God the Father) who raised him hom the dead". 48 See F. Schnider and W. Stenger (see n.45). 25-41. 41) ..... thal he might de1iver us from this present evil world.. according to the will of

our God and Father: To whom be glory ror ever and ever. Amen."

Page 27: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I. Pauls Episrles and Ancient Greek and Romml Rhetoric 19

Christ. The scholar familiar with the rules and categories of rhetoric who observes these details - whether he applies technical tenns to them or not­cannot but register that an author is at work here who knows to select and to present his ideas and to employ the tools of language in the most effective manner possible.

Having thus used the introductory fonnula of greeting to manifest his own position, the apostle turns to the addressees, first expressing surprise about their change of mind, adding a c1arification (I, 6-9). Tbere is no EuayyeALov other than the one he preached to them, and it is merely some people who confuse thern., trying to misrepresent the gospel ofChris!, Thls he emphasizes witb a curse which he repeats, placing it twice at the end of a sentence (I, 8; 9). Again one notiees the repetition of several words: EuayyeALov twiee; fonns of EuaYYEA(1;EOßat three times; avaßE!!a Em:ro twice,'o c1early for emphasis, and a correcting addition ("whieh is not another": Ö OU1< /!m:w (i),.),.o) with respect to one of these words, EuayyeALov, for precision and emphasis of the essential term. But the repetition of the curse gives the whole an element of agitation and excite­ment, whereas rhetorical theory wams not to appeal 10 passions in a proem (and tbe theory of epistolography does not give any precepts for the parts ofa letter). Are we coming to the end of rhetorica! critieism, at least when applied to letters? It is certainly advisable at this stage to remember that Paul is not making a speech. and that rules for speeches and other types of compositions cannol be expected (as indicated) in all respects 10 be appli­cable to letters, especially as ancient theorists seem 10 have been aware of the very particular nature ofletters.lt is no less important to remember that exceptional circumstances require exceptional means, both from a speaker and from a writer of letters. Our stylistic observations and the fact that there is no parallel for such an introduction in Pau]'s letters warrant the concJusion !hat he regards the situation as a very uousua! one and that he wants to underline here that he is particularly concerned about the true na­ture of tbe EuayyeALov XQLm:oii and about the right understanding of his own position. Is he thereby preparing for and pointing to the central issue(s) ofthe letter?

so Gal. 1,6-9: "I marvel that you turned so soon from hirn who called )'ou in the grace of Christ away to another gospel: Whicb is not another; except that there are some who trouble you and try to pervert the gospel of Christ. But if I or an angel from heaven preached any other gospel unto you than that which I have preached unto yau, Jet hirn be accuned. As I slÜd beiore. so I say now again: If any other man preaches any gospel unto you other than that which you have received,let him be accursed."

Page 28: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

20 1. Paul'.r Epistles and Allelenr Greek and Roman Rhezoric

In the next three verses (I, 10-12) Paul eontinues to stress his eoneem for the eorreet understanding of the message he is preacbing by eontrasting men and God, pleasing men and serving Christ, a gospel reeeived from men (which his is not: I, 11) and a gospel revealed by Christ. Again one notices several forms of antitheton no less than the elaborate expression 1:0 EuayyEÄ.Lov 1:0 EuaYYEALo6ev {m' "I-'0ii ("the gospel preached by myself'), echoing the repeated forms from verses 1,7-9, and the polyptoton >ta1:a äv6QCJJ:7tov ... nUQa av6Qw:7tou ("according to man ... from man"),51 taking up the similar figure from verse I, \. Onee more the apostle makes and emphasizes the claim by whieh he opened bis letter, a claim concerning himself as mouthpieee of God and Christ. In the following versesS2 Paul indicates that he is still uncertain whether the addressees are willing to accept him, to listen to hirn, whether the claim he has so rar merely stated will be honoured. He turns, therefore, to his own past and gives a full aceount, first of bis zeal in perseeuting the Christians and of the revelation of Christ through the grace of God in order that he rnay preach the gospel (1,13-16), next, a little more fully, of his joumeys and activities inArabia, in Damascus, in JerusaJem (first visit, contact with Cephas), Syria, Cilicia, Judaea (I, 17-24) and again in JerusaJem (2, l-10). Here the tone changes; Paul no longer simply reports, he explains, he mentions details, he justifies, he emphasizes differenees and distinctions (1, 17-24 and 2, 1-10). For the eontroversy with Peter in Antiocheia (2, 11-14) he chooses mostly a faetual style again, euIminating in a direct question wbieh he asked Peter: "How do you force the gentiles to live the Jewish way of life?" (2, 14: :n:w_ 1:cl E6vT] a.vayxci~EL_ touÖUt~ELV), before he outlines at some length and with obvious emotions bis own position (2, 15-21).

SI Goi. 1, 10-12: "For do I now try to persuade men. orGod? or da 1 seek to please men? for ifl still tried to please men.1 should not be Christ's servant_ ButI assure you. brcthren. that tbe gospel whicb was preached by me is not according tO man. For ] neither received it from any man. nor was ] taught it. but (I received it) through the reve~ lation ofJesus Christ"

51 GaL 1.13-2. 14 or 2,21; experts disagree whetber this seetion ends at 2. 14 or should beex.tended to 2. 21. L e. whetherthe last seveD verses are a summary ofwhat he said in Antiocheia, see e. g. H. D. Betz (ed.), Galatians 113-114 with n.6 and Galater 212-213 with D. 1 (see n. 1)- What matters, to my mind, is that Paul adopts a different style again for these verses and uses them to move tram the report of his pas! to the message be wants to preach [0 the Galatians.

Page 29: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

1. Paul'! Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rheloric 21

While at the beginning ofhis account he prefers a matter-of-faet kind of style - onee eoloured by a quotation from the prophets Cl, 15: leremiah I, 5; lsaiah 49, 1) - gradually he ehanges bis tone, first underlining the trustworthiness of bis words (1, 20), later not only employing words he used before in describing bis own conversion, bis present aetivity and Ihe revelation as factor bebind il,53 but also resorling bolh to sucb a polernieal expression as "false brotbers" ('~EU1i6.ÖE),cj>OL; 2, 4) and 10 words wilh emotional appeal (2, 4: "liberty" [~),EueEQ[al and 2, 5: "truth of Ihe gospel" [a),~eELa TOÜ EuaYYE),[oUJ) in order to stress his own steadfastness and Ihe reputation he enjoyed witb James, Peter and John. Again in Ihe fmal seetion he aIlows emotions to gain more and mOre ground: antitheta, polyptota and suchlike figures as well as metaphorieal and paradoxical expressions abound.54

Before one determines the funetion oftbis seetion eilher wilh Ihe help of a rhelorical classification or on the basis of stylistic observations or olherwise, one should look at Ihe rest of the letter and exarnine how what was said so far serves as preparation for Ihe following chaplers, how, if al all, it is related to what folIows. The first words of the nexl chapter may cause aslonishment. Paul rebukes the addressees of his epistle: "You stupid Galatians" (3, I: TQ Ct.VOT]TOL raM.TClL). However, such a move is not entirely uncommon in letters (or even in speeches), when a particular effect is intended, 55 and Ihis is obviously the case here. Mter indicating at the beginning Ihat Ihe Galatians had been turned away by certain people from the true gospel (i. e. Ihat wbich he had preached to Ihem: 1,6-9), he now addresses Ihem directly in order to lead Ihern back to Ihe right path (3, 1-5). Once more, Ihe tone changes. Paul begins with a number of queslions to shake up his addressees, to make Ihem consider and reconsider what Ihey are doing, what was preached 10 Ihem, whal is being

53 Cf. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX in­te<pretes 1-11, Stuttgart '1935. D 656: Ieremiah 1,5 .nd TI 633: lsaiah 49, I. Gal. 1. 13: uThat excessively r persecuted the Churcb oe God. and trted to destroy it" (cf. 1. 23); .. thatI migbt proc1aim him amongst ehe gentiles" (1,16. cf. 1.23; 2. 2); "revelation" (1, 12; cf. 1,16: 2,1).

" Antitheta: Gal. 2, 15; 16; 20; polyptota: 2, 16-17; 19; 20-21; met.phoric.1 and paradoxicnl expressions: 2, 18; 19; 20.

55 The theory knows the "blaming" (!lEJm'tL'K6~), "reproachful" (ÖVElÖI.(J'tL')(.6~), "ceDsoriouS" (E1tI.'tq.Lll"tLXOS"l, "vituperative" ('\(JE'X:tLKOS) and "accusing" (xa'tTJYopl.· "0,) type. cf. PS.-Dem. TYIlOI EIlI:!:TOAIKOI prae!: 3; 4; 6: 9 and 17 (p. 2;4-6; 9Weichert).

Page 30: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

22 1. PauZ's Episrles anti Andenr Greek and Roman Rhetoric

offered to them and by whom and wherefrom: "works of the law" (EQya VOILO") or "hearing of the faith" (0.1<011 !tlo-tEOl~), a contrast wbich pointedly repeated as rebuke56 cannot easily be overheard. This is the sub­ject-matter of the following example: Abraham as testimony for faith, but also as someone wbose blessing even the gentiles will receive through Jesus Christ (3, 6-14). "Works of the law" and "faith" continue to dominate the next section, introduced with the address "Brethren" (o.ÖEA.pot: 3, 15) to win the audience, a section in which Paul first adduces the example of the last will (3, 15-18) to illustrate the validity of God's promises, and then discusses the Jewish law wbich had but a temporary function until the coming of the faith (3, 23; that is Christ: 3, 24); and to this argument he adds several lines of promise and encouragement to the Galatians, thus emphasizing the immediate relevance for them of the preceding arguments.

In an even more immediate manner Paul combines promise and argument at tbe beginning of chapter four, where he pronounces ratber than proves that through Jesus Christ God freed tbose subjected to the law (4, 1-7), applying this both to himself and the Galatians by using "we" and "you":57 In the same vein he continues witb questions and requests, expressing more than once bis special concern for tbe GaJatians (4, 8-20); and he adds yet another example from the Old Testament witb a lengthy interpretation (4, 22-31) to illustrate once more the difference between slavery and freedom. Paul uses these as the key terms in the following ehapters foralong series ofadmonitions and warnings (5,1-6,10), before he ends with an unusually leng postscript in his own hand and the blessing.58

Tbis brief analysis with a few remarks on Pau!'s style shows, I trust, sufficiently what the apostle is aiming at here. Faeed with reports on aetivities ofpeople in Galatia who spread some teaching different from bis own, he seeks first briefly to establish his position as apostle and to draw a dear line between the EuaYYEALOV he preaebes and the message of the others, before he speaks ofbis past activities, obviously in view of and in response to aceusations wbich were levelled against bim. Qniy after estabJisbing (or reestablisbing) his authority .nd clearly stating his own

'6 Cf, 3, 1 and 3,2; ''works ofthe Jaw": 3. 2; 5; 10; "law": 3, 10: J 1; 12; 13; 18; 19; 21; 23 _nd 24; "hearingofthefaith": 3,2; 5; "faith": 3, 7; B; 9; 11; 12; 14; 22; 23; 24; 25 and26.

" "We": 4, 3: 5; 6; "you": 4, 6; 8-21. " Gal.6, 11-18, ,eeF. SchniderandW. Stenger (seen. 45),135-167, e,p. 145-151.

Page 31: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

I. Paul's Epi:rtle:r anti Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric 23

views (as he maintained them even in opposition to Peter), he turns to the main subjeet of this leiter, the relationship between law and faith, the funetion of the law in the past, the liberation through Christ, and the rneaning ofboth freedom and faith and their vital importanee for people's lives.

Anyone attempting to explain this work with the help of ancient, that is Greek and/or Roman, rhetorie and/or aneient theory of epistolography will soon discover that the funetion of numerous partieular features in the area of "style" (elocurio) may easily be explained in terms of traditional rhetorie. Also numerous arguments can be analysed in this manner (and this was realized centuries ago and never quite forgolten). But one will also find that the structure of this letter differs fundamentally from the ,ideal' strueture of a logos as recommended by rhetorical theory. The address is followed by what one might call an exordium ("introduction"); but its unusual elements must be taken as a warning that what follows is not one of the Ihree traditional types of logos distinguished by rhetorieal theory; indeed neither a judicial nor a deliberative nor a demonstrative type of speech would have been appropriate here, as Paul is neither addressing a court oflaw from whicb he expects a verdict at the end, nor an assembly which will pass a resolution, let alone praising an individual or a group.

It is not surprising that the categories of ancient rhetoric fail us with respect to the structure of this epistle, because it is an epistle, and they were not made nor meant to fit such kinds of composition. lnstead, one might turn to such lists of types of leiters as are provided by Pseudo­Demelrius and Pseudo-Libanius. However, whether their numerous types offer rnuch help is another matter. For even when one decides - not without hesitation - in favour of the "t1l:n:o~ VOU8E"t1]"tL1<O, ("admonish­ing") or ÖLÖamm"-L1<O~ ("didactic").59 such a term alone does not really assist one in understanding the letter's intention or any ofits details.

However. as Betz is more optimistic with regard to the application of the categories of ancient rhetorie, we have to look briefly at his methods and results. Both in bis early article and in bis eommentary on the letter to the Galatians he states that rhetoric and epistolography belp to understand Pau!'s epistles. and he states that eertain sections are to be given partieular

,. Cf. PS.-Dem. TYIIOI EIIlZfOAIKOI 7 (p. 6 Weichert): Ps.-Lib. EIIIZfO­AIMAIOI XAPAKTHPEl: 27: 72 (p. 18: 29-30. see also 47-48 Weichert).

Page 32: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

24 1. Paul's Epistles and Andenl Greek and RonUln Rhetoric

labels.60 He does not seern 10 offer any arguments, even though he hirnself eomplains that "despile an extensive seareh. I have not been able to find any eonsideration given 10 possible eriteria and methods for determining such an onUine" (of the epistle as often given in cornmentaries).61 Moreover. BeIz states as his thesis that Pau!'s letter to the Galatians is an exarnple of the apologetic letter genre whieh. as he informs us with reference to several publications of the distinguished ancient historian A. Momigliano. arose in the fourth eentury B. C. and presupposes the "letter" form. as well as the genres of "autobiography" and "apologetic speech." He then shows that. apart from such features which are typieal for an epistle as prescript and postscript. the traditional partes orationis follow. first the exordium in which the reasons are stated why the letter was wriuen.62

Any piece of writing has a beginning. as does any kind of orderly speech, so that certain agreements and similarities between a letter and a speech are 10 be expeeted; they canno! be used 10 prove that Paul gave this letter the structure of a logos. However. the rules for exordia of speeches rnay. as was shown above. be used to appreciate partienlar features of epistles also. whether the writer follows the reeommendations of the theory or ignores thern. The section I. 12-2. 14 is understood by Beiz as narralio.63 Kennedy has said what needs to be said to show this to be erroneous:64 The narrative ofthe first and seeond ehapters of Galatians is "not an accounl of the facts at issue". 65 Their real function was seen and

60 Cf. H. D. Betz, The Literary Composition, 359-375 = Paulinische Studien. 70--91 (see n. I); Galatians 16-22 and Galater 57~6 (see n. I) elsaepius.

" H. D. Betz, The Literary Camposition, 353 = Paulinis.he Studien. 63 (see n. I). 62 H. D. Betz. Tbe Literary Composition, 354-362 = Paulinische Studien, 64-75

(sec n. I); Galatians 14-15 and44-46 and Galater 54-56 and 98-\02 (see n.I). Ifaillo see how Momigliano's works on Greek biography support Betz' thesis; see also n. 72 below.

63 H. D. Betz. Tbe Urerary Composition, 362-367 ;; PauJinische Studien, 75-81 (sce n. I); Galatians 16-18 and 57~2 and Galater 58~O and 112-128 (see D. I).

64 G. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation (see n. 4),144-146. However, his view that the epistle to the Galatians belongs to the deliberative genre (145) is not con­vincing either (even though it has been accepted e. g. by J. Smit. New Testament Studies 35. 1989, 1-26 and F. Vouga, Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 79, 1988.291-292; rar the addressees are not called upon to take adecisioD as a group as e. g. thc Atbenian assembly or the Roman senate.

6S Cicero inv. I 27 distinguishes three types of narratio. one as digression, one for pleasure (delectationis causa) aod a third kind. ''in which the case itseJf and the wbole reason ror rbe controversy is comprised" (genus. in quo ipsa causa et omnis ratio con-

Page 33: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

1. Paul's Episrles and Ancient Greek arId Roman Rhetoric 25

explained by an expert on ancient rhetorie more than fifteen eenturies ago, by Marius Vietorinus who, in summarizing this seetion, says "with (the apostle's) authority having been strengthened" or "reestablisbed" (conjirmata igU!lr auctoritate).66 The apostle is anxious first of all to establish or reestablish his Qwn authority before diseussing any details. ParalleIs for this proeedure ean easily be found in speeches delivered in the courts oflaw,61 and in so far one can certainly Jearn a good deal from oratorical practice for the interpretation of epistles.

What about the otherparts ofthis "apologetie letter"? Betz finds 2, 15-21 conforrning to the form, function and requirements of the propositio and claims that this passage is a summary ofthe doctrine ofjustifieation by faith. 68 Even if one does not regard these verses as a summary of Paul's speech at Antiocheia, they are elearlyforrnulated in a very personal way in the first person singular or plural, and this is not the way he talks later in the third and fourth ehapter after turning to the Galatians. Tbe difficulties Betz has in discovering the traditional pattern of a logos in Pau!'s letter beeome even more obvious in the seeond half, as be is foreed to eall a long seetion (about a tbird ofthe whole) "paraenesis" or "exhortatio" (5,1-6, 10)69 whieh may bave a place in other types of letters, but not in an apologetic one (let alone in an apologetic logos). This alone should have

troversiae continelur). cf. also Quint. inst. or. rv 2, 31 who quotes amongst others the definition given by Apollodorus that M"atio is "a speech instructing tbe audience as to the nature ofthe ease in dispute" (oratio docens auditorem. quid in controversia sir).

66 Cf. A. Locher (ed.), Marü Victorini Afri Commentarii in Epistulas PauIi ad Gala­tu ad Philippenses ad Ephesios, Leipzig 1972. J or F. Gori (ed.), Marii Victorini Opera. Pars posterior. Opera exegetica (CSEL 82,2), Wien 1986,96; on his commentaries see A. Souter, Tbe Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles cf St. Paul. Oxford 1927, 8-38 (also on ,Ambrosiaster': 39-95; Jerome: 96-138; Augustine: 139-204 andPelagius: 205-230) and W. Erdt. Marius Victorinus Afert der erste lateinische Pauluskommenta­tor, Diss. tbeol. Hamburg 1979, Frankfurt 1980.

" Cf. Cicero Mur. 2-10; Sull. 3-10; 17-20; 21-29; dom. 3-32, also Rah. perti. 10-17; Sest. 36-52 and see C. J. Classen, Recht Rhetorik Politik. Untersuchungen zu Ciceros rhetorischer Strategie, Darmstad! 1985, 127-134; 224 with n. 27.

~8 See H. D. Betz, The Litewy Composition, 367-368 = Paulinische Studien. 81-82 (see n.I); Galatians 18-19 and 113-114 and Galater 60-61 and 212-215 (see n.l); on tbe controversy with regard to this seetion see above n. 52.

69 Paraenesis: H. D. Betz. The Uterary Composition, 375-377 = Paulinische Stu­dien, 91-93 (see n. I); exhortatio: Galatians 22-23 and 253-311 and Galater 66-68 .nd 433-528 (see n. 1). The corresponcling type of letter is caJled naQaLVE:tLx~: PS.-Lib. EIIIITOAIMAIOI XAPAKTHPEl: praef; I, see also the examples: 1; 90; 91 (p.14; 15; 21-22; 56-57 Weiche,,).

Page 34: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

26 I. Paul's Epistles and Ancien/ Greek and Rom.an Rhetoric

warned Betz not to apply too rashly categories to this letter which were developed for another genre and are, therefore, not applicable exeept for selected aspects and features. The fact that one element (or possibly two) ofthe traditional (,ideal') strueture seern to oecur in a composition does not warrant the inferenee that the other parts must be diseoverable there as weH or that the eomposition as a whole conforms to such a pattern. In the epistle to the Galatians the main body is not concerned with Paul's defenee, and there is no reason, therefore, to regard it as an "apologetie letter", even less so, because the examples Betz cites are quite different, and the model of an "apologetic letter", as it is found in Pseudo­Demetrius, shows no resernblance either.70

This takes us back to the original questions asked at the beginning, and I shall try now to combine the answers to thern with an assessrnent of the possibilities and merits of rhetorical criticism of the epistIes of the New Testament, of its limits and its dan gers. It has become elear in the course of this chapter, Ibope, that rhetorie (oratory) and epistolography were regarded as two different fields in antiquity; and it seems advisable, therefore, not only to keep thern apart, but to ask also how and why they differed so substantially in the elaboration and presentation of their respective theory. The writers of manuals on rhetoric,7! though aware of tbe geeat variety of speeches required by tbe realilies of life, nevertheless did venture to construe a standard structure, at the same time a1Iowing for flexibility in its application and giving adviee on particular forms. Those

70 H. D. Betz. The Literary Composition 354 = Paulinische Studien. 64-65 (see n. I); Galatians 14--15 and Galater 54--56 (see n.I). For the "apologetic type" of letter (Wto1.oytjtL,,6<;) see PS.-Dem. TYfIOI EITIITOAIKOI praej.; 18 (p. 2; 9-10 Weichert, cf. also PS.-Lib. EfIIITOAIMAIOI XAPAKTHPEI 15, p.I6-17 Weichcrt); for some examp1es see St K. Stowers, LetterWriting in Greco·Roman Anti­quity, Philadelphia 1986, 167-170.

71 cr. R. Kassel (ed.), Aristotelis 31'S rhetorica, Berlin 1976; M. Fuhnnann (ed.), Anaximenis ars rhetorlca. Leipzig 1966; F. Marx (ed.), Inceni auctoris de ratione dicen­di ad C. Herennium libri IV, Leipzig 1923; E. Stroebe1 (ed.), M. TuIli Ciceronis rhetorici libri duo, Leipzig 1915j K. Kumaniecki (ed.), M. TuUi Ciceronis de oratore, Leip71g 1969: R. Westman (ed.), M. Tu1li Ciceronis orator. Leipzig 1980; M. Winterbottom (ed.), M. Fabi Quintiliani institutiorus oratoriae Jibri duodecim I-I!. Oxford 1970. For the need of flexibility in applying the rules see e. g. Rhe!. Her. m 17: "But there is also another fonn of arrangement which when ODe must depart from the order imposed by the mIes ofthe art, is accommodated to circumstance in accordance with the speakec'sjudg­ment," (est aUltm aUa dispos;,io, quat cum ab ard;ne artificioso recedendum est, oralo­ns iudicio ad Umpus adcommodarur).

Page 35: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

1. Pauls Epistles andAncitnl Gnek and Roman Rheloric 27

trying to formulate general roles for the writing of letters, on the other hand, aware of the even greater variety of letters actually written by people, did not propose an ideal structure or perhaps two - at least we have no knowledge of anything like that. They mereley listed many various types together with recommendations for the appropriate style in each case. Tbus for the analysis of epistles of the New Testament the theory of epistolography will be of use with regard to matters of style, wbile the large number of actual letters in their manifoldness will provide material for comparison.1Z The theory of rhetoric on the other hand, though developed for another area, together with practical oratory, will also render service, but again within limits, that is in the areas of inventio ("invention") especially for the argumentation and elocutio ("style"), where there is overlapping with the theory of epistolography. On dispositio ("structure") rhetorical theory may be consulted, but extreme caution is called for, as has been pointed out. Perhaps the most useful aspect whieh practical oratory can illustrate is that the best orator disguises his knowledge of the theory,7' that he alters accepted patterns and adjusts thern to the particular case and bis special intention. Thus, not what conforms 10 the roles, but what seems at variance with them often proves most instroctive for the interpretation. Correspondingly, in trying 10

understand a particular composition, one should a1ways look not primarily forwhatis in aecordance with the roles or with general practice, but for the eontrary.

Secondly, as the example of Melanehthon has shown, there is no reason why one should restriet oneself to the rhetorie of Ibe ancients in interpreting texts from antiquity, and not avail oneself of the discoveries and aebievements of more recent times.74 Tbirdly, with regard to the

12 See above n. 14 ror the theoretical works on epistolography. Recently much com~ parative material has been col1ected and analysed e. g. by W. G. Doty. Letters in Primiti­ve Christianity. Philadelphia 1973; J. L. White. Light from Ancient Lelters. Philadelphia 1986; St. K. Stowers (see n. 70) and the works listed in their bibliographies (Whhe: 221-224; Stowen: 177-179). To my mind it is more promising and fruitful to set Paul's epist­les against the whole range ofHellenistic Uterature with its variety of genres. see e. g. K. Berger. Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament, in: W. Haase (cd.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 25, 2, Berlin 1984,1031-1432 and 1831-1885. and also, of course. against the Jewish (Rabbinic) tradition.

73 On the dissimulatio artis see eh. Neumeisler, Grundsätze der forensischen Rheto­rik gezeigt an Gerichtsreden Ciceros. München 1965, 130-155.

1<4 See n. 8, especially W. Wuellner's paper and his other anicles, Hstcd in: St. E. Porter and Th. H. OIbricht (edd.1, Rhetorie and the New Testament (see n. 51. 19-20.

Page 36: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

28 J. Paul's Epistles andAncie1lt Greek and Roman Rheton'c

problems raised about the person of Paul hirnself, bis edueation and the form of rhetoric with which he rnay have been familiar, and the question whether he employed the tools of rhetoric deliberately, it is not my intention 10 deal with them befe. I would merely like to add one or two observations: 75 (a) that Paul must bave read a good deal of Greek literature and tbus have come into contact with rhetorie applied, and (b) that he must have been familiar with the Rabbinic tradition of interpreting the Old Testament and thus have been sensitive to the possibilities inherent in language. As regards the stage in the development of rhetoric wbich he may or may not have known, it should be remembered that the essential insights, classifications and rules, onee formulated by the Greeks. remained largely unchanged for centuries. Furthermore, one should not forget that the occurrence of rhetorica! figures does not allow the inferenee that an author employed them because he was familiar with a theory; for they recommended themselves in practice long before any theory was ever developed (Quint. inst. or. II 17, 5-9), and they are found in authors who were never exposed to any such theory in any form.

However, it does not follow that rhetorica! theory cannot render useful service in such cases. Whether a writer or a speaker bad knowledge of such a theory or not, whether he was familiar with literature written under the influence of such a theory or not, for the interpretation of texts from any period rhetorica! theory offers a most helpful set of insttuments wbieh have to be used, bowever, with the greatest care possible.

Successful and convincing in applying modem rhetoric e. g. F. Siegert.. Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm 9-11, Tübingen. 1985, withspecial empbasis on sociologica1 aspects V. K. Robbins. Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-rhetorical Interpretation of Mark, Philadelphia 1984. and even more so N. R. Petersen. Rediscovering Paul. Philemon and the Sociology ofPau!'s Narrative World, Philadelphia 1985: see further F. Walson, Paul. Judaism and lbe Gentiles. A Sociological Approach, Cambridge 1986: on the other hand. in my view misguided: J. L. Kinneavey, Greek Rhetorical Origins ofChristianFaith.An lnquiry. New York 1981, because tbe paraUcls which he points out do not prove what they are supposed to prove.

7S lt should not be overlooked that Paul at least once uses a technical term (2 Cor. 3,

1): CJUen,X'""at btLenOAat, cf. Ps.-Oem. TYIIOI EIIll:TOAIKOlproe!; 2 (p. 2-3 Weichert): Ps.-Lib. EIIIHOAIMAIOI XAPAKTHPEl: proe!: 4: 95 (p. 14: 16: 22: 58 Weichert); see further below cbapter 11.

Page 37: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

11. Paul and the Tenninology of Ancient Greek Rhetoric

The renewed interest in ancient rhetorie which students of the Old Testament and particularly of the New Testament have shown in recent years l bas made them ask whether and to what extent the authors of the gospels and letters weTe familiar with the theories of the ancient rhetoricians or could have been familiar with them, especially the apostle Paul. Neither general considerations as regards the standard ofthe schools at Tarsus or Paul's education in particular could lead to convincing answers nor observations on the use of certain figures of speech or other stylistie deviees in the epistles.2 For such means and ways of exploiting the opportunities inherent in the language of the Greeks had existed and had been used long before a theory was ever developed, and striking expressions and phrases could and would also be used again and again later, independently of existing theoretical rules and preeepts.31t would be more convineing, therefore, ifPaul hirnself could be shown to have made use of some teehnical terms of rhetorie. FOT even though it would not be possible to pTove with eertainty that he owed his knowledge ofthem either to formal instruetion in rhetoric whieh he hirnself enjoyed or to his own

I See above chapter I, esp. D. F. WatsoD andA. J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible.A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method. Leiden 1994.

2 The Jiterature on Paul is toD vast to be referred to here, see e. g. H. HUbner and D. Flusser, Paulus, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 26, 1996, 133-153 and 153-160. esp.149-153 and 159-160 (furtherliterature).

, St. E. Porter in: St. E. Porter and Th. H. Olbricht (edd.), Rhetoric and the New Testament. Essays from thc 1992 Heidelbcrg Conferenee. Sbeffield 1993. lOS ß. 12 re­gards my statement that ··praxis precedes theory" ("die Praxis ist älter als die Theorie", see C. J. Classen, Zeitschrift fUr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 82, 1991.31) as a "provocative observation". Not only da I have to insist on this: it seerns ta me to be of thc greatest importance always to rememberthis fact as weil as the other that everybody through his education and through his own reading acquires a great deal of knowledge without always being conscious of it and without being able to name exact1y Lbe source of each particular piece of information.

Page 38: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

30 ll. Paul QlId rhe Term.rnology of Ancienl Grtek Rhetoric

reading of rhetorical handbooks, to prove that he used such tenns would at least a1low us to conc!ude that he leamed thern from others who were famiJiar with rhetorical theory, that is, to put it differently, that Paul was at least indirectly familiar with or influenced by rhetorical theory. Where he could hecome acquainted with some particular tenns, he could become acquainted with at least some rules and also with appJied rhetorie, i. e. with some models. But are there examples of his knowledge of any technical term of ancient rhetoric?

In the fllst ehapter I pointed out in passing (n. 75) that Paul at least once, in the seeond letter to the Corinthians (3, I), uses a technical tenn from aneient epistolographie theory, aulna"tLxat ElttlnoÄ-at,4 a theory whieh, as I tried to show, is not to he confused with rhetoric, as the ancients kept the !wo mostly apart. Here I am asking the more general question: What may he said with any degree of certainty about the use oftechnical tenns of rhetoric in those epistles ascribed to Paul which are generally accepted as genuine?5

In the thirteenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans the apostle urges his addressees to ohey the (Mosaic) law, and after citing several com­mandments he says: xatEi: ~L<; heQa 8~0Ä-tj, 8v ~ci> MY'll1:o':'~'ll avaxE­<j>aÄ-moii1;m (9: "and if there be any other commandment, it is hriefly comprehended in this saying"). While xE<j>aÄ-moiiv occurs more than onee in Greek prose since Thueydides and also auyxE<j>aÄ-moliv,6 avaxe­<j>aÄ.moiioSm (as weil as rnavaxE<!>aÄ.moiioSaL' ) and avaXE<j>a­Ä-a[wO"L, are rare, heing used almost exclusively in works of rhetoric. The earliest writer to whom we can attrihute avaxE<j>aÄ-moiiaSm, if we trust

, Cf. V. Weichen (ed.). Demetrii el Libanii qui ferunturTYIIOI EIIITIOAIKOI el EIIlnOAIMAIOI XAPAKTHPEl:, Leipzig 1910: PS.-Dem. praef and 2 (p.2-4) and PS.-Lib. praef: 4 and 95 (p. 14; 16; 22 and 58 Weicheet). Theteem is still in use in modern Greek.

S FoUowing communis opinio I accept as genuine the first letter to the Thessalonians and the two letters to the Corinthians. the letters to the Galatians, the Romans. the Phi­Jippians and to Pbilemon, see e. g. G. Strecker. Literaturgeschichte des Neuen Testa· menrs, Göttingen 1992.58.

6 See H. G. LiddelI. R. Scott and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford '1940,945 and 1664-1665 s. w. XEej>nAmoüv and OllyxEq,aAmoüv.

7 For Eltavaxtq,alamüa9m cf. Hermog. srat. 3 (p.52. 11 Rabe) and later Ori­genes, Alexander of Apbrodisias. Syrianus. John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; 7tQocr· avaxe<j)aAaLotia6aL is hapax legomenon in Apollonius of Citium 3 (p.92 Kollesch­Nickel).

Page 39: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

TI. Poul and tlu! Tenninology 0/ Ancient Greek Rhetoric 31

Aristotle, is Theodectes;8 later we find it in Dionysius of Halicamassus, in Neocles,9 Quintilian (ins!. or. VI I, 1-2), Rufus, Apsines, Troilus and For­tunatianus. 10 Both verb and noun always refer 10 the recapitulation of the most essential elements of a speech. The equation with Ke<l>aÄaLoüv, as suggested by H. Schlier in the Theologische Wörterbuch,l1 is no less mis­leading than bis assumption of two meanings a) "to reduce to a Ks<l>a­ÄaLov,lo swnmarize" and b) ''to dissect something into its main seetions" . Rather Paul employs the technical term ofrhetorie here with the inlention of making it unmistakably dear that in the saying äya3t~OeL, TÜV 3tÄ'l0LOV OOU 00, oeaUTOv ("thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'), quoted immediately afterwards, all commandments he has mentioned previously and "if there be any other" are summed up as would be done in the epilogue of a speech in which all individual arguments with their main points are brought back to the hearers' mind. 12 Tbis passage leaves no doubt, I !hink, that Paul is not only familiar with the particular rhetorical term, but knows how to use it most effectively.

In the letter to the Galatians. at the beginning of his interpretation of the two sons of Abraham from his two wives, Paul uses an'lyoeei:v (in the

• Cf. Arisl. frg. J 03 Rose = Prol. SylL (p. 32 Rabe, with paralleis), see F. Solms.n. Theodektes, in: Pau1y-Wissowa, Rea1encyclopädie V A, Stuttgart 1934. 1732.

9 Cf. Dion. Hal. Lys. 9.4. see also 19,6; for Neocles cf. Anon. Seg. 203: 206; 210-220 (214 mentioned by name).

10 Cf. Rufus ars rher. 41; Hennog. stal. 3 (p. 52 Rabe); melk. 12 (p. 427 Rabe); Aps. an rhel. 12 (p. 296-298 Spengel Hammer = M. R. DillS and G. Kennedy [edd.], Two Greek Rbetorica1 Treatises from the Roman Empire, Leiden 1997. 192-194: 10); Troilus proI.: Prol. Syll. (p. 52 Rabe); Fortunal. II 31: Hennog. merk. 12 (p.427. 16-428.6) re· marks that eaclier the term btavo8oo;: was cammon, referring co Demosth. or. 23. 18. Plato Phdr. 266 D~E and 267 D. Instances in non-rhetorical works are very rare, cf. Dion. Hai. ant. R.190; Apollon. Cil. 1 and 3 (p. 24, 25 and 106, 19 Kolleseh-Nickel).

Il In: Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 1-10. Stuttgart 1933-1979, 3. 1938. 681. with reference to E_ Fraenkel. Griechische Denominativa in ihrer ge­schichtlichen Entwicklung und Verbreitung. Göttingen 1906. 135 who. however. dis­cusses the simplex Xfcpo.laloiiv only.

J:! In the same way the author ofthe letter to the Ephesians wants to indicate that "as in tbe epilogue of a speech everyth1ng is expressed that needs to be srud. thus in Christ everything is surnmarized what is inheaven and on eanh"; he is, as it were. thc last word in which everything finds its fulfilment (1, 10: avaw.Ecj>a).au.oaaa9m. "[0. :n:avta ~v 1'4' XQLO'tt9, 'tCx i7Ü tote; oUQavotc; xai. 'ta F.1t1. -n;C; yfJc; Ev aü't~); Jerome (in: J.-P. Migne [ed.]. Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Lalina 26, Paris 1866. Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Ephesios libri tres 483: I I, 10) explains tbe use of Q.vaxEcj>akatOOOLS here with explicit reference to the practice of orators.

Page 40: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

32 11. Paul and the Tenninology 01 Ancient Greek Rhetoric

passive voiee: 4, 24): anva fO'tLV aAA'1yog01i~tEVa ("this is said in an al­legorieal way of speaking, allegorieally"). Aeeording to Plutareh (mor. 19 D), aAA'1yogla later replaces u:novota in the sense of "original, proper meaning, real, underlying sense of a word", obviously sinee Hellenistie times, perhaps introdueed by Stoic pbilosophers.13 There is evidence both for the noun and the verb CtAA'1YOgELV (also for adjectives and other deri­vates) only in the rhetorical works of Philodemus, Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus,14 of Pseudo-Longinus, Pseudo-Demetrius, Quintilian,15 TIberius, Tryphol6 and in authors who concern themselves with the inter­pretation of earlier writers, especially in Philo and Heraclitus, but also in Josephus, Plutarch, Sextus and AthenaeusP As Paul uses aAA'1yogeLv,18 though other synonyms are also available such as "aS' un;ovotav or ÖL' un;ovOLOOV or ÖL' et"ovo, I ÖL' eL"ovOJV HyeLv or eL"ovoAoyeLv,19 one may regard this word as testimony for the fact that he was farniliar with the rhetorical terminology ofhis time.20

l' Cf. I. ab Amim (ed.), Sloieorum Veterum Fl1lgmenta I-N, Leipzig 1903-1924, I 118 frg. 526.

l' Cf. Phld. rher. Ip.I64; 174: 181 Sudbaus; Cie. or. 94; Dion. Hai. Dem. 5, 6. l' Cf. Ps.-Long. 9. 7; PS.-Demetr. e/oe. 99: 100; 101; 151; 285; Quint. bISt. or. VIJI 6,44: IX 1.5;2,46.

115 Cf. G. Ballaira (ed.). TIberii Oe figuris Demosthenicis, Roma 1968. 25 aod 26: 23 and 24: Tryph. 'TOp. 3 (IJI p.193 Spengel and M. L. Wes~ Classieal Quarterly 59, 1965, 236).

17 See H. G. LiddelI, R. Scott and H. S. lones, A Grcek-EngHsh Lexicon (see n.6), 69: F. BUchsel, iI1: Theologisches Wörterbuch (see n.ll) 1. 1933, 260 and W. Bauer, Griechisch·deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übri­gen urchristlichen Literatur, SerHn 51963, 77-78, s. v. a)J"T\yoQSoo. I prefer trus edition to the new oße, edited by B. and K.. Aland. Berlin 61988, with its numerous errors and mjsprints. see e. g. tbe ridiculous references 54 s. v. aLoov to my review of E. Degani's book (Guemica instead of Gnomon) and to his reply (Dir. Fil. instead of Riv. Fil. Istr. CL).

J 8 Commentators seern to agree mat one should translate: "This is being said alle· gorically ....

" Cf. e. g. Polyb. xxvm 4, 5; PS.-Dion. Hol. rhet. 9, 1: Aleiphr. IV 19,4; Plat. TeS

p. 487 E: Aristot. rher. 1407 a 11: Antig. mir. 127. 20 One might objecl, arguing that this is a philosophical term. However, its oc­

currence proves that Paul knows such technical tenninology and that is wbat matters bete: for such a knowledge points to the standard of the education he enjoyed. St. E. Portcr's remark (The Paul of Acts. Tübingen 1999, 104): "His use of such terms as OJJ,.. llyoQELV (Oa14: 24) is thought to be conventional and not technical" does not appear to me 10 be very helpful.

Page 41: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

11. Paul and the Tenninology 01 Ancient Greek Rhetoric 33

In the letter to the Philippians (1, 7) the noun ße~alOJ(JlC; is found which oceurs a1ready in Attie Greek in the sense of "confirmation, corroboration of an opinion".21 We meet with it as a teehnieal term in legal and commer­cial eontexts ("guaranteeing, guaranty, warranty"),22 and sinee Anaxime­nes it is also common in works of rhetorical theory for a kind of confirrna­tion of a statement by means of proofs or additional considerations23 or of a whole speech in the epilogue.24 When Paul at the very beginning of his epistIe to the Philippians, in deseribing his attitude towards his addressees and their attitude towards hirn, speaks ofhis prison (fetters) and adds EV Tfi a:n:oA.oyl\;L 'Kat ßEßmoooEL TOÜ euaYYEA.(oU ("in the defenee and confir­rnation ofthe gospel") one may wonder whether be resorts to the language of the lawyers or of the rhetoricians. If I am not mi staken, he is thinking here ofthe justification ordefenee, as it were, ofthe gospel and a support­ing supplementary eonfirmation;"" and lassume that he was familiar with ßeßa(OJolof; as teehnical term of rhetorie for one of the functions of an epi­logue, not least of the final part of ajudicial speech.

A passage in the first letter to the Corinthians (2, 4) confronts us with a special problem, as the manuscripts offer variant readings. E. Nestle in 1948 prints () A.6yOC; !-I0U KatTe, X1]QUY!-Ia. !-I0U OUX Ev :n:eL8oic; oo<j>(ac; A.6YOLC;, a~' Ev a:n:OÖE(!;EL :n:VEV!-IaTOC; xat öuva.!-IEOJC; ("My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of wisdom, but in demonstra­tion of spirit .nd power"), B. and K. Aland in 1993 prefer Ev :n:EL80T[C;] oo<j>i.aC; [A.6YOLC;] ("with the persuasion of wisdom").26 In the Vulgate we

" See H. G. Liddell. R. Seott and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English '-exieon, (see n. 6), 312 s. v. ßEßn(",cr".

22 See apart !rom W. Bauer. Griechisch·Deutsches \Vörterbuch (see n.17). 275 F. Preisigke and E. Kießling. Wörterbuch der griechischen Pap}'rusurkunden I ·Ill. Berlin 1925-1931,1263-264.

" Cf. Anaxim. r"er. 32, 1; 36, 17; 19; Hermog. prog. 5 (p.ll); meth. 28 (p.445 Rabe).

14 PS.-Dion. Hai. rhel. 10. 18; with a different nuance Hermog. meti!. 20 (p. 435-436 Rabe): to confum an ~eo~ by means of an oath. agam different: K. Hajdu (ed.), Ps.· Herodian. De figuris, Berli. 1998, 118 and 122: 25 and 36: 6LaßEßn("'tn,.

25 Commentators call CmoAoy[a and ßeßai.wat.; "rorensic technical tenns", see e. g. W. Michaelis, Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper, Leipzig 1935. 15. or "terms related to lawyers'laDguage" ("juristisch gefärbte Termini": J. Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief. Frei· burg 21976, 49); I would rather say that ßE~aiwau;: belongs [0 the rhetorical terminology devetoped for procedures used by orators in the courts of law.

,. Cf. E. Nestle (ed.), Novum Testamentum GtlIeee. Stuttgart 221948, 428; B. and K. Aland et a1. post E. et E. Nestle (edd.). Novum Testamentum Grllece. Stuttgart 2.71993.

Page 42: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

34 11. Paul and ,h~ Tenninology 01 Andent Greek Rhetoric

read et senno meus et praedicatio mea non in persuasibilibus sapientiae verbis. sed in ostensione Spiritus et virtutisP Does Paul have the courage here to coin a new word, the adjective ItELeO" as he coins ItE\.(Jf10V~ in the letter to the GaJatians (5, 8), a word which unlike 7tEL9o, occurs later also,28 ordoes he choose the faroiliar noun ItELedJ. used aJready by Plato in the Gorgias forthe definition of rhetoric aod fouod later severaJ times both in the rhetorica! writings of Dionysius of HaJicamassus and Pseudo-Lon­ginus?29 The second member of this contrast. again a terminus technicus, cmoöELSLi;;, "sober demonstrating or reliable proving" as opposed to per­suading, perhaps even bewitching phrasing of human wisdom,30 to my mind requires a similar!y emphasized noun as first member. For this rea­son I prefer to read Ev ItELeOL; and thus one may register yet another trace of Pau!'s farniliarity with the technica! vocabulary of rhetorica! theory.

A special problem arises [rom Paul's use of f1E'tCl.CJ)("f1C1.'t[~ELV, a word which occurs severaJ times in his letters in the common meaning "to change the form of a person or !hing"3l or in the middle voice "to change

443: B. M. Metzger. A Textual Commentuy on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart 21994,481 also favours Ev 1t't1.8ot.

TI See R. Weber (ed.), Biblia sacra iuxta vUIgatam versionern I-lI, Stuttgart '1975, n 177\.

28 See H. G. LiddelI. R. Seott and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon (see n. 6), 1356 and W. Bauer. Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch (see n. 17), 1271 s. v, n€tOIl0vr,. FOT other neologisms see n. 82.

" Cf. Plat. Gorg. 453 A (cf. also Gorgias Irg. A 28 Diels Kranz = frg. 9 Rader­macher); Dion. Hal. Lys. 18,4; Dem. 13.2; 24, 8; comp.2, 6; 3, 9; 18; Thuc. 23. 7; Pomp. 3, 19; Ps.-Longin. J, 4: 17, I; 20, I; 39, I; 3, cf. also Aristot. rhel. 1406 a 4-5 (quoting Aleidarnas).

30 As the contrast dv9QW1tot.- 9e:6~ does not follow till verse 5. av8QOl1tLVTlS is to be regarded as later addition; il suggests itself to assume Ev :rtsL90L cro$ta!; xaL Ä.6yoov as paraUel to EV CL1tOÖSL.!;e:L 1tVEuJ.!a"'to~ 'Kat ouvalUw~. > A.1t6ÖEÜ;L~, omüted in the Theologische Wörterbuch (see D. 11). denotes bOlh the denlonstration wirb the help of reliable arguments and the weIl founded result; W. Schrage. Der Erste Brief an die Ko­rinther I-IJI, Neukirchen Vluyn 1991-1999, 1233, even says: "Auch c'm6ö'~I> ist wahrscheinlich eine bewußte Anspielung auf einen term. techno der antiken Rhetorik" ("Probably cbt6oeLJ;LC;. toD. is adeliberate allusion to a lechnical term of ancießt rhetoric").

31 Cf. Phi!. 3, 21. G. Friedrich, in; J. Becker, H. Conzelmann and G. F., Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser. Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher und Phllemon, Göttingen 1985. 165 translates: "Who will transfonn the body of our insignificance", incorrectly on the otber hand M. Dibelius. An die Thessalonicher J. II. An die Philipper, Tübingen 31937. 92: "Who will transfonn the body of our existence into insignificance."

Page 43: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

11. Paul and the Terminology 0/ Andent Greek Rhetoric 35

one 's form, to disguise oneself'. 32 However, to the phrase in the first letter to the Corinthians (4, 6) by which Paul clearly characlerizes his manner of presentation ("taü"tll ÖS, Cr.I\EA<j>OL ~"tEO)(T]~ta"ttOIl ELs tIlIlU"tOV xat

'AJtO)"),,ÖlV ÖL' Ullii,), modem scholars have given different interpreta­tions. H. Lietzmann translates correctly: "And this, (my) brethren, 1 have applied to myself and to Apollos for your sakes", W. Bauer less accuralely: "I have given this teaching of mine the form of an exposition conceming myseU and Apollos",33 and H. Conzelmann says: "And Ihis, brethren, I have exemplified through myself aod Apollos (or: applied to myself and Apollos) for your sakes"; J. Schneider, fmally, assumes the meaning "10 express something in a form different from the expected or common one" and rejects explicitly the sense "to say somelhing by meaos of a figure of speech"; for, as he argues, there is no figure of speech in this contex!.3' There seems 10 me to be a misunderstanding. In handbooks of rhetorical theory the common meaning of ~"t(lO)(T]IlIl"t[~ELV and IlE1:1l0)(T]Il(l,L­

~EOeaL is "to rearrange the form of a speech", L e. eilher the individual words by chan ging the sequence of the letters, the gender, the number or the case,35 or by replacing one word by aoother or several others,36 or a phrase by adding something,31 0. a whole sentence by switching around and reorgaoizing its parts or addressing one person instead of another.38 Correspondingly one should translate PauI's phrase as follows: "This, L e.

32 Cf. 2 Cor. 11, 13; 14; 15. H. Windisoh. Der zweite Korintherbrief. Göttingen 1924. 341. paraphrases aptly: "in a forbidden deceptive manner to usurp the shape of apostles··. E. Bickel Rhein. Mus. 100, 1957,98-99 nies to show on the basis ofthe use of transfigurari by Seneca ep. 6 and 94, 48 that ~t.E"C(lax"fJ.a:~U;;ß0'6al was a technical term ofthe Stoics (Posidonius).

33 See H. Lietzmann and W. G. Kümmel, An die Korinther L II, TUbingen 51969, 18; W. Bauer. Griechisch·Deutsches Wörterbuch (see D. 17). 1015 and its translation by W. F. Amdt, F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa­ment .... Chicago 21979, 513 who against Bauer alter the order ofPaul andApollos (for DO obvious reason).

34 See H. Conzelmann. Der erste Brief an die Korinther, Göttingen 1969. 104 (in­structive as he offen two attempts to translate the text side by side); J. Schneider, in: Theologisches WBnerbuch (see n.ll) 7,1964,958-959.

" Cf.lhe writings ofHerodian a.dApollo •. /ex. s. v. "QL; Polyb.fig. JITp.105-l06 SpengeJ; see also Aristot. sens. 446 b 6-9 (sound during speech), again differently Diod. S. II 57,4 (utopia).

" Cf. PI.t. leg. 906 C 6. 37 Cf. Ano •. Med-febr. in: Ch. Daremberg .nd E. Ruelle (edd.). (Euvr .. de Rufus d'

Eph~se, Paris 1879.604-605. " Cf. Ps.-Henuog. illv. 4. 3 (p.18!); 4, 4 (p.lS7 Rabe);Alex.jig.lII p. 24 Spengel.

Page 44: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

36 Il. Pau{ anti the Tenninology o[ Ancient Greek Rhetoric

the preeeding sentenees, (my) brethren, r have transformed (or reorga­nized) with view to myself and to Apollos for your benefit, in order that you may leam with the help of us (through us as examples, from partieular eases the general) the meaning of ,not beyond what has been written"'. Not only does Paul show hirnself familiar here with the terminology of rhetorie, it is with the help of such a knowledge ofthe teehnieal voeabulary of rhetorie alone that one can fully and adequately understand and appreciate Paul's phrasing.39

There is yet another observation whieh I would like to make here largely to warn against incautious assumptions and rash concJusions. Several times Paul uses the nouns rrueaxi..'lu~ and rrueu!J.'U9la together (1 Cor. 14, 3) or rrueaxi..'l~ and rrUeU!J.1l9LOV (Phi!. 2, 1) or the verbs rrueuxuÄeiv and :n:ueu!J.'Ugeiu9at (I Thess.2, 1240). While :n:ueuxui..eiv is sometimes found in handbooks of rhetorie, though never being a terminus technicus,41 rruQu!J.ugeiu9at oceurs in consolatory speeches42

and 'to :n:ueU!J.'U9'l'tLXOV is even used as terminus technicus for a particular section of a funeral speeeb in the rhetorie aseribed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus; and roughly at the same time the Rhetor Menander formulates his preeepts for the :n:ueU!J.'U9'l'tLXO, )..6yo,,43 yet without using :n:ueuxui..eiv together with it. It seems worth noting. however, that the Latin equivalents for :n:UeaxJ..'lUl' and :n:uQu!J.'U9tu as chosen by the Vulgate, consolatio and exhortatio,44 are found together several times in Roman literature, e.g. in Quintilian's illstitutio oratoria (X 1,47: ut de laudibus exhortationibus coltsolationibus taceam: "not to speak of his praises, exhortations and eonsolations"), in the writings of bis pupil Pliny (palleg. 69, 2) and in the great declamations ascribed to Quintilian (Ps.­Quint IV 7, 18), as weil as earJier in the dialogues and epistles of the

]9 There is DO need to assume with A. Dihle (mentioned by J. Schneider [see n. 34], 959 n. 10) a catachresis.

40 80th verbs also occur 1 Thess. 5, 14, but not in a parallel construclion so that I dis­regard that passage.

41 Cf. e. g. Anaxim. met. praef 12~ 1,4; 2, 27 et saepius, also JtaQa.XA.'1Ol~. Ps.­Aristot. div. even knows a xaQQx)..l11:LX0S- )"6yo~ (p. 1 J Mutschmaon).

42 Cf. TIlUe.ll44, 1: Hyp. epil. 41: Dio Chr. or. 28, 14; 30, 45. " Cf. PS.-Dion. Hai. rhel. 6, 4: Men.nd. rhel. 2, 9 (p. 160-164 Russen Wilson).

nagaJ.!.'U6etcr6al and JtaQdxaAeiv occur together e. g. Dion. Hal. Thuc. 47, I, xaQa­,,,,,,lv .nd "aQa~,vela Hermog. id. II 10 (p. 393 Rabe).

44 Cf. also Mar. Viel. rhet. 1.5 (p.174, 29-38 Halm). Pb. Melanehthon, Elemen­torum rbetorices libri duo (Wittenberg 1531, edition here used:) Wlttenberg 1536, fol. D Sv still puts consolatio and adhorlatio tagether, see cbapter V n. 82.

Page 45: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

1/. Pattl and rhe Tenninology of Ancient Greek Rhetoric 37

younger Seneea (dia!. IX 5, 2; epist. 94, 21 and 95, 65) who in the last of the passages eited refers not to his father, as one might expeet, but to the Greek Posidonius (frg. 176 Edelstein-Kidd: Positionius nOIl tantum praeceptionem ... sed etiam suasionem et consolationem et exhortationem necessariam iudicat: "Posidonius expressed the opinion that not only instruetion, but also advising, eonsoling and exhorting was necessary"). This raises the questions as regards the Greek equivalents for Seneea's phrases - 1. G. Kidd assurnes for consolatio :rcC1gC1fL'lJ9'1j1:tKO, (sc. Myo,), while he suggests several alternatives for exhortatio, not mXQCtKA!]OL, or :rcC1QC1KÄ.!]'\KO, Myo"'S - and as regards the origin of Posidonius' distinetion which Kidd no doubt eorreetly calls "an analysis of pedagogie modes relevant to the seetions of ethics". It would be surprising, if Paul juxtaposed the two nouns or the two verbs of his own accord and did fall back upon a group which aIready existed, whether it originated from philosophy or rhetorie and whether he got it directly or indirectly from such soure es. 46

Several times Paul uses fLC1KC1QLOfLO,. The word occurs first in Plato's writings (res p. 591 D) and once inAristotle's rhetorie who sets it together witb dJÖatfLOVLO~lO, whieh he uses more frequently against e:rcatvo, and eYKcOfLLoV (1367 b 26-36),47 a distinetion whieh one meets with again in tberhetoric ofAnaximenes and also laterin the works (wrong1y) attributed to Hippodamus and ArchytaS.48 Elsewhere fLC1KaQLofLo, occurs in the writings of philosophers, in Epicurus (sent. Vat. 52), the Stoies (Sroicorum Veterum Fragmenta m frg. 413) or in IT€Q\ :rca9Ülv ascribed to

" SeeL. Edelslein and G. Kidd (edd.), Posidonius I'-m, Cambridge 1988-1999, Il 646-651 and m 242 with D.. 152: "all terms for set categories (sunsio, consolatio. exhor­falio) in both Greek and Latin philosophy and rhetoric".

415 Commentators clearly have problems in trying to do justice to tbe two verbs to­gether with llaQ't"UQ€o9aL in 1 The.ss. 2. 12,. e. g. T. Holtz. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicber, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986, 89-90; he rightly rejects E. Dobschijlz' view that they are synonyms. but his Qwn assumption that 1[aQaxa).oüvtE~ is the more general one the meaning ofwhich is unfolded by the other two is not convincing eimer.

47 Cf. tbe anonymous commentary H. Rabe (ed.). Comm. in Arist. Graec. 21. 2 p. 55. 33-56,1 and 242,13-17 .

... Cf. Anaxim. rher. 35,4; Stob. III 1,107 p.57, 13-14 Hense = H. Tbeslefr (ed.), Tbe Pylhagorean Texts oftbe HelJenistic Period, Abo 1965,8 = B. Centrone (cd.), Pseu· dopythagorica Ethica. I trattati morali di Archita. Metopo. Teage. Eurifane. NapoIi 1990,71; Stob. IV 39, 26 p. 910, 13-15 Hense = p. 95 Tbesleff; see also Dion. HaI. anr. R. IV 25, 3.

Page 46: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

38 Tl. Paul alld the Tenninology of Ancient Greek Rhetoric

Andronicus of Rhodes.'9 and in authors with some philosophical or rhetorical interest, e. g. Philodemus, Philo, Dio Chrysostom and Plutarch, once also in Josephus.5o The fact that Paul uses the word, to my mind, reveals the standard ofhis education and the degree ofhis familiarity with the vocabulary of philosophers and rhetoricians.

In the "Lexicon teehnologiae Graecorurn rhetoricae" of I. Ch. G. Ernesn (Leipzig 1795) one meets with the lemmata I:h)o<!>l1~ta and clJ<!>l1~ta. Both words do in fact oceur in works of ancient rhetorie - notin modem ones - e. g. in Philodemus and "the so-called Anonymus Seguerianus (Ps.-Comutus),sl in Ps.-Demetrius and Ps.-Aristides.52 When we find Paul not only in the first letter to the Corinthians (4, 13) using ÖUcr<!>I1f!€LV in ilS common rneaning "to abuse" and in the letter to the Philippians (4, 8) EÜ<!>"~OS "enjoying a good reputation, being bonae famae",S3 but plaeing the two words öuo<!>l1~ta and EV<!>I1~ta with special ernphasis side by side in a most earefully and impressively phrased long senteneeS4 in the second letter to the Corinthians (6, 8), it is tempting to suggest - in view of the other instances discussed here - that he became acquainted with this pair through works of rhetoric. However, such an

" Sce A. G. Thirry (ed.), Pseudo-Andronicus de Rhodes "fIEPI fIASON··. Lei­den 1977.225 wbere the text need not be changed, as the paralieis cited by the editor (282) show. cf. Stob. 11 7, 10 c p. 92 Hense = I. abAmim (ed.). Stoicorum V.t.rum Frag­menta (see n. 13), m J 00 frg. 413; Ammonius diff. 213 p. 56, 7-8 Nickau.

50 Cf. H. Diels, Philodemos über die Götter, Drittes Buch I-lI, Berlin 1917. I 18 (frg. 86 a 5); Philo somn. II 35; Dion. HaI. ant. R. IV 25, 3 (see n. 48); Plut. Sol. 27, 9; Tun. 39, 3; mor. 471 C; Jos. bell. VII 6. 213.

SI Aua<j>l]!,la: cf. Phld. rher. 1 p.175, 19-21 and 177, 14-15 (together with at<lJ(QoQ~"O""VlJ); 176,22-26 (witb al<lJ(Qo1-oyia). see also II p. 215; ~ua<j>~"'Lv: 1 p. 215,5-7 (contrast: ",1-0YELV); p.220, 22-26 Sudhaus; Anon. Seg. 105 (E,,<j>~!,ia as 'IQ61tos; ofthe 6L~Yl10U;:: no example is given).

52 Cf. Ps.-Demetr. e10e. 281 (definition of the Ell<j>~!'ta,,6~ with the he1p of Eii<j>~"o~ and öUa<j>TJ"o~), see also 302, differently 175; PS.-Aristid. rher. I 161; 164; 166.

S3 Euq,TJIlQ is certainly not to be translated as "what sounds pleasant'· (Luther) er "pleasantly sounding" (E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper. an die Kclosserund an Philemon. Göttingen 1956, 172), but rather as "recognized" (M. Dibelius [see n. 31J. 94) or "commendable" (I. Gnilka [see n.25J. 218) or "what has a good reputation" (G. Friedrich [see n. 31l. 167).

54 See only H. Lietzmann and W. G. KUmmel (see n. 33),127-128: "With great skiU the list of sufferings verses 4-10 is gradually interwoven as from verse 6 with a list of virtues and excellences and from verse 6 offers impressive antitheses."

Page 47: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

11. Paul and the Terminology 0/ Ancient Greek Rheforic 39

assumption is not necessary, let alone cogent, especially as Paul is fond of opposing contrasting tenns. 55

Next a phrase from the ninth chopter ofRomans (28) deserves our atten­tion, where Paul uses a word, O'UV,Ef.LVELV, which is common as terminus technicus of ancient rhetoric56 and which translators and commentators understand accordingly: H. W. Schmidt translates: "For the Lord will bring to complelion his word and fulfil it speedily upon the earth", H. Schlier: "For bringing to completion and shortening bis word, the Lord will fulfil it upon the earth", U. Wllckens: "For the Lord will, bringing to completion and cutting it short, produce a word upon the earth" and P. Stuhlmacher: "For the Lord will be active through bis word upon the earth as someone who fulfils and in doing so cuts short"; the new "Revised English Bible" is very short: "For the Lord's sentence on the land will be summary and fmal".57 Strictly speaking, we are dealing here not with Pau!'s own words, but with a quotation, the summarizing reproduction of two verses from the prophet Isaiah (10, 22-23a) which in the Septuagint read as folIows: l.6yov yaQ O'UV'tE),OOV xat O'UV'tEf.LVrov ev öLXaWOUv'!l, ö" l.6yov O'UV'tE'tf.L1'Jf.LEVOV TtOL~OEL 0 Sec<; ev 't'fi olxolJf.LEv'!l ö)'TI.58 If one tries to solve the obvious problems of this text by turning to the Hebrew original, one is faced with additional difficullies wbich cannot be discussed here. At any rate modem commentators leave no doubt that the prophet by taking up Tnn 1;'7:> by mn1Jll "7:;> intends to emphasize both the element of destruction and of a finaJIy punishing decision;59 and this is,

55 See in general N. Schneider. Die rhetorische Eigenart der paulinischen Antithese, TUbingen 1970, esp.I6-30.

56 Strictly speaking only O'\JvtO~i.a, aUV"tOJ.lOt; and C1Uvt6~~wt; occur in works on the tbeory of rhetoric, while tbc verb is found in the works of the orators or in dramatic or philosophical dialogues, see H. G. LiddelI. R. Scott and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon (see n. 6), 1728 s. vv.

" See O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, Göttingen 31978. 305: H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief. Freiburg 1977,294; U. Wilckens. Der Brief an die Römer I-rn, Neukir­chen-V1uyn 1978-1982, 1I 198; P. Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer. Götlingen 1989, 135; Tbe Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford 1989, The New Testament 141.

SI For the variant readings in Aquila. Symmaehus and Theodotion cf. I. Ziegler (cd.), Isaias, Göttingen '1983,163.

" See H. Wildberger, Jesaj. I-lIl, Neukirchen-V1uyn 1972-1982.1412; "Extermi· nation has been decided upon. flooding along with justice. Indeed, (tbe Lord) Jahwe in the midst ofthe whole eartb carries out fmnly decided destruction" and on verse 23a he adds ibid.: "literaJly: destruction and what has becn decided upon". Sec also thc die­tionaries, e. g. W. Baumgartner et al .. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten

Page 48: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

40 Tl. Palll anti the Terminotogy 0/ Andent Greek Rheloric

c1early, what the translation tries to reproduce adequately by combining ouVtEA€LV and OUVtEIJ,V€LV whieh oecur together with the same meaning in Dem;el (5, 7) also.5O Though Paul shortens the quotation, no one will assume that he who is, no doubt, familiar with the Hebrew text deliberate­Iy distorts its original sense. One has to ask oneself, therefore, whether Paul takes Myov to be the object of OUVt€AOOV and auvrE~LvOJV and uses "OL~a€L (unJike the Septuagint) without object (as in lsaiah 10, 22b) or whether he conneets Myov with "oL~aEL as in verse 10, 23 (of the Septuagint) and understands the two participles (as in Daniel) as ex­pression of decided total destruction by which the element ofpunishment and destruction in the Lord's reckoning with Israel is underlined.61 At any rate, I do not see any reason for assuming a specifically rhetorical meaning for OUvtEIJ,VELV here.

At the end a few remarks may be added on several words the use of whieh cannot, I think, be adduced as evidence for Paul's familiarity with the rhetorica! theory of the Greeks. In the frrst letterto the Corinthians Paul uses EQ!J.1jvela twiee, also ~)(.€g!J.1jVEVELV four times and once ÖLE\!­!J.ljVeut~~ (or EglJ,1jV€U~~).62 'EglJ,1jveta and its derivatives have a wide spectrum of nuances of meaning in Greek.63 Aristotle, for instance, in bis "egt EglJ,1jVei.a~ deals with the kinds oflanguage wbich depend on think­ing in so far as they may be examined, wbile in bis rhetorie he never uses the word. In the sense "style, manner ofwriting" which seems attested first in the fragments of Diogenes of Apollonia (frg. B I Diels Kranz) it occurs frequently as terminus technicus in all handbooks sinee ADaximenes and even as title in Ibe work ascribed to Demetrius.64 How are we to classify

Testament I-lV. Leiden 1967-1990,1390 .nd II 454 and 455; G. J. Botterweck et al., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament I-VI. Stuttgart 1973-1989; m 230-234 and IV 166-174.

60 Cf. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum Gl'3.ece iuxta LXX 10-

teJpre1es 1-11. Stuttgart '1935. II 906-907. cf. also ibid.1l923-923: DOJ!. 9,24 (Theo­dodon).

61 E. Käsemann, An die Römer, TUbingen 1973.260 is probably right in translating: "For the Lord ... will balance accounts upon earth". but not in rendering tbe participles "completing and curtailing".

6' Cf. I Cor. 12. 10: 14.26; 1 Cor.12. 30; 14.5; 13; 27; 1 Cor. 14.28. 6:l See H. G. Liddell. R. Seott and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexieon (see n. 6).

690 and 425 s. VV. EQIL'!v,""" EQ!,,!,,,,,a and aLOQ!''!V'';ro etc. and J. Behm. in: Theolo· gisches Wörterbuch (see n. \I) 2. 1935. 65~60.

64 Cf. Anaxim. rlret. 6, 3; 23, 2: 28, 3 (also tQIL'!"""'''): Phld. rhel. I p. 156. 6: 175, 14; 187.21: 188,19 Sudhaus: Dion.Hal. Lys. 2.1; 3. 6;5,1: 10.3; 13.1; 24, 7 elSaepius; Ps.-Dem. de eloc. passim; Anon. Seg. 19; 136: 196 el saepius. cf. also later rhetoricians.

Page 49: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

II. Paul and the Ten7linology 0/ Ancient Gruk Rltetoric 41

and judge Paurs usage? It seems noteworthy that Paul after mentioning several other gifts of the Spirit ("prophecy", "discrimination of spirits", "different kinds of speech": rrQo<!>I'J'tEla. öLa"QlcrE~ rrVE1J~l<l'tWV, yevl'J YAWcrcrWV) and finally "interpretation of [divers] longues" (12, 10: EQ­Ill1vELa YAWcrcrWV) al the end ofthe chapter (12,30) and in the fourteenth chapter invariably uses "expound" (ÖI.EI1IlI'JVEUELV or ÖLEQIlI'JVE1JU,C;)65 which is rare otherwise, more common in the writings of philosophers Ihan of rhetoricians and especially frequent in Philo.66 Obviously, one cannot argue thai tbe apostle is influeneed here by rhetorieal terminology, especially in view of the fact that the matter he is talking about, the inter­pretation of what those say who are endowed with the gift of speaking in divers tongues and its transposition into generally understandable lan­guage,67 is not dealt with in handbooks of rhetoric, even though the Greeks know similar phenomena from some oftheir oracles. There it is usually the rrQo<!>I'J1:~C; who translates the utteranees of the person who gives the oracle into COmmon parlance,68 while Paul distinguishes the "prophet" who speaks in a manner understandable for the community from the person who speaks in tongues and whose words require expounding (ÖLEQIlT]VEUELV).69

'AVEAE~IlWV occurs only once in Greek literature ti11 about 300 B. C., in the rhelorical handbook of Anaxirnenes (rMI. 36, 55), but later so fre­quently in the Septuagint'° that it does not seem advisable to use the one oceurrence in Romans (1,31) for conclusions as regards Paul, even though the sentenee is very earefu11y - one might say rhetorically - phrased. 71 Tbe

u Even 1 Cor. 12, 10 the variant öLEQJ.t.TJvda is found. whiIe 1 Cor. 14. 28 EQI111veu-n;C; bas been transmitted as variant.

.. See H. G. LiddelI. R. Seott and H. S. Iones. A Greek-English Lexicon (see n. 6). 425 s. v. ÖLEQJl11veUoo, etc.; for Philo see G. Mayer, Index Philoneus, Berlin 1974.78. more frequenUy !Qj.l.11VEU8I.V (121); in the writings ofrhetoricians it occurs Phld. rhel. Suppl. p. 40 Sudhaus ooly.

67 Thus correctly J. Behm (see n. 63). 661. That YAooooaL is to be understood as a .religious· technical term (see n. 81) is obvious.

68 See C. 1. Classen, Prophet. in: Lexikon der AIten Welt. ZDrich 1965,2448-2449. 69 There is noneed to assume wirb H.Lietzmann (seen. 33). 71 on 1 Car. 14.5 aCOD·

tnuüction between I Cor.12, 29-30 and 14,5, as H. Conzelmann(see n. 34),277 rightly points out. In view of rhe strucrure cf the sentence I am ioclined to regard t-rtQql ytvll YAwaowv (12, 10) as interpolation; lhere is nothing in the cornmentaries on this.

70 There Paul uses also &.VEAfTH.i.6vwS; which is first found in Antipho (or. I 2S). while aVEAe~J.Loov occurs in the comedies of NeocJes (frg. 26 Kassel-Austin).

1! See e.g. O. Michel (see n.57), 61, E. Käsernann (see n.61). 46 or U. Wilckens (see n. 57), 114.

Page 50: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

42 Tl. Paul ond the Tenninolo8Y of Ancient Greek Rhetoric

earliest example of e€Oö[öax"CO~ is recorded in the Hrst letter to the Thes­salonians (4, 9) and later only once in a rhetorical treatise,72 yet not as ter­minus technicus so that this word, too, cannot. I think, be taken as evidenee of Paul's familiarity with ancient rhetorie. The same has to be said as regards eyxoml, eommon in rhetorieal handbooks!3 but invariably in remarks about a somehow impeded artieulation of a sentence. Paul uses it in the more general, both earHer and later widely attested sense "check, hindrance" (1 Cor. 9, 12) so that again one eannot speak of influenee or knowledge of a teehnical meaning here.

W. Bauer, following others, eonsiders the possibility that emßaQELv might apart from "to weigh down, to burden" (l Thess. 2, 9; 2 Thess. 3, 8) also mean "to heap up too greata burden ofwords" in 2 Cor. 2, 5.74 He ad­mits rightly that this sense is not attested elsewhere; and normally in rhe­torieal contexts ßaQo~ and ßaQus, sometimes also ßaQu'tllS mean the quality of tone or aeeent7S or the kind of style.7' In addition later hand­books on rhetorie have seetions :1tEQl ßaQu'tlJ'toS-77 where ßaQu'tlJ~ is un­derstood as the form of an orator's ~eo~; Emesti paraphrases gravilas in obiurgando atque expostulando, LiddelI Seott Jones translate "adoption of an injured tone"78 In the rhetoric attributed to Aristides aseries ofkinds of the ßaQu'tlJS xa'ta yvwl-llJv and ßaQu'tl1S xa'ta axiilla are enumera­ted, similarly by Hermogenes,79 and it is possible that Paul wants to ex­cIude for hirnself such a fOIDl of expression; but that he is thinking of the rhetorical teIDlinus technieus is rather improbable.

Few of the writings which have come down to us from antiquity have been judged so differently as Paul's letters; this is no doubt due to the different points of view of the critics, their expectations and their

72 ProL Syll. p. 91, 14 Rabe. 73 cr. Dion. HaI. camp. 22, 21; Ps .. Longin. 41. 3: PS.-Arlstid. rhet. TI 8. 74 See W. F.Amdt. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker.A Greek-English Lcxicon oflhe

New Testament (see n. 33), 290 and W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch (see n. 17), 574 following C. F. G. Heinrici: "Eine zu große Last von Worten auftünnen", Many commentators accept this suggestion.

7S Cf. Dion. HaI. comp. 11, 15-17: 20: also 11, 12; Dem. 48, 2; 52. 3. 76 Cf. Phld. rher. I p.178 Sudhaus; Dion. Ha!. Dem. 34, 4; 36, 5 (uQJ!-ov[a):

comp. 11,2; 23, 7; 111uc. 23,6. 77 Cf. Hennog. id. 118 (p. 364-368 Rahe); Ps.-Aristid. rher. 135-47. 78 See I. Ch. Th. Ernesti, Lexicon techllo1ogiae Graecorum rhetoricae. Leipzig 1795,

55; H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (see n. 6),308 s. v.

ßaQutll~· 79 Cf. PS.-Aristid. r"et. 135--42 and 43--47; Hennog. id. 11 8 p. 364 Rabe.

Page 51: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

11. Paul alUI the Terminology 01 Ancient Greek Rheroric 43

eriteria.BO No one will deny that in Paul"s letters one finds phrases whieh even in the eontext of the so-ealled "OLvT) appear to be unusual and diffieult to understand. Yet no one will deny that Paul also uses numerous teehnical terms from many areas oflife81 and that in his letters many words are attested for us for the first time whieh are also found in later authors, and not only Christian ones. Thus we may conclude that his neologisms follow the rules of the Greek language; or to put it differently, that Paul created new words in aeeordance with the rules of the Greek language.82

80 Most effective of all was thc judgment of E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr_ bis in die Zeit der Renaissance, Leipzig 31915, 498-510 who af­ter quoting severa) Fathers of the Church summarizes his own impression in a somewhat extraordinary manner, saying tbat "the apostle ... quite often makes use or ... common means of neat Greek rhetoric, yet . __ not of those which he had leamed from reading Greek authoTS, but rather those which were current in the ,8sianic' sophislic of the time." (506-507) On Mel.nehthon·sjudgments see C. J. Classen (see n. 3), 22-24.

8J Without hoping to achieve completeness and without including specifically Christian or Jewish tenns or too comman wards I note: from public life (including courts of law) and business life: aeEtElV (once folLowing the Septuagint). &X\lgo'l)v, a1tEXElV, &3t6XQL~Q.. aQQa~oov. ya}lltElv, MOloc;, 6t.Cla~xTJ (once quotation from the Septuagint), ~La'KQlvtlv, 5LQflaQwQEo9aL. eeVclQXTJ~. iVÖLKOS, EVOXOS. LEQOO\J)...Etv, 'Ki..11QOVOIlETv (once quotation from the Septuagint), -I.lia. -Ilo~, K'UQOÜV. i..0YEta, ~u"<Akov, J.lEo("1<;, "Etoy'~, 61»00"ov, ltagußam<;, "ugEO'<;, ltokhEUJ.la, 1tgal<oo­QLOV, 1tQEOßeilELV. nQOOeEIlLa, 1tQox'UQOüv, gaßbitEtv, ouyx)'TJgOVOj.lOC;. auata"tl­XOS; (see n.4), ürcavöQos;, U1tOÖL'KOS;. XEl.Qo"toveLv; from philosophy: aOXTJIl0mJV1'1. a\haQx.eta, acpEloQota, 5L(1O"tOi..~. eYXQcl'tELa., EVXQanuEa9aL. tXQvo"tTJS;. "auXTJ­av;. )..0YLXOC;. ÖQE~I,f:, öOCPQTJOLf;, from religion: WtaQX~. äQQT)"'Coc;: (with explanation: 2 Cor. 12, 4), EluO"LaO't'tlQLov (once quotation from the Septuagint). xo';OX90VLOS:, )..Q."tQEia, I.llJanlQLOV, vllO'"tda.nQo.;pT)tda. -tTJC; (once quotation from the Septuagiot), -nuELv, -"tLKOS:, 01tfVöeoElat.; others: SyxEvtQitELv. aYQLilaLOS;, xaU.tiloLoc;: (horti­culture), WtOXOn-tELV, EX"tQOJj.lQ (medicine), evnmoüv, 6EIlElLOC;: lt6oc;: (craftsman­ship), ßgoxoC; (bunting), ßQaßE'ov (sport).

82 Th. Nägeli. Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus. Göttingen 1905, registers numerous words which oceur only in Paul and later in pagan authors (42-50) or in Christian .uthors also (50-53) or generally in Hellenistie parlanee (53-58). However, as he concentrates mostly on words from the beginning of the alphabet. I add the following neologisms from Paul which I have noticed: Emöta"taaoeo9al. e1tuto9TJa~, E1t1.XOQT\­y(a, Et'EQO~UYE:lV, eU1CCtQe&oc;, eEoöLf)ox"to~1 xa"taxQLOlC;, y.OtaAaAO~ (but see Pap.Oxyrh. 1828), KCl"tciQ"tLOl.S;. xolacpi.l;Et.v, VE'KQWOtS, Oi..o9QeirrT1~. oQ90n:06E'LV, J'tEUJ1.tOvtl, 1ttQ1ttQEUE06aL, J'tA1'fQoQ>oQla. 1tQOOQltElV. 1tQOatO:tU;. 1CQOO(j)1tO).T\~-1j>i.a, O1J'(KOiVOlOU;, O1Jt'l"1n;c;, O1J~~OQcj>[tEoea~ O1JJ.l<Poo"'lO'C;, oUJ.lljlUXOC;, ouvaLXJla)..Q)"to~, crU'VTl).LKLWtll~. O\J(J'tQuQo"Üv, "tU1tLxw~. unEgClKJ.!oC;. U1CEQE'KtLva. unEQE'Kt'ELVELV. U1VT\AOq,QovEtv, <peu~OI.lEvooli. q,QEvanutdv, q,uatwO"lC;:, XOlK61i. Xg'lCTtEUEOea~ XQ1)CTtokoyia, 1j>ruöUÖEk<poC;,1»EUÖcutOCTtOl.o<;. Genuine bap.x lego-

Page 52: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

44 Il. Paul and the Terminology of Ancient Greek Rhetoric

Finally, no one will deny that Paul again and again knows to exploit and does exploit the possibilities of the Greek language, whether he continues a metaphor, thus reminding the reader of its original meaning, or effectivelybuilds up contrasts or other series of related expressions. Tbis examination of some particular words has, I hope, shown in addition that Paul was familiar with a nurnber of technical tenns of Greek rhetoric. Where he knew them !rom I do not venture 10 decide: their use, however, together with that of technical tenns of philosophy signify a standard of edueation wbich warrants the assurnption that Paul was farniliar through theory (handbooks) or practiee (aetual applieation) with the rules and preeepts of ancient rhetorie (and epistolography).

One may ask how this result is compatible with Paul's own words. discussed above, that his speech and bis preaching "was not with the persuasion of wisdom" (oux €v "'ELSO! O"ocjlla<;: 1 Cor. 2,4): the answer is simple: No speaker and certainly no speaker only slightly farniliar with oratorical practice or rhetorical theory would ever admit that he makes use of the instruments of this art (unless for very special, well-considered reasons). Indeed, the first rule of rhetoric any speaker observes is to conceal the art (see chapter I n. 73), and why should Paul, knowing both rhetorical tenns and devices,B3 have ignored it?

mena, on the ather band, are rare, cf. E1tL7to8i.a, ItQoaL'tLdaear., CJUf.1f.LL~lTJri)!:;. also 1tQo­€VelQXEOeCtL., which 1S found later only in comrnentaries on the passage cODcemed (2 COT. 8, 6 and 10), see G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961-1968, 1146.

83 Rom. 7, 1 he uses the phrase YLvooaxo"ow ... ~aA6) which may be traced back to Hamer, see e. g.lliad 1365 or X 250; later Ev ti.6oat ÄtYELV is most common.

Page 53: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

III. A Rhetorical Reading of the Epistle to Titus

"Tbe salutation is unduly drawn out for a briefletter, and is so complicated in strueture that the thought is diffieult to follow". This is the first sentenee in a eommentary on the epistle to Titus whieh I opened aecidentally when working on this letter.! "Unduly drawn out" - bow long is a salutation supposed to be? Where are Ibe standards laid down? Is this an adequate way of arguing and interpreting? It is true, indeed, that this salutation is unusually long and eomplicated, as a comparison with the other letters in the New Testament shows; but is it unduly drawn out? May it not be that the author has very good reasons for writing such a Iong salutatio? Where do we start, where do we derive our standards from, what should be the basis for our judgment? Some recent publieations on the rhetorical eriticism ofbooks of the New Testament may give the impression as if the handbooks of aneient Greek and Roman rhetorie eould provide sueh standards.2 Attempting a rhetorical interpretation of an epistle from tbe New Testament seems worth-while, therefore, for a dassicis!.

But before embarking upon what I call a ,rhetorical' reading of the epistle to TItus, I feeI, I ought briefly to state what I take rhetoric to mean, namely the deli berate, caleulated use of language for the sake of conununicating varlous kinds of information in the manner intended by the speaker (and the theory of such a use). In this, to my mind, language is

I See E. F. Seau, Tbe Pastoral Epistles. Landon 1936, 149. G. Holtz. Die Pastoral­briefe, Berlin 21972, 203. stresses like others [hat "the prescript is much longer than is usuaI' ("das Präskript umfangreicher ist als gewöhnlich"), but he adds rightly: "Tbe reasons for that must bc looked for in the letter itself" ("'Die GrUnde mUssen im Brief selber gesucht werden"). - For a comparative treatment of al1 prescripts in thc New Testament sec F. Schnider and Vl. Stenger, Studien zum Neutestamentlichen Brief­fonnular., Leiden 1987. 3-41. - This paper was originally written in Oxford in Trinity tenn 1995; I am most grateful to tbe Warden and Fellows of Merton College for electing: me to a Visiting Research Fellowship. thus enabling me to work under ideal conditioßs.

2 See D. F. Watson and A. J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible. A Compre­hensive Bibliograpby with Notes on History and MeLhod. Leiden 1994.

Page 54: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

46 1I1. A Rhelorical Reading ofthe Epistle to Titus

the essential el.ement. To talk e. g. of rhetode of arehitecture Iregare!, tberefore, as a metapbodeal use of the term ,rhetode'. Tbe other aspeet whieh I would like to stress is that rhetode is an art (QTJ'tOQlXTJ 't€XVl1). This does not imply that one must have Jearned a theory or studied a hand­book to be familiar with it; one may imitate the praetiee of others or may have developed it oneself. But an element of deliberation, of systematisa­tion and of planning seems to me to be an essential eharaeteristie of rhe­torie. Rhetorieal reading, then, is reading a text in order to grasp the infor­mation it intends to impart, to understand its meaIring or its message by appreciating and explaining the ftlDetion of every single part of it as weil as ofthe eomposition as a whole.3 Rhetorical reading means reading a text as eomposed by an authoress or an author with the partieular intention of addressing a particular audienee or individual at a partieular moment or a wider publie (wider both witb regard to spaee and lime) and, therefore, formulated in a earefully eonsidered manner. Most poems, works of fic­tion, novels are written for tbe world at large, for future generations; and tbis applies to historieal aceounts as weil. Letters, on the other hand. are mostly immediately relevant, addressed to an individual or a specific group al a specific time in a particular situation, though there are, of course, letters composed to be preserved and published and appreciated also laler for their Iiterary fonn or for their CODlent. And whatever the immediate purpose of each of the letters in the New Testament may have been; one may ass urne that a11 of them were written with great care and consideration.

When one starts reading one of these letters, one is faeed with the tasks of analysing the text as text Iinguislically, stylistically and logically, and of identifying the wriler's intention in direeting il to im individual or a group of persons or even several groups. As the handbooks of rhetoric recom­mend to a speaker to use his ownjudgment to assess a situation and an au­dience and to deeide what 10 say and how to put it to his listeners in the particular circumstances! similarly the exegete, by analysing the texl, has to try to find out the writer's frame of mind (togetber with his cultural background in general) and his intention in the specific situation as well as

3 The most obvious approach seerns to me always to regard a text as a unit, assuming that it has a unity, and only when this turns out to be impossible to try to explain why this seerns impossible and for which reasans several elements seem to have been put to· gether or why something is missing.

4 Cf. e. g. Rher. Her. TIr 16-17 (forthe dispositio) and on the iudicium as always in­dispensab1e factor Quint. inst. VI 5, 1-2 who emphasizes that it eanßot be taught.

Page 55: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

1fT. A Rhetorical Reading oftlle Epistle To 1itus 47

the eireumstanees of the addressees, their situation, their problems and their feelings.

As there is a basic difference between someone telling a fable or a story about a great hero of the past and an evangelist recording the deeds and sayings of Jesus, similarly there is a basic clifferenee between letters written by some pagan authority and by Paul. A provincial govemor, e. g., gives his instruetions in a vein quite different !rom Paul who introduees bimself as IIuiiAo, ÖOÜAO, XQLcnoü 'I'100ü ("Paul, servant of Jesus Christ": Rom. I, 1) or as IIuüb, emocnoAo, DU" <'m' av9QOl3tOlV oUlle ÖL' av9Qcll3tou &AM ÖLcl 'I'1ooü XQLcnoii KUL geoii 1tu"tQo, ("Paul, apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father": Gal. I, I), i. e. as writing essentiallynot in bis own name, but in the service of God or Christ. It is very important to realize this; for it helps to explain why these letters were preserved like literary letters and unlike business letters or private letters which were usually destroyed in antiquity (as they are today). Paul's letters (and others written as ifhe was the author) survived and found their way into the corpus of the New Testa­ment, although they make no claim to literary excellence and often deal with particular problems and temporary situations, because their authors speak as apostles of God.

When we now turn to the letter to Titus, S we are faced with the addi­tional problem of authorship; it is not my intention to discuss this at length or to advance any new arguments. I accept the view that Ihis letter was not wri tten or dictated by Paul himself. 6 This verdiet implies that at the time of

S The following commentaries have been consulted: D. Marun Luthers Werke 1-68. Weimar 1883-1999.25,6-69 and 48, 305-312; G. Baum, E. Cunitz and E. Reuss (edd.), Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia 1-59, Braunsehweig 1863-1900, 52. 397-436 (Commentarius in Epistolam 3d Titum); B. Weiss, Dfe Briefe PauIi an TImolheus und Titus, Göttingen 51902; G. Wohlenberg. Die Pastoralbriefe (der erste TImotheus-. der Ti rus- und der zweite TimotbeusbrieO. Leipzig 31923: W. Lock, A Critical and Exe­getieal Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Edinburgh 1924; A. Schlatter, Die Kirche der Griechen im Urteil des Paulus. Eine Auslegung seiner Briere an TImotheus und Ti­tus, Stuttgart 1936; E. F. Scott, Pastoral Epistles (see n. 1): M. Dibelius and H. Conzel­mann. Die Pastoralbriefe. TUbingen 41966; G. Holtz. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 1); V. Hasler, Die Briefe an Timorheus und litus (Pastoralbriefe), Zürich 1978~ J. Jeremias and A. Strobel, Die Briefe an TImotheus und TIrus. Der Brief aD die Hebräer. G5ttingen 12 1981; N. Brox. Die Pastoralbriefe. 1 Timotheus. 2 Timotheus. Titus. Regensburg .51989; H. Merkel, Die Pastoralbriefe. Göttingen t31991; most of these works contain translations (verse by verse or seetion by secHon), butnot the Greek text.

15 That thc letter was written by Paul himself is assumed e. g. by B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5), 62; 71; G. Woh1enberg, Pastoralbrief. (5 •• n. 5), 15-67;A. Schlatter, Die Kir·

Page 56: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

48 IJI. A Rhetorical Reading oft/Je Epislle 10 TItU5

its writing genuine letters of Paul were in circulation which conld serve and did serve as models. And Ihis in tnrn invites ns not to analyse the epislle to Titus in isolation, nor with the help of handbooks of rhetorie Or epislolography only or on the basis of preconceived ideas and eategories. but to compare it throughout with Pan!'s genuine leiters.

The epistle to Titus begins as follows: DaüAo, ÖOÜAO, 6EOÜ, cmooTo­AO, öe 'Il]ooü XQLOTOÜ ("PauI, servant of God and apostle of Jesns Christ"'). This already is nnusual; Paul speaks ofhimself (oris called even by others who write as iftheywere PanI) as >tAl]TO, anocnoAo, XQUTtOÜ 'I~ooü ("caUed as apostle of Jesus Christ": I Cor. I, 1) Or an001:0AO, 'XQLcnoü 'I~aoü (2 Cor. I, 1; EplL I, 1; Col. I, 1 etc., see also the two phrases quoted above: Rom. 1,1; Gal. I, 1); but he never introdnces him­self as ÖOÜAO, 6EOÜ, a term traditionaUy applied to Moses or the prophets of the Old Testament.7 The author continues an001:0AO, öe 'Il]ooü XQLO-

ehe (see D. 5),5-22: W. Michaelis. Pastoral briefe und Gefaogenschaftsbriefe. ZurEcht­heitsfrage der Pastoratbriefe, GUters10h 1930; idem, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Bern '1954, 238-259. W. Lock, Commentary (see n. 5). XXV-XXXI, XXXIV seerns undecided, also G. Holtz. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 1). 6-25 who considers the possibility that the Jetter was written by a secretary of Pau], similarly J. Jeremias. Die Briefe (see n. 5), 4-10. For a liter date and author arguments are advanced e. g. by M_ Dibelius, Pa­storalbriefe (see n_5), 1-4; W. Hasler, Die Briefe (see n_5), 7-8; J_ Roloff, Der erste Brief an TImotheus. ZUrichlNeukirchen-Vluyn 1988.23-39 and id_, Pastoralbriefe in: Theologische ReaJenzyklopädie 26, 1996. 5~8 (on theauthorship: 51-56~ commenta­ries: 65; further literature 65---68); N_ Brox. PastoraIbriefe (see n_ 5), 22-66; H. Merke!. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 5-16; L. Oberlinner, Die Pastora1briefe. I. Kommentar zum er­sten TImotheusbdef, Freiburg 1994, XXI-XXII; XXXIII-XLVI. also XLVII-L. On the problems in general see N. Brox. Falsche Verfasserangaben_ Zur Erklärung der früh­christlichen Pseudepigmphie, Stuttgart 1975, esp. 19-24; 113-116; L. R. Donelsan, Pseudepigraphy andEthicalArgument in thePastoral Epistles, TUbingen J986, 7-66. Of the few passages which A. Schlatter 15 lists from the letter to TItus as verbal similarities with or echees ... from the eartier Letters of Paul ("'wörtliche Berührungen _._ mit den früheren Briefen desPaulus"), some are fonnulaic: 1,2-3 (Rom_16, 26); 1,.15 (Rom. 14, 20); 3,15 (2 Thess. 3, 18), athers tao vague ta prove anything: 2, 5 (Eph. 5,22); 2, 8 (2 rhoss. 3, 14); 3, 7 (Rom. 3, 24).

7 Cf. W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testa­ments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, Berlin 51963, 407-408, see also M. Luther, Werke 25 (see n. 5), 7; W. Lock, Commentary (sce n.5), 125 (who points out that the phrase EX}.,.f.X"twv eeou "also springs frorn the 0_ T."); G. Holt7., Pastoral briefe (see n.5), 203; V. Hasler, Die Briefe (see n_ 5). 85; B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5),330 even says that "thereby the letter right from the beginning gets the character of an official do­cument unlike a private letter" ("der Brief empfangt dadurch von vorn herein den Cha­rakter eines amtlichen Schreibens im Unterschiede von einem Privatbriefe"); see also J. Calvin. Opera 52 (see n. 5), 403; J. Jeremias, Die Briefe (see 0_ 5),3_ See also below

Page 57: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

/11. A RlletoricaI Reading 0/ lire Epistle 10 TttllS 49

roii Ka,a ,.,[cmv EKÄeK,ÜJV B€oii Kat Erctyvooow aÄl1Beia, rij, Ka,' euotßeLaV br' eÄlT[ÖL ~ooij, alooviou ("apostle of Iesus Christ according to Ihe faith of God's chosen ones and 10 the knowledge ofthe truth in ac­cordance with the faith based on the hope for an everlasting life"). In other leiters the self-characterization or self-designation is made more specific by such additions as Öux B€Ä~I.La'o<; B€oii (U by God's will": 1 Cor. I, I; 2 Cor.l, I;Eph. 1,1; Co/. 1,1; 2TU7C 1, 1) orKa,'e:rmaY"lvBeoii ooo1:ijQo<; TJ/-LÜJv ("by command of God our Saviour": 1 Tim. I, I). Here, it is not God's will or injunction that is mentioned, but it is the faith of God's cho­sen people and their underslanding, their recognition of the truth - Ihis be­ing not the cause, but the standardS (the original function of Ka,a being 10

denote the area where an action takes place). Not on!y is lti01:L<; qualified by two dependent genetives, EltLYVOOOL<; is followed by four nouns, characterizing the knowledge and emphasizing its vital importance. More­over, this is the on!y salutation in which ~w~ alwvLo<; ("etemallife") oc­curs, and this concept is further explained by two orrather Ihree clauses,9 remarkab!e for their content and their vocabulary: a'ljl€u/)~<; ("trust­worthy") occurs only here in the New Testament, and combined with ltQo )(Qovwv aLwvLwv ("before all times") gives special emphasis to God's promise, as do the two following sentences which stress the reliahility (ecjlavtQwoev ... ,ov )..6yov au,oii: "he has reveaJed ... his word") and the planning of God as weil as the nature of the mission with which Paul has been entrusted; 10 for it is here that the usual reference to God's com-

n.16, further with reference to the end ofthe leUer G. Wohlenberg. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 268 and V. Hasler, Die Briefe (see n. 5). 101; N. Brox, Pastornlbriefe (see n. 5), 279 on the other hand regards this as a "private letter" ("'Privatbrief') despite the elaborate seIf-designation bere chosen by the writer for Paul.

8 B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5), 330-331 argues against this interpretation, but see e. g. G. Holtz. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5).204 and N. Brox, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 279. On 1tl<m;: and bd.yvwot; see M. Luther, Werke 2S (see n.5), 8-] 1 andJ. Calvin. Opera 52 (see n. 5), 403-405.

9 Commentators and translators seem to agree thatfjv refers to ~w~ atwvto~, see al­ready M. Luther. Werke 25 (see n. 5). 11 and explicitly B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5), 333. Tbe following sentence is only loosely connected, see G. Wohlenberg, Pastoral­briefe (see n.5), 224. W. Lock, Commenlary (see n.5), 82 regards bt' tlwt,ö, ... neo XQovwv atwvLoov as an eJtpansion of 2 Tl/tl. Ir 1 ('Kat" E:ltaY'fEA.(.av ~w;;s: "tf1s tv XQLO't"<p '1"00;:;: ·'in accordance with the promise of life in Jesus Christ"). On ~w~ alwvLos see N. Brox. Pastoralbriefe (see n. S). 280; 309 and V. Haster, Die Briefe (see n. 5), 85-86; 88-89, also below chap.IV.

10 On 'KaLQoL~ tblOLC;: ("at his own. i. e. the right time") as peculiar to the pastoral epistles and on the ambiguity of the expression see W. Lock, Commentary (see n.5),

Page 58: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

50 1/1. A Rhetorical Reoding DfThe Epistle to 1itU$

mand follows (xm;' em,uyi!v ,0;:; OOlTfjQO~ ~I-lÖJv geo;:;; "by command of our Saviour, God").ll

TL'!(l MOL!(l ,E"V!(l xu,c:i. XOLvilv n:LOUV ("To Titus the true-born child in the common faith, COmmon [to both of usn - not merely Ev n:L<J1:eL ("in the faith", as e. g. in I TIm. I, 2). IIL<J1:L~ is a very common word, often qualified by various nouns or adjectives. But as "u,c:i. JtL<J1:W 6XAEX,ÖJV 9eo;:; in the fIrst verse ofthis letter is unique in the epistles, so is xowi! JtL<J1:1~, and as the fIrst phrase gives a special status to the believers, appealing to them in a particular manner, so the second phrase stresses the special bond of faith by which Paul and Titus are bound together. 12

Xo.Ql~ xut EtQ"V1] emo geo;:; Jtu'Qo~ xut XQL<J1:oii 'I1]oo;:; ,0;:; OOl,;fjQO~ ~I-lÖJv ("Grace and peace from God the Father and Jesus Christ our Saviour": 1,4). The usual formula ofblessing l3 is modified in so far as ul-ltv is (naturally) OInitted and also ~I-lÖJv after geo;:; Jtu'Q6~, because 1:0;:;

OOl,fjQO~ ~I-lÖJv geo;:; precedes irnmediately. But while, at the beginning, the author chooses the unusual order 'I1]oo;:; XQL<J1:0;:;, here, at the end of the salutation (where Paul would use '11]00;:; XQL<J1:0;:;), he prefers XQL<J1:0;:; '11100;:; and adds w;:; OOlTi'jQO, ~I-lÖJv, thereby already here giv­ing special weight to an aspec! to which he draws attention throughout the whole letter. 111is is not comparable to the addition oho;:; xUQlou ~Jl.ÖJv in the two lelters to Timothy, which do not have XUQLOU before XQL<J1:0;:; '11]00;:; (as Pau!'s letters), but unique, emphatically taking up ,0;:; OOl,i'jQO, ~fLÖJV geo;:; ofverse 3.As the author there (where he is referring to Paul's mission) is speaking of God as "our Saviour" (in accordance with the language of the psalms14), here he uses the same term for Christ, thus

126, on l.6yov as object of !<j>avEQCJJoev G. Wohlenberg, Pasloralbriefe (see n. 5). 224. on EV xl1QuYlla'tL ("in the procJamation") see M. Luther. Werke 25 (see ß. 5),13-14.

11 See the passages quoted above. 12 On TItus see W. Lock. Commentary (see n.5), 127 and 128 on xa"ta XOLvT,V

ltLatc.v, on the relationship between Paul and TItus see G. Wohlenberg. Pastoralbrlefe (see n. 5),225; V. Hasler, Die Briefe (see n.5), 86; N. Bro<. Pastoralbriefe (see n.5), 281.

13 XaQtt; ~~tv Kai etQ~v1] MO eeoil "a<go, ~~wv Kal KUQ(OU 'I1]ooil XglO1:oil, cf.Rom. 1,7; I Cor. I. 3;2 Cor. l,2;Phil.I,2;Phlm.3;alsoGal.l, 3; 1 Thess.l, 1: Kol. I, 2; Eph. I, 2: 2 rn.53. I, 2, see further F. Schnider and W. Sienger, Studien (see n. I), 25-30 and 3l-41, also R. Reuter, Synopse zu den Briefen des Neuen Testaments I-n, Frankfurt 1997-1998, 11372 and 563.

14 Cf. A. Rabifs (ed.), Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta. LXX in­terpreles I-I!, Stuttgarl '1935, [122: 23: 25; 65 cl saepius: psalm 23 (24). 5; 24 (25), 5; 26 (27), 9; 64 (65), 6, also elsewhere, see E. Hatch and H. A. Redpalh, A Concordance 10

Page 59: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

/11. A Rhetorical Reading olthe Epislle ro TIIUS 51

not only "placing them on the same level",15 buI, more imporlanlly, emphasizing what they mean for mankind, nol leasl for Ihe recipient of this leUer.

Withoul repeating details or drawing premature conclusions, we may state al this stage that the aUlhor, going beyond the limits of a common salU/atia and introducing a number of unusual fealures into a traditional framework, sueeeeds in securing the attention of the reader (and perhaps a larger audienee), not without for himse!f assuming a special degree of authorily and al the same time emphasizing the vital importanee of God and Jesus Christ for mankind, i. e. for the reader. 16

Without a word of thanksgiviDg or praise, as it is often found in olher letters, 17 the author addresses hirnself now immediately to the issue which he intends 10 presentto the recipient (as in Gal. 1,6 or in 1 Tzm. 1,3):18 To emphasize the special nature of the task he is about to entrust 10 Titus, he chooses a double expression, first a more general one: "you should eorreet the oUlstanding matters" (~U AEbtovta e:n:u'lLOQ8won), next a more speci­fie one: "you should appoint elders in eaeh town" ()(o:taO~~ons )(a~u :n:OAIV :n:QEoßlJ~eQolJS: 1, 5). The first phrase is very unusual and eom­mands attention at onee; yet it does not convey any partieular meaning.19

This is done by the seeond verb, or rather by the whole of the foUowing sentenee (1, 6): Titus is supposed to appoint elders (presbyters) of moral integrity, a eoncept expressed Ihrough Ihree ideas, their being irreproaeh­able themselves, being married only onee and having brave children, this

the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the 01d Testament I-lI, Oxford 1897, I 33l.

1:5 See W. Lock, Commentary (see n. 5), 128, who adds: ·'the phrase anticipatcs the stress on salvation from sin in 2.11-14; 3.4-7"; on aw't~Q here see B. Wejss, Die Briefe (see n. 5), 336 and M. Dibelius. Die Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5),99 and in general 74-77.

l6 Jt is obvious that in stressing this aspect thc aUÜlor does what is recommended to any speaker, see e. g. Cicero, inv. I 23. This does not mean that he knew a handbook of rhetorie nor that Chis is a speech. Indeed. in recommending hirnself, he acts contrary to an elementary rule ofrhetoric (see Cicero, inv. I 22).

17 Cf. e. g. 1 Cor. 1.4-9; 2 Cor. 1.3-11: Phil. 1.3-11. see furtherF. Schniderand W. Stenger, Studien (see n.1), 42-49.

I' G. Holtz, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5). 206 remarks: "Tbus the letter gelS Ihe characler of an official order" ("Das Schreiben erhält dadurch den Charakter einer sachlichen Dienstanweisung").

19 'E1tL5L.OQ8o'Ov is hapax legomenon in the New Testament; xaL. as B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n.S), 337 points out rightly. is explanatory "and that", "and so" (''und zwar"), see also G. Wohlenberg. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5). 226-227 (general and particu­lar).

Page 60: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

52 lll. A Rhetorical Reading 0/ the Epistle to ntus

last aspect being fonnulated with special care. Obviously, only people who have shown their qualities as fathers and heads of a blameless family are regarded as aeeeptable.2o

While in this sentenee the author uses expressions found elsewhere in the epistles of the New Testament together with others oceurring in the first letter to Timothy only (and here),21 the following sentenee (I, 7-9) is cJearly made to stand out by its strueture and its voeabulary as something very special, a preeept, as the first word implies: öei: ("It is necessary").22 None of the words used is uneommon in pagan writings, but 6QYi.Ao~ ("quick-tempered"), q,v.aya6o~ ("Ioving the good") and €yxQa1:~~ ("self-controlled") oceur only here in the New Testament, also the eombi­nation ö[XaLo<; / Ö(JLO~ ("righteous / pious"), while a'li6aöl1~ ("srubborn") is found in the seeond letter ofPeter and ltaQotvo~ ("drunken"), 1t):llx'tr!' ("pugnacious"), atCJ)(QoxeQö~~ ("greedy for money"), q,v.6r;evo~ ("hos­pitable") and IJ<Oq,QIDV ("temperate") oeeur in the frrst letter to Tirnothy (3. 2-3; 8) also. Indeed, a eomparison with the third chapter of that letter makes one aware of the eareful arrangement here: The general principle ("For the bishop must be blameless as God's adnrinistrator": (lei: yaQ 'tov f;1t[OKOItOV aviyKi.1'J'tov eI"aL dJ~ 6ecij otxov6!-,ov) is followed first by aseries of five negated negative qualities, then by six positive ones, the first two bound together by the same prefix (q,v.- ),23 the next four cJosely

20 One should notice that the autbor who now regards 'd:xva tXw\, 1t1.O'tc1 (Uhaving trustworthy.loyal children", see W. Lock, Commentary [see n.S], 130) as an essential prcrequisite for being a presbyter, himself addressed Titus (I, 3) as yYl"lO'~OV 'tEKVOV xo:ta. XOI.vi}vnlatlv. see on this W. Lock. Commentary (seen. S), 127-128. cf. l1im. 1. 2; 1 Cor. 4.17, see further above note 12.

21 Expressions which are in the New Testament found onIy here and in the Jetters to Timothy: ~ä~ YU'\laL'KÖS ("of one wife onli') and avv1Co'tßx'tOS ('·undisciplined". also in Heb. 2, 8, but in a different meaning: ·'independenc"): more common: dve)'XAT)'tos ("blameless") and aaw'tla ("profligacy").

22 While same scholars identify presbyters and btlOX01tOL (Ubishops"). e. g. G.

Wohlenberg, Pastoral briefe (see n. 5), 227-228. or take the E1Ctax01rO!; ta be one of the group of elders, e. g. B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5). 338-339: G. HollZ, Pastoralbriefe . (see n.5), 208: N. Brox. Pastoralbriefe (see n.5), 284, otbers draw a sharp liDe of distinction, see H. Merkel, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 90-93. On the various terms used hece ('\Iv. 7-9) see M. Luther. Werke 25 (see n. 5),21-29 and W. Lock, Commentary (see n.5), 130-13\.

23 I am not sure what G. Holtt, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5) 209 means when he says: "The correspondence of the last attributes suggests the influence of a rhetancal inten~ don" ("Der Gleichklang der letzten Attribute läßt die Einwirkung eines rhetorischen Motivs vermuten"). Does be wish to imply that the author is more concemed with form

Page 61: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

111. A Rhetorical Reading 0/ the Epistle to TIrus 53

related to each other traditionally in Greek philosophical c1iscussions, and the whole culminating in avtEXOf!EVOV -WÜ >«n:a. tt,v ÖLÖUXt,V 1tLCTtOÜ AOYOU (1,9): Tbe moral qualities have to be matched by "finnly adhering to and eagerly beot on the message, which, in accordance with the leach­ing, deserves to be trusted", and by the ability, on the basis ofthis teaching, to encourage others and to refute and rebuke those who contradiet it.24 Tbe strueture of the sentenee, the length of its last seetion and the repetition of ÖLÖUX1] - ÖLÖUcr><a),.tU ("teaehing") leave no doubt where the aulhor feels Ihe emphasis should lie; and it is !bis aspect for whieh the oext sentenee offers ajustifieation:2S Tbe author eharacterizes the opponents (ot avtLAE­YOVTE~) fIrst as "cIisobedient" (avu",o·taX1:OL), taking up a word from verse 6 - the bishop who has no 1:EXVU avu",o1:UX1:U will know how to deal with members of the eongregation who behave in such a way - next by several unusual terms: "idIe talker" (f!U,ULOAOYOL) and "deeeiver" (!j>gEvumi"1:m), adding OÜ~ ÖE;: EmCTtOf!L~ELV ("whom one has to silence": 1, 11) to emphasize theirextraordinary aetivities, before be deseribes them more aeeurately in more familiar lerms:26 As they also teach, but Cl. ,,"t, (;E;: C"what one must not teaeh"), they eonstitute a danger whieh has to be forestalled - therefore the emphasis on ÖLÖUCJXUALU in the preeeding sen­lenee.

The charge is heavy; for that reason the author first insinuates a motive - uiO)(QOü XEQ/)OU~ XUgLV ("for dishonest gain"), taking up ulO)(Qo­XEQÖ1]~ ("greedy for money": 7) - then he employs a deviee which is rare

than content? To my mind he is anxious throughout to give the content the most impres· sive form possible. Against attempts to establish an exact correspondence between the negative and the positive qualities convincingly G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5). 228-229. on OL'KOVOIl0':;; ("administrator''') see V. Hasler, Die Briefe (see n. 5). 88.

24 On &V"tex.0lltvOV 'to'Ü .... JtLCTto'Ü )"oyou and t)..EYXel.V see 1. Calvin. Opera 52 (see n. 5). 410-412; G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see ß. 5). 229-230: W. Lock. Com­meotary (see n.5), 131-132: N. Brox, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5). 285-286.

lS On the structure of7-9 see G. Holtz. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5),209; the emphasis on k:nowledge is fouod already in 1. 1: EJdyvooau;. see W. Lock. Commentary (see n. 5), 125.

26 The subject ofetatv (v. 10) is oi, avtUiyovt~~, see B. Weiss. Die Briefe (see n. 5), 342, not satisfactorily G. Wohleobeeg, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5),230-232. On the hapax legomena lla:talO).oy0L, 4'lQEVa.n:O:TaL and btlO'tol,üt;eLv see M. Luther, Werke 25 (see n. 5), 30-32: W. Lock, Commentary (see n. 5), 133 and V. Hasler. Die Briefe (see n. 5), 89 who speaks of "the immoderate attack upon a false doctrine" ("der maßlose Ausfall gegen eine 1JT1ehre"), sec also ibid. 90. - otnves ö).,ovs otxou~ a.vaTQE1tOUaLV ("Those who destroy whole families") is deliberately chosen as a contrast to otxoVOj.lO':;; (1,7, see above o. 19).latee laken up by otl<ouQyol (2, 5).

Page 62: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

54 [II. A Rhetorical Reading ofthe Ep;stle 10 TItus

in the New Testament, a quotation from a pagan poet, even more important (as the author points out hirnself) from a Cretan poet, one of their own whom he calls most effeetively :n:QO(I),li~",27 to give bis cilation even more authority. Onee again we can see howthe ehoice of one singie word gives a good deal of extra weight to a whole sentence (or argument); and here the author increases this even more by the addition of the concluding remark: ~ f1CtQ"[UQLCt Ctü." t<rrtv aÄ,,9~, ("This testimony is true": 1. 13).

The last word of Ihe long description of the qualities of abishop was eÄEy;(ELv ("convicl, correct, rebuke": I, 9) - this is now laken up: The author is applying the general principle to the particular case, first repeat­ing several words he used previously, eÄEYXE, strengthened by the rare a:n:o"[of1WC;, tVCt UYLCtlvWenv ("rigorously so that they may be sound", cf. 1, 9: ~ IhIlCto"CtÄICt ~ UYLC1IVOUO"Ct: "sound teaching") and by Ev ~n :n:1~EL ("in their faith", cf. 1,9: :7tLClTO, >.oyo,), before he names the target to be fought against: 'IouIlCtL"ot f1Ü90L ("Jewish tales")-again a striking phrase, as 'IouIlCtL"oC; is ahapax legomenon in the New Testament and f1ü90C; is rare. To underline that the f1Ü90L are put forward with a claim to autbority he concIudes tbe senlence with the words "commandments of men who turn away from the truth" (EvWÄCtLC; av9Q(o:n:wv a:n:oClTQE<\>oidvwv Tijv a>'~9ELCtV: 1, 14), each of which carries special weight: e~oÄCtI- not [rom God (as frequentJy in the New Testament), hut av9Qomwv and even worse av9Qw:n:OlV a:n:oClTQE<\>Of1EvOlV TiJv aÄ~9ELCtv, truth being pointedly put atthe end as contrast to tales.28 Is this the end of a paragraph? In some manuscripts the next sentence begins lT.(l~Ct f1ev ("[indeedJ all"), in others :n:aVtCt yaQ ("for all"), but the majority simply read :n:a~Ct XCt9CtQCt ~OL, "Ct9CtQOL, ("all things are pure for the pure"), without any

27 On 1tQoCP~'tTJS see C. J. Classen. Prophet, in: Lexikon der Alten Welt. Zürich 1965.2248-2249 and W. Lock, Commentary (see n. 5), 133-134. V. Has]er, Die Briefe (see n.5), 90 has a very odd comment here: "Tben the rhetorical 0011 of the weil educated writer suddenly turns here into hostile polemies beyond contrQl" ("dann schlägt hier die rhetorische Kunst des gebildeten Verfassers in eine jeder Kontrolle ent­zo\ene feindselige Polemik um"); polemies may be part of the art of rhetoric,

a 'EkEYXELV is not onIy "terminus tcchnicus ofpasloral earc" ("terminus technicus für Seelsorge"), as G. Holtz, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 210; 213 argues. sec above n. 24. According to M. Dibelius. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 101 the phrase "Iouöaixot /l'08OL is perhaps a piece of loeal colouring as also ot tx tiic; 1tEQLtO .... fj~ (1, 10: "the cireum­cised"). G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n.5), 235-236 stresses that av8Q""''''v anoO"tQEcf:.OJLEYU)V ti]v &J..~8Elav belangs to 'Iouöatxotc; I-l:UeOt~ as weIl as to MOÄ"~.

Page 63: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

1l1. A RhcloricaI Reading oflile Episrle (0 71111$ 55

connecting word so that it seerns best to print a colon.29 No one can fail to be irnpressed by the polyptoton xaSaQu - TO;:~ xCLSaQo;:~ - xaSaQov, even though lexicographers and commentators assume two different meanings,3o by the antithesis ol xaSuQot - 01 ~E,llu~~evm ("the pure­the defiled") and by the correctio oMiv )tuSUQov, o.'JJ.&. ~E~lavtm u{",'iiv )tat 0 VOÜS xut ~ O1JVE(ö"ms ("no thing is pure, but their rnind and conscience are defiled"; I, 15), again with the decisive word at the end. The author is not talking about physical, ceremonial or ritual matters, but about spiritual ones, people's way of tbinking (0 VOÜS) and the moral consciousness; and he iJIustrates the attitudes he is critici7lng first by an antithesis, not A6ym - EQYU ("words - works"), but SEOS (SEOV ... Etöevm) - EQYU ("'to know God - works"), then by a number of denigrat­ing adjectives; the very rare ßÖEAlJXTO[ ("abominable"), the fairly com­mon MEISE;:S ("disobedient") and a more elaborate phrase as third mem­ber (1tQOS 1täv EQYOV ayuSov MOKI~OL; "not fit for any good deed"), suitable to sum up an negative aspecls.31

The description of the bi shop and of the dangers of the enemy was followed by a first imperative; EAEYXE (I, 13). Now a second one folIows, clearly formulated in contrast to the picture ofthe opponenls; LV öt AUAEI ä 1tQE1tEI (not ä ~~ ÖE;:) Tii UYIUWOUOU ÖlÖUOXUAi.~ ("Bul you say what is fitting forsound teaching"; 2, I). To add force to bis instructions Ibe author chooses fIrst a carefully phrased expression o1l öt AUAEI32 (corresponding to EAEYXE), to be wound up later by TUÜTU MAEl Kui 1fUQUKUAEI Kui EAEYXE ("Say these things and urge them and declare thern"; 2, 15), thus also

29 Por the details see B. et K. Aland ct al. post E. et E. Nestle (edd.), Novum Testa­mentum Graece, Stuttgart 271993, 557. The commentaries do Dot discuss this problem.

30 E. g. W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch (see n.7), 766-767, di­stinguishes "ritually pure" ("kultisch rein": TIt. }, 15 aand c) and "free from sin" ("rein von Sünde": 1it. 1. l5b), see also M. Dibelius, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 103-104: N, Brox.. Pastoralbriefe (see n.5), 289-290. For J. Jeremias. Die Briefe (see 0_5), 71 (referring to Mark 7, 15 and Rom, 14, 20) there was a saying of Jesus lC.a90QoT.~ 'Ka9aQa., more cautious N, Brox. Pastoralbriefe (see n_ 5), 290 (referring to Luke 11.41; 39; Matth. 23. 26).

31 On fS6e).1JlC.'t6~ sec W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wönerbuch (see n, 7),273-274; B. Wei". Die Briefe (see n. 5).351-352; G. Wohleoberg, Pastoralbriefe (,ee n. 5), 238 with n. 2.

32 On tbe antithesis 1:iI &E ("But you") as a typical feature ofthe pastoral epistles see N. Brox, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5),292. on thc deliberate contrast with. jJo'taLo>"oyot. B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5), 353, on the meaning OfAClAELV G. Hohz, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 217-218; "to ,peak witb authority".

Page 64: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

56 ]ll, A Rhetorical Reading ofthe Epistle 10 'litus

strucluring the whole, next a key expression from the first chapter. uYlalvouoa öLöaoxaAla (1,9, see also uYLalvOJOtv: I, 13 ).

Verses 2-9 ouiline in a well balanced manner what Titus should say according to and in accordance with sound teaching - first with regard to the older men. then to the older ladies, next to the younger women and with regard to the youngermen. While the first section is brief and may be brief and the vocabulary is largely familiar in view of what was said about the btloxo:7toS, the end emphasizing again the soundness expected from the elders in theirfaith, theirlove, theirendurance (2, 2: uYLalvoV'taS, cf. 1,9; 13; 2, 1),33 the second seetion on elderly ladies is marked by rare ex­pressions: öLli{30AOs (as adjective: "slanderous") and oiv!p öeöouAOJI-LEVaL ("slaves to drinking") or hapax legomena (in the New Testament): Ev xa~aO"t1jl-La~L ("in their behaviour"), LEQ03TQE:7tE1S ("worthy of reverence"), xaAoö,,5aoxaAOL ("teaching good things") and oOJ<I>Qovl~eLv ('10 urge to be prudent and temperate"), as is the third on younger women: <l>i.AavÖQoL, <l>LA6~exvoL, otxouQyol ("Ioving their hus­bands", "Ioving their children", "domestic").34 But this. being langer, has a fair number of very common words also. The remarks referring to the younger ladies (2,4-5: 'tas vEa •... ßAao<l>l1l-Lij~aI.) have to be regarded, I think, as aseparate seetion, even though 'tas vEas has to be taken as the object of ow<l>QoVl~(OOLV and there is no indieation of a new beginning comparable to woaimns ("Iikewise") as in 2, 3. But since neither an ab­solute use of ow<l>Qovl~eLv is attested elsewhere nor an infinitive eon­struction following it, the author seems to be moving from one construc­tion (ow<l>QOVl~WOLV 'tas vEas: "that they urge the young wornen") into another: Ta. vEas <l>LAavöQou. eIval. ("that the young women should be loving their husbands") parallel to the earlier infinitive V11<1>aAlous dVaL ("that they should be sober": 2, 2) and still dependant on AaAeL, as in 2, 6 not only ow<l>QoveLv ("to be temperate") depends on lIaQaxaAEL ("ex­hort"), but also (without the new beginning being marked) u:7to~ao-

33 Not nu:ru., tAn:l, and ay(m~ ("faith. bop. and lov.") as in 1 Cor. 13. 13. but 'Ö:1tOIlOV~ ("steadfastness"). Perhaps the elderly are more likely to show stability in their anitudes, see B. Weiss. Die Briefe (see n. 5). 353 and G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see Q.5), 240; similarly the elderly wornen are expected to be a model for the young. On uYLatvoV'ta.~"t'ft :7tLO"tEL (<<sound in taithn) see W. Lock. Commentary (see n. 5), 139-140.

34 On the pair 4>iAa.VÖQOL - q)lA6teXVO~ see G. Wohlenberg, PastoraJbriefe (see n. 5), 242 n. 2, on OLxOUQYOl B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5). 354-355. also on öuiJJoJ.o~ ('<sJanderous") and W. Bauer, Griechiscb~Deutsches Wörterbuch (see n.7). 361 (cf. 1 Tim. 3. 11; 2 TIm. 3. 3); on Ev xa1:aO'tlllia1:L tEeO:7tQE3tE1S see W. Lock. Commentary (see D. 5). 140.

Page 65: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

/1/. A Rhetorical Reading 01 the Epislle to Titus 57

OEoSm and EiJaQEO'to\J<; EIvm ("to subject themselves" and "to be acceptable": 2, 9). It is these infinitives, in fact, which structure the whole as do the fourLva-clauses (2, 4; 2, 5; 2, Sund 2, 10).3l

The section on young men has to follow the three others and it has to be introduced by a new imperative, because Titus is ordered not only to en­courage other young men to be moderate (Oro<!>QOVELV: 2, 6 corresponding to 2, 2: men, 2,4: olderladies and youngerones and 2, 5: youngerwomen), but being of the appropriate age himself to set an example. In addition to the infinitives, to the Lvu-clauses and the repetition of ooo<!>Qrov and cognate words, the parallelism of the five groups is emphasized through the referenees to sound teacbing or belief (2,2; 2, 4; 2, 7 and 2, 10), the last (2,9-10) being a little more specific as regards its content: Lva '1Jv ölöau-1<uA.tav 1:iJv,o;:; uro'tfjQo<; lil-llÖV SEC;:; 1<00I-lWOlV Ev 3täOl ("in order that they may do credit to the teaehing of our Saviour God ... "). The teaching is from God and about God as saviour,36 and through the slaves this teaching is made attractive and is given credit to Ev 3täOL. These words are usually translated "in aIl respects";37 but is it not more likely that the author, bav­ing added even the slaves to the four other groups of free men and free women and baving said that the slaves should show 3täoav 3tLO'tlV ... aya81\v ("every form of goodfaith": 2, 10), wants to stress at theend that througb the slaves, througb their behaviour and their way of demonstrat­ing their faithfulness, this message sbould be made attracti ve ".mongst all men" without restriction, amongst aIl groups, including slaves.J8 This

35 Similarly at tbe beginning there is a slight incoherence in the construction (see above n.9 on I, 2-3). Neithcr thc assumption of G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5),241-242 (and of earHer exegetes. some mentioned by W. Lock, Commentary [see n, 5]. 140) of an absolute use of oOJ4JeovttEI.V ("that they bring about discipHne": "daß sie Zucht wirken") seerns satisfactory. nor the common explanation which does not ac­cept 4b-5 as aseparate unit. A compromise seems indicated by M. Dibelius, Pastoral­briefe (see n.5). 105: "Thus lhe following instruction for the youngcr warnen is em­bedded in that for the elderly ones; that this is a fonna1 aspect only is shown by the inde­pendence of the instruction for the young men" ("Die folgende Anweisung für die jün­geren Frauen ist also in die an die alten eingebettet - daß das Dur Fonn ist, zeigt die Selb­ständigkeit der Anweisung an die jungen Minner'"). On the rva-clauses see W. Lock, Commentary (see n. 5), 138.

36 On O"Wt~Q ... GEO!j: (he says Bta; o"(Ot~Q) see M. Dibclius, Pastoral briefe (see n.5), 106-107, also above •. 15.

37 See e. g. W. F. Arudt. F. W. Giogrich and F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ... (A translation ... of ... Walter Bauer's ... Wönerbuch), Chicago '1~7~, 445 (s. v. ><0""<(1) or 633 (s. v. nli,).

38 Thus, correctly, also B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n.5), 359 (referring to several

Page 66: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

58 IlJ. A Rlretorical Reoding ojtlJe Epistle to Trtus

translation is supported, indeed seems alm ost required by the next seetion, especially the sentence immediately following which takes up several words from the previous one: wii ourtijQos ~f1ciiv eeoü ... f:V :rtÜOLV (2, 10: "of our Saviour God amongst all men") by E:rte<j>uvT] yaQ ~ )(UQLS "toü ewü O(J)1:~QLOS ltdOLV aVeQOJltOLS (2, 11: "For it has appeared the grace of God as saving power for aIl mankind").39

Having listed the desirable qualitjes of the various groups in tbe co m­munity, in each case pointing outthe airn ((va ... ), the author now justifies bis demands in a most striking manner, choosing expressions not used elsewhere in the New Testament, but familiar from the language of pagan cults (including the imperial cult) as weil as from the Septuagint: Ene­<puvT] yaQ ~ XUQLS ... O(J)~QLOS"o adding first ltdOLV aVeQOJltOLS, thus stressing that it addresses itself to all men, then ltaLÖeuouoa lilLdS ("educating us"), thereby repeating that there is something to be taughf' and to be learned, a doctrine which, as he indicates, cancerns us, our life and our moral conducl. As in the case of the instructions for the various groups in the previous seclion, here also the author adds a tva-clause, this time a very long and carefully construed one (2, 12-14). He places the de­cisive word in the centre, ~~o(J)lJ-Ev ("we shalllive"), and summarizes by a

earlier exegetes): "amongs[ all. in tbe eyes of everybody" ("bei allen. in aller Augen"): none of the more recent translators seerns to have foIlowed him, though Paul uStS the phrase in the same meaning: 2 Cor. 11, 6: "in the sight of all men". M. Luther, Werke 25 (see D. 5), 50-51 obsetves "ulitur ubi de servis loquitur magnificis verbis ut aJibi nOD."

39 On the connection between "tDU awtliQo~ (2, 10) and aoo-dtQ~o!; (2. 11) see M. Luther, Werke 25 (see n.5), 51; G. Wohlenberg. Die Briefe (see n.5), 247: W. Loek. Commentary (see n. 5),143; G. Holtz, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 224-225; it is denied by W. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5), 359 wbo rightly emphasizes (360) that "Ö.OLV o.vSQw­nol.l;; belongs to OWTTlQws:, see also W. Lock, Cornmentary (see n.5), 143-144 and G. Holtz, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 225 .

.. See H. G. LiddelI R. Seott H. S. Jones (edd.), A Greek-English Lexieon, Oxford '1940,669-670, also W. Lock. Commentary (see n.5), 143 on bt.tj>av~ and 144 on btltj>avtla (".ppearane'-'); M. Dibelius, Pastoralbriefe (see D. 5),107 on btttj>aVl], his "Exkurs" (77-78) on 21im. 1, 10 and 108-110 on Tit. 2,14 where he claims that "tbc author is conscious of the fact that he does not introduce anything new, but transmits what is known" ("daß der Autor nichts Neues zu prägen, sondern Geprägtes weiterzuge­ben sich bewußt ist"); I am not so sure about that.

41 On :7talöeilo'Uoa see G. WoWenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 247-248; W. Lock., Commentary (see n.5), 144; G. Holtz. Pastoralbriefe (see n.5), 228; V. Hasler. Die Briefe (see n. 5), 94; N. Brox, Pastoralbrief (see 0.5), 298; H. Merket Pastoralbriefe (see D. 5),98 and 99-100; M. Dibelius, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5),107 (and others) stress that :7taL~EUEI.V means "educate" here. not "chastise", as always in Paul's letten.

Page 67: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

l1f. A Rltetorical Reading olilu Ep.islle ro Titlls 59

participle and several adverbs the essential features ofhis injunction as re­gards our religious and moral conduct in this Iife. He does this in tradi­tional philosophical terms which he pointedly places immediately before the main verb: owcj>Q6vw~ )(at 1'n)(a[w~ )(at EUOEßW~ ("in a moderate, fair and respectful manner").'2 before be indicates by anather participle after the main verb what we expect and hope for and why we are justified in doing so; and again he is very careful in phrasing this: 3tQocröExofLEVOL nlv fLa)(aQLav eA.1ttöa )(at emcj>(lvELaV Tfj~ ö6!;T]~ 'toü fLEya).ou eEOÜ )(at owTfjQo~ TJfLWV XQL<TCOÜ 'IT]ooü ("expecting the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ").4l Still not content, the author gives a further explanation andjustification: a relative c1ause, based on Jesus' own words (o~ €ÖW)(EV Eau'tov {mEQ TJfLWV: "who gave hirnself for US"44), and a {va-c1ause which recalls pro­mises made in the Old Testament and echoed later in the NewTestament.45

He ends with a phrase of his own, by which he summarizes what he urges his chosen people to be: ~T]).Wnl~ )(a).wv EQYWV ("eagerto perform good deeds"), an expression which stresses that some activity is expected from those addressed here, activity visible in good works46 (as Titus hirnself

42 On these adverbs see J. Calvin, Opera 52 (sec n.5), 423; N. Brox. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 298-299; they do not represent the e:mon ofthe four Platonie virtues (pace M. Dibelius. Pastoralbriefe [see n. 5]. 107), but only two of them. not three, as $eOVll0U; and lr.voQELa are absent. W. Lock. Commentary (see n.5), 144 points out rightly tbat cr{J)<PQovOJ~ is "plaeed first as the contrast to bneuI1Lcu .. and as the characteristic word of the whole chapter".

43 B. et K. Aland et a1. post E. et E. Nestle (edd.). Novum Testamentum Graece (see n. 29), 559 and B. and K.Aland el al. (edd.), The Greek New Testament, Sluttgart '1993, 735 read ~ITJaoü XglOTOÜ. On EmcflaV1:La see above n.40. ·0 !"EyaS eEOS occurs heTe only in the NewTestament. see W. Lock Cornmentary (see n. 5).144. who understands the phrase as applying "probably" to Jesus Christ. so also B. Weiss. Die Briefe (see n. 5). 362-363, undeeidedM. Dibelius, Pasloralbriefe (see n. 5),107-110 andN. Brox. Paslo­ralbnefe (see n.5), 300-301 (also on tbe speciallanguage ofthe whole passage), while G. Holtz. Pastoralbriefe (see n.5). 227-228 maintains that a distinction is made here between God and Jesus Christ. For an interesting discussion see J. Calvin. Opera 52 (see n.5),423-424.

44 Commentators refer to Mark 10. 45. also to Eph. 5, 25, see also Luke 22. 19 and Marrh. 20,28.

4S For Aa6c; "EQ<OUOLOC; ("tbc chosen people") the <ommentaries refer 10 A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta (see n.12) 1118; 125; 333: E.<od. 19,5; 23, 22; Deut. 26, 18; see also )_«O~ ä)'UlS" ibid. 299; 312-313: Deut. 7, 6; ]4.2; they also list otber reminiscences of passages from the 01d Testament. On the meaning of 1tEelO"at.o~ see W. Lock. Com­mentary (see n.5), 147.

" Besides 2. 7 see 3, I; 3, 8 and 3, 14. G. Wohleoberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 251

Page 68: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

60 111. A Rhetorical ReadilJg ofthe Epistle 10 ntus

was challenged earlier to perform: 2, 7). Three imperatives, all Ihree repeating earlier ones (cf. 2, I; 2, 6; 1,9 and I, 13), mark the end of this seetion and underline the structure of this part of the letter,47 as does the waming for wbich the author chooses a word not altested elsewhere in the New Testament (~T]öet, aou :7t€Ql<!>QOV€LtC1J: "nobody shall disregard you'").

Tbe author'. injunctions !o the various groups in the community led hirn to remarks on what Christ did for all people (2, 10-11). Now he con­tinues with orders for TItus to all believers (3. 1-11), orders "to subjecl themselve. to and 10 obey the authorities and ruling powers"), aQxal and E~oualat placed side by side as in Luke (12, II and 20, 20), here without connecting Kal,48 and the whole further stressed by the less common :7tEL8-aQXELv, further orders to be ready to do good works (:7tQo, :7täv EQYOV aya96v) and to show a peaceful and friendly attitude "towards all men" (:7tgo<; mivta, av9gro:7tou<;), pointing to the two possible areas of ac­tivity. In the following senten ce (3, 3) he gives the reason: the personal ex­perience ofthe Christi.ns, emphasized by the use ofthe first person plural ('H~EV); and he .dds further weight to bis words first by an asyndetic enu­meration of their own (negative) qualities or activities in the pas! (3, 3), then by contrasting them with the Saviour's graciousness and loving kind­ness (3, 4_7).49

Tbe most reeent Oerman edition of the Oreek New Testament by B. and K. Aland prints the verses 3, 4-7 as poetry or a hymn, the English edition by the same editors published in the same year does not.50 Obviously,

points out rightly that ~TJ).wni<; XaAOOV lQYoov is "with special emphasis" ("nacbdrück­liehst") pIaced at the end oflbe period.

47 See also G. Holtz. Pas[oralbriefe (see n.5), 229; on Tail'ta see M. Luther. Werke 25 (see n. 5), 54: "Haee: in pronomine Emphasis est", also 55-56 on n:EQl~QOveL1:oo. on jJE1':Q Jl:aOTJS' btl.TaYllo:; ("with all authority of an order") see I. Calvin. Opera 52 (see D. 5), 425; G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5),252. also on 1tEQL~Qovd'too.

48 The omission of'Kat which W. Lock, Commentary (see n. 5), 152 cODsiders 4'un_ natural .. , suggesting that it "has accidentally dropped out", is as deliberate as the asyn­deta ulto'taaaeo9m, 1tELBaQXELv, Jtgo~ näv EQYOV aya9bv koll1o'U~ erVelL. The assumption of G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n.5), 252-253 that the second con­cepts explain the ftrst is not acceptable either, as in ease ofthe inflnitives a third ODe fol­]ows.

49 Striclly speaking there is adouble contrast, as tbe authorlists first seven (positive) activities and attitudes of which the people should be reminded, next seven (negative) ODes actuaUy shown by them and finally again positive qualities which be attributes to the Lord.

50 CI. the editions cited above n.29, 559 and D. 43, 736; a special arrangement of

Page 69: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

/11. A Rhctorical Reading ofthe Epistle to 1ilUS 61

someone had the feeling that these sentences were eonstrued in a very par­ticularmanner, and I would eertainly not want to deny that. Clearly, here it is not the voeabuJary that is unusual, exeept for <j>lÄavßQolltla ("love for mankind") and A01.rtQov 1taALyyevealas Kal avaKmvwaeoos 1tveu­fLa'tOS aylot! ("through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit").Sl On the contrary, the author chooses aseries of terms whieh are basic for the te.ehing of the Christi.n doctrine and therefore familiar, indeed used frequently in the epistles.S2 Here it is the sentences whieh he arranges in such. way as to give his words special force and emphasis, pairing particularly important eoncepts: ~ XQ1]O"t6t1]S Kal ~ <j>lÄav­ßQI01tla ("kindness and love for mankind"), eQya "tCt Sv oLKaLOaUvn, ä €1toLljaafLEv T]fLELS / to aBtOÜ EAEOS ("works done in uprightness whieh we have performed" / "his mercy": antithesis), AOt!tQOV mlAI.yYEvEalar; Kal avaxaLvwaEIOS 1tvtufLa"tos aytot!. And he ends with ~(j)" atwvLos ("etemal life": 3, 7). as he pointed to our expeetations at the end of his in­junctions at 2, 13 and to the promise of etem.llife at the beginning (I, 2). In verse I, 13 the .uthorexplieitly stressed the truth ofthe saying about the

these verses is found also in the translation by 1. Jeremias. Die Briefe (see n. 5),74-75 who adds that 3,4-7 are "as is suggested by thc formula for a citation at lhe beginning of verse 8. a quotation which may have been taken from ahymn ofpraise in which God was thanked in the we-style for the merey of baptism" ("wie die Zitationsfonne1 am Anfang von V. 8 vermuten läßt, Zitat, das etwa einem Loblied entnommen sein mag. das Gott im Wir-Stil flir die Taufgnade dankte"). These verses da not play any part in the numerous discussions on hymns in the New Testamnent, see the survey of recent research by R. Brocker, ,Christushymen' oder ,epideiktische Passagen·? Görtingen 1997, 1-17.- M. Luther, Werke 25 (see n. 5). 61 remarks: "This is a beautiful text" ("Das iSI ein schoner lext"). explaining 61-67 most of the terms in thlS seetion .

51 ~tAaVaeW1d.a. is hapax 1egomenoQ in the New Testament, naAlY"!'EVEo(a OCCurs once in Malth. 19, 28 (rebirth after the great flood), cf. B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5), 369-370; W. Lock. Commenlary (see n. 5). 154; M. Dibelius. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5). 111-113; V. Hasler. Die Briefe (see n.5), 96-97; J. Ieremias. Die Briefe (see D. 5).75-76: N. Brox, Pastoralbriefe (see n.5), 307-308; ävaxaivcooL~ is found once in Paul: Rom. 12,2, see W. Lock, Commenlary (see n.5). 154-155.

52 XQ'lO"t6nl~. bc.xatoaUVTJ. €J..tOS, oc9tELv C'to save"), n'VEuf,ta iiYLOV. xaQ~ ("'grace"). ,,1.'lQov6~o, ("heir"). EI.>ti.<; ("hope") and tOlTJ atomo, all oceur quite fre­quently in the New Testament, as dictionaries and coneordances show: also EXXELV (OOto pur out": 3.6) is not new .nd goes back to the Old Testament: Acts2. 17-18 (cf. 10e/3. 1-2); 2. 33: 10,45. see also Rom. 5. 5. cf. N. Brox. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 308-309and J. Calvin. Opera 52 (,ee n. 5), 431 who sire .. e, right1y (428; 430) the greal importance of eoOJO'f\' in this seetion. On the structure of3. 5 see G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbrlefe (see n. 5), 256; helpful observations on the word order in verses 4-7 are offered by B. Weiss. Die Briefe (,ee n.5),367-372.

Page 70: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

62 111. A Rhetorical Reading 01 the Epistle to Tirus

Cretans; now he emphasizes the reliahility and trustworthiness of this 1..6-yo, ("saying": 3, 8), urging TItus at the same time to insist on this, so that those who believe put their minds to Ka).o. EQya ("good deeds").S3 As be­fore (cf. 2, 14; 3, 2) he is anxious that the teaching should bear fruit and this, he obviously feels, is possible oo1y when people trust in God and his promises; therefore he begins and ends this sentenee with 1tuno, " ).oyo, ("trustworthy is the saying") and OL 1tE1tLO'tEVK01:S, 8si\J ("those who trust in God") respectively (3, 8).

But such ademanding faith whicb is supposed to make people concern themselves with good actions and to renounce pleasures and desires (cf. 3, 3) needs reeommendation. Thus the author adds pointedly 1:aii1:a. EO'tLV KaJ"o. KnL OO<j>EkLfUl1:01c:; lIv8Qoo1toL, ("this is good and useful for men"), before warning against various kinds of foolish speculation and contro­versies (the terms used possibly referring to specifically Jewish matters54) and calling them "useless" (lIvw<j>e).e1c:; in contrast to Ka).o. Kai W<j>E).L!La, both words which are very common in Greek, but rare in the New Testa­ment).55

Having spoken in a rather general manner for severa! sentenees, the author now returns to the second person singular to give extra weight to a last piece of instruction which concerns the discipline of the community and somehow summarizes all he has said before: nLQsnKOv äv8Qw:n:ov ILS1:o. ILLav xnl llsU1:EQav vou8smav 1taQaL1:oii, stöw, on ESEO'tQa1t-1:at" 1:oLoii'tO, KnL UlLaQ1:clVeL rov nU1:0Ka1:clXQL'tO, ("after a first and a

53 ßt.a~EßalO'Üaeat. ("to speak with conviction") is used only here and 1 TIm. 1,7, 4>QOvti.tELV ("10 be intent on") only heee in the New Testament; on xaAa lQya see J. Calvin. Opera 52 (see n. 5). 433 and above n. 46. n~O"'tOC; 6 AOYOli is a "formula for an assertion" (UBeteueruogsfonnel"). see N. Brox. Pastoralbriefe (see D. 5), 310. similarIy J. Calvin, Opera 52 (see n. 5), 432-433; V. Hasler, Die Briefe (see n. 5), 97 and probably, tbough less clea<, M. Dibelius,P.storalbriefe (seen. 5), 11\: 113 and 23-24 (on I TIm. 1, 15), but see ibid. 111 (on 3, 8), not "a fannula for a citatioo" ("Zitationsfonnel") as J. Jeremias. Die Briefe, (see n.5), 74 assurnes (see n.50); on the special meaning cf Ol 1tEJtunElJx6'te~ see B. Weiss. Die Briefe (see n. S), 373.

54 Tbe meaning cf ~T)niO'fl.S is difficult to determine. see W. Bauer, Griechisch­Deutsches \Vörterbuch (see n. 7), 670-671: "investigations" cr "controversies", and the same applies to YEVeaAoytal. (kgenealogies": ibid. 306), see also G. Wohlenberg. Pasta­ralbrieCe (see D. 5),262-264: YE'VEaAoytm. occurs only here and 1 Tim.. 1.4 in tbe New Testamen~ """al ("quarrel,") is rare, EQL' ("di,cord") mere frequent: on all oftbem see J. Calvin, Opera 52 (,ee D. 5), 433-434.

55 'Q$EA~IlO~ occurs in the pastoralletters only In the New Testament: here and 1

TIm. 4, 8 ('wiee); 2 TIm. 3, 16, "vw<l>'),~> here and Heb. 7, 18 only, also "'QL[(JtaUeaL here .nd 2 TIm. 2. 16 on Iy.

Page 71: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

IIl. A Rhtlorica/ Rtadillg 01 the Epistle to Titus 63

second warning you should reject a f.ctious person, knowing that such a one is perverted and being self-condernned does wrang": 3, 10-11).56 Both the first word and the last, hapax legomena in the New Testament, draw attention to this command, and with e!;E01:Qmnul., anather hapax legomenon (in the perfeet tense), underline the nature of anyone who is not willing to believe and the finality of his fate.

Three sentences with requests and advice on some practical matters (3, 12-14) leave no doubt that this is meantto be read as an actualIeUer, not a piece of instruetion only, though a general adhortation is added which re­peats the phrase XUAOOV EQYWV :nQolO1:u09at ("ta engage in good works": 3, 14, cf. 3, 8), thus relating the partieular to the general thought expressed in this epistle and emphasizing this aspeet. The final words of greeting (3, 15) are eonventional and eomparatively brief.

So far J have deliberately coneentrated on the language of this epistle, the special phrases wbieh the author introduces and the words he chooses to structure the whole. For he does not only selec! unusual expressions to draw the reader' s or the listener' s attention to partieular aspects, he repeats eertain words to connect the sentences and give the whole a special arrangement and order. When examining this order more c\osely one be­comes immediately aware that it does not eorrespond to Ibe strueture of a speech as recommended by rhetorical theory. Tbis is not surprising, as we are not dealing with a speech, but with a letter with instructions and commands, supported by reasons and arguments and organized in a care­fully considered manner; and this arrangement is emphasized throughout by linguistic means which deserve to be briefly eharacterized at the end.

Tbe key terms which the aulbor introduees already al Ibe very begin­ning in his salutatio are :nlO1:L\; ("the faith, Ibe trust ofthe believers": I, J; and 1,4, see also J.. 3), OWn1Q, eharacterizing bolb God and Christ (1, 3 and 1,4), furtherGodas (h"EUÖ~, (1, 2, cf. äA.~9ELa: I, I) andbis activi­ty: l:cj>avEQwoEV, and supplemenling OW~~Q with regard to men: ~wTj atoovLO, (1, 2). From Ibe salutation the author passes on to the foIlowing instruction without marking the transition. But he underlines the end ofhis instructions (I, 5-6) and Ibe beginning of their juslification not only by

'6 AIQE'tLx6~ is clifficult to explain. see G. Woblenberg, Pastoral briefe (see ß.5), 264: W. Lock, Commentary (see n. 5), 157; M. Dibelius. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 113-114; N. BTO', Pasloralbriefe (see n. 5),312; on El;E<rtQama, see J. Calvin, Opera 52 (see n.5), 436. V. Hasler, Die Briefe, (see n.5), 98 points 10 the harshness of this sentence.

Page 72: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

64 1/1. A Rlretorical Reading o/l1te Epistle to TrIUS

yaQ, but by repeating aVEyx/:rrtOs; ("blameless") and prepares the con­trast to tbe adversaries by describing the bishop at the end of 1, 9 as ÖUVO'l;OS; TI ... "tOUS; aV"ttAEyoV"tas; EAEyxeLV ("able ... to rebuke tbe op­ponents") which makes it possible for him to continue immediately with elolv yaQ JtOAAOt ... ("For tbere are many ... ": 1, 10). The characteriza­tion of tbe opponents ends witb ilLM<Jl<oV"tes; Ci!l.~ ileL al<J)(Qoü X€Q/iouS; XaQLV ("teaching fordishonest gain what one must notteach": 1, 11, cf. I, 7), acharge the author justifies by a quotation which he need not conneet witb the preeeding sentence: EIJtEv 1:Ls; ... ("someone said ... "), and its confirmation (~!l.aQ"tUQla aihl") e<J1:lv aAl")a~S;: "This testimony is true": I, 13); tbis he puts against tbe false teaching.

The st.tement that the others spread false teaching is used by tbe autbor to justify (il,' ~v ah[av: "for that reason" [I, 13]) his instruction "to re­buke tbem" (€J.EYXE aU1:o':'s;) which takes up tbe charaeterization of tbe opponents (l, 10: 1:0US; aV1:t.AEyoV"tas; EAEYXELV). He also alludes again to the idea of tbe soundness of teaching and of belief (uYLalvwOLv Ev 1:fi Jt[01:EL: I, 13, cf. I, 9: i! /iLÖa<Jl<aALa 11 uYLa[vouoa and Jt[<J1:LS;: I, I; 3; 4) witb words which he uses again and again tbroughout this letter to stress the eoherence of its parts which are closely connected with e.ch other. He ends with a characterization of the opponents (ltJtO<J1:QEep0I-lEVOOV 'l]v aA~aELav: "men who turn away from tbe truth") which (as at tbe end of I, 9) leads on to a furtber description ofthem in negative terms (1,15-16); but .gain he inserts a kind of quotation (Jtma xaSaQa 1:0LS; xaSaQoLS;: "all things are pure for tbe pure": I, 15) witbout connecting it with tbe preceding sentence.

:Eu (JE MAEL Ci JtQEJtE' 'TI UYLaLVOUOU /iL(JaoxaA[q. ("You say what is fittingfor sound teaehing": 2, 1) looks like a new beginning; butit is not in so far as the imperative takes up EAEYXE as UYLaLVOUOU does uYLalvoooLV of tbe same verse (1, 13 ) and ä JtQEJtEL alludes to Ci I-ll] ÖE'! (1, ll). Tbe various instructions are eonnected with each otber by the frrst words: JtQ€Oßu,as; (2, 2: "older men"), JtQEoßU1:L(Ja, (2, 3: "older ladies"), 1:0., vEas; ("the younger women" - not clearly marked as new group), mus; VEOO1:EQOUS; (2, 6: "the younger men") and ÖOUAOUS; (2, 9: "slaves"). And again tbrough a eareful ehoice of words the autbor eonnects tbis seetion bOlh with the earlier one (cf. 2, 9: I-l~ ltV1:tAEyoV"tas; and 1:0US; <lV"tLMyov1:as;: 1,9) and witb tbe seetion whieh follows immediately, as. comparison of Jtüoav n[01:'" h(JeLxvuI-lEvouS; ayaa~v, Lva "t~v ilLilao­xa),,[av ~v mv 0OO1:fiQoS; i!I-lWV 8EOii X00I-lWOW h JtÜOLV ("showing every form of good faitb, in order that they may do eredit to tbe teaehing of

Page 73: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

iIJ. A Rheto,.jca[ Reading oj Ure Epistle to 1itus 65

our Saviour God amongst all men") with E:7tE<j>UV'1 YUQ f} XUQLS wü eEOÜ (JOl1:t\QLO~ :7tämv aVeQro:7tOL~ (2, 11: "For it has appeared the graee ofGod as saving power for all mankind") shows. The writer who begins this see­tion with AUA.eL (2, 1) repeats this imperative in the eonc\uding sentenee (2, 15) together with two others, :7taQaxMEL (also used in 2, 6) and EkEYJ(E (used in the previous seetion I, 13). And he begins the following sentenee again with an imperative (3, I: U:7tOlllIlVnaxE,"remind"), taking up the earlier ones and thus connecting the two seetions. As arguments he addu­ces the wea1cnesses of men (3, 3) and the love of God (3, 4-7), using the first person plural, thereby connecting this part with the preceding one (see 2, 11). He ends this part with the key term ~Ol~ aLrovLoc; which he used in the first sentence (I, 1), and he continues with the phrase :7tL<J1:o. 6 A6yo., talcing up the concept of :7t[<J1:L' also introduced right at the beginning (I, I; 3; 4; see also I, 9). Now he returns to this term at the beginning of his conc\uding remarks, his exhortation to engage in good works (as in 2, 14) which he feels the need here to characterize more elearly as advantageous and beneflcial unlike other matters; and they make hirn formulate two im­peratives: :7tEQL[(J1:Cl(JO and :7tClQaL1:0Ü ("you should avoid" and "you should reject": 3, 9 and 10).

Through these last two imperatives the author once more underlines the nature of bis letter: It is a letter with instructions, mandates. injunctions, admonitions and warnings, particular orders which are justifled with the help of general considerations and put forward in a very c1ear and carefully structured arrangement. This we leam when we pay attention to the signals by which the author himself assists us in understanding his letter. 57 They also help us to grasp the main ideas which the author wishes to develop (in­ve1lt;o), the way in which he relates them to each other and thereby indicates the relative importance he attributes to each of them (dispositio) and tbe manner in which he wants them to be received by the addressee and possibly by others (rhetorical situation).

Tbe basic ideas or concepts which the author wishes to emphasize are, I think: the belief ofthe people in God, in his graciousness and his promises, in salvation and eternallife, the need to know the sound teaching, and the

51 It does not help merely to register wilh G. Holtz, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 236 "the author's delighl in composite words and idiosyncratic, though generaJly understandable use of words" ("die Freude des Verfassers an Komposita und eigenwilligem. aber all­gemeinverständlich bleibendem Wortgebrauch"); they are the key to what the author wishes to say.

Page 74: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

66 1/1. A Rherorical Reading 0/ the Epistle to ritus

need to lead a moderate life and to perform Xa.ACr. EQYa.. They are not least of a1l emphasized by the struClure of the whole:s8

Salutation

The mand.te for Titus: 10 .ppoint elders of good reputation wilh justifications: a) necessary qualities of an

bti(J')(oJto~ b) Ibe nature oftbe opponents

Ibis leads on to. more general order forTitus: to show the Cretes Ibe path to the sound belief

a) with .justific.tion: the nature cf the opponents b) with specific orders

with regard to old men with reg.rd to old women with regard to young women with regard to young men with regard to slaves

c) with an additionaljustification: the grnce of God d) with. summary (of I, 13-2, 14)

• further order with regard to 'pecific .spect, with justifications: a) the weakness of mankind

b) Ihe kindness ofthe ,aviour

Summary of 1, 5-3. 7 with admonitions, promises for those who believe and wamings for those who are not willing ta beUeve

Particular instructions

Final greetings

1,1-4

1,5--6

1,7-9 1,10-13 •

1,13 b-14

1,15-16 2,1 2,2 2,3-4. 2,4 b-5 2,6-8 2,9-10

2,11-14 2,15

3.1-2 3,3 3,4-7

3,8-11

3,12-14

3,15

Obviously, the author has structured this letter in a very carefuUy considered manner; in doing so he has followed not the precepts of any handbook, but the requirements of the subject matter, as he understood

58 Most commentators da not offer a very detailed analysis of the letter. e. g. G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 72-73; G. Holtz, p.storalbriefe (,ee n. 5),lnhalts­verzeichnis; V. Hasler, Die Briefe (see n.5), 6; J. Jeremias. Oie Briefe (see n.S), 11; more helpful M. Dibelius, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 98 and N. Brox, Pasloralbriefe (see n.5), 14-15, evon better w. Lock, Commentary (see n.5), 123-124.

Page 75: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

111. A RhetoTical Reading Qfthe Epist[e 10 Titus 67

them at the time and with regard to the person(s) he was addressing. Observing the various signals he gives throughout this letter. even after centuries we can interpret them and appreciate his special concem in this short piece.

Page 76: Classen Rhetorical Criticism
Page 77: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

IV. Rhetorical Observations on the Introductory Sections of the Four Gospels

Mark

Much ink has been spilled to explain the first words ofthe gospel of Mark l

especially ;;0 euaYYEALov ("the good news"), but also the abrupt beginning itself, uQxi) ;;oii euaYY€A[ou C"beginning of the good news"). W. Bauer dtes severaJ paralleis for aQXtl as "beginning of a book" C or of a book within a larger work);2 and more exarnples could easily be added. However, it is not comrnon practice of ancient authors begin a work in this manner. Unfortunately, the transmitted text of Harpocratio's entry "Irov does not allow us to decide whether Ion of Chios really said aQX~ öE 1'01 'Coii Myou C"beginning of my story", as Bauer, following H. Diels, assumes) and even ifhe did, thesemay nothave been his first words; and the passage from Polystratus Bauer refers to does not help either.3

More ofMark's readers will have beenreminded ofthe beginning ofthe book of Hosea, where the prophet after the formalized first sentence4

1 Commentaries are Iisted by F. Neirynck. The Gospel of Mark. A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1990, Leuven 1992. see also D. F. Watson and A. }. Hauser, Rbetori­cal Criticism of the Bible. A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method, Lejden 1994. L68-170; V. Robbins. Jesus the Teacher. A Socio-Rhetoncal In­terpretation ofMark. Philadelphia 1984 is very useful. but rus approach is different from mine. Texts used: E. Nestle and E. Nestle (edd.), Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart "1948, B. et K. Aland el al. posl E. et E. Nestle (edd.), Novum Teslamenlum Graeee, Stuttgart "1993 and B. Aland el al. (edd.). Tbe GreekNew Testament, Stuttgart '1993.

2 W. Bauer. Griechisch4deutscbes Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testa4 ments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Berlin 51963. 221. s. v. aQX~. (On the sixth edition. edited 1988, see above chapterII n. 17).

3 Cf. J. J. Keaney (ed.), Harpocration. Lexeis ofth~ ren Orators. Amsterdam 1991 138 and F.lacoby (ed.). Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) III B. Lei4

den 1950,283 Da. 392 fTg. 24 (note Ihe apparatus eritieus); C. Wilke (ed.), Polystrati Epicurei ITEPI AAOrOY KATA$PONHl:EIU: Iibellus.Leip7Jg 1905,28 (eol. XXa).

4 Cf. A. RabIfs (cd.). Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX inter­pretes I-li, Stuttgart '1935, II 490.

Page 78: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

70 IV. The In.troductory Secr;ons ojtlJe Four Gospels

which has paralleis in the books of Micah, Joel and elsewheres inserts aQJ(TJ Ä6YOlJ ltlJQlolJ 3tQo<; 'QUllE (1, 2: "beginning ofthe Lord's message to Hosea"), before he continues with a phrase used by Amos in his introductory section also: "and the Lord said" (ltai EI3tEV ltUQIO<;, a phrase very frequently occurring in the Old Testament from the first chapter onwards6). But while Hosea thus clarifles the meaning onoyo<; ltlJQlolJ, the evangelist by alluding to the formula known from the prophet and continuing with "toü EuaYYEALOlJ 'Il1uOÜ XQIO"tOÜ ("the good message of Jesus Christ") tries to make his audience not merely attentive and recepti ve, but inquisitive also.7 For the meaning of this first clause remains puzzling and its relation to what folIows, as the commentators state, unc1ear.8 Indeed, it may weIl be that Mark deliberately chooses such a beginning to attract his readers' attention. EuaYYEAlov in Greek - in general, not in the language of the Septuagint - means "re ward for good news" or "good message" and entails success, victory, joy and happiness; in connection with the ruler-cult it may refer to the birth of aruler, to a new ruler (e. g. the accession to the throne) or to particular orders or measures.9

Similar associations are aroused by the epithetXQIO"to<; ("anointed"), as it points not merely to the Ianguage of the Holy Scripture, but to the Messiah. IO Thus the evangelist with bis first few woIds attracts the curiosity of bis readers and at the same time stresses the central elements of his work: good tidings of the Messiah, L e. from the Messiah and about the Messiah.

A word has to be added on 6.QJ(Tt ("beginning"), as scholars have wondered whether it refers to the first seetion only or 10 the whole in the

, Cf.A. Rahlf. (ed.),Septuaginla(seen.4), II 512: Mieah 1,1: 11519:JoeI I. 1; II 526: Jo.as I, I, see also TI 542: Haggai 1, I; 11545: Z<Chariah 1, 1; 1656: Jeremia,.I, 4.

, Cf.A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta (seen. 4), 1I 502: Amos 1,2: .ee furtherI3: Gene· sis 2, 18 el .aepius, cf. E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance 10 the Septuaginl and the OlherGreek Version. of!he OldTestament I-lI, Oxford 1897. I 384-40l.

7 According to ancient rhetorical theory an introduction should make an audienee altentive.receptive and weJt disposed. cf. Anaxim. rher. 29, 1; Cic. itlV. 120; Rhet. Her. I 6. In refernng to ancient Greek and Roman rhetorical theory here I da not mean to imply that it was known to the writers cf thc gospels; I am using ancient theory as it scems to me stm to be useful together with modem theory in analysing texts whetber ancient or modem (see chapter 1).

B See already W. C. Allen. The Gospel according to Saint Mark with Introduction andNoles,London 1915,52.

, See W. Bauer. Griechisch-deutsches Wönerbuch (see n.2), 628-630; H. G. LiddelI. R. Seon and H. S. Jones (edd.l.A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxiord '1940. 705.

10 See W. Bauer. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (see n. 2), 1753-1754.

Page 79: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Mark 71

sense that the whole work is no more than the beginning of the good tidings. 11 I see no reason why one should not understand it in the sense of "beginning" from wbich a11 the rest derives or results; 12 for it would be very odd at the beginning merely to state the obvious fact that this is the beginning.13

Jmmediately afterwards. confirming the readers' first, but still some­what vague impression, the evangelist adds referenees to the Holy Scrip­ture with a common fonnula wbich is generally used to appeal to a written authority (xa8w, YEYQwn:m: "as it stands written"14) and names Isaiah. though in fact he combines a line from the prophet Malaebi (3. 1. see also Exodus 23. 20) and a well-known verse from Isaiah (40. 3). Before beginn­ing bis story of the Baptisfs aetivity. Mark outHnes the framework within which this should be seen: The Baptist is not important for his own sake; he is a forerunner of the Messiah (XQU11:0,). as prornised by the Holy Scripture. and the aeeount ofbim should be regarded as good tidings. Thus Mark underlines the relevanee of bis work for the people (good tidings) and the reliability of these good tidings (of the Messiah which have been promised by the prophets). It is to emphasize these aspeets and to reassure bis readers at the beginning that Mark, unlike Matthew or Luke. here in­serts the line from the prophet Malaehi with the reference to the messenger sent by God. and it is in aceordance with tbis beginning that he laler uses TO EuaYYEALoV more frequenUy than the other evangelists 15 and, indeed, at particularly important points in his account.

Mark repeats the word !Wiee where he describes the beginning of Jesus' activily in GaHlee (1, 14and 15: ~AeEV ö 'ITlO'oii<; ELpiJV raALAalav ... :

11 See E. Lohmeyer. Das Evangelium des Marlrus. Göttingen 171967 (with Ergän· zungsbeft edited by G. Saß, '1967). 9-11; D. LUhnnann. Das Markusevangelium. TU· bingen 1987, 33-34.

12 On the meaning of ä.QX~ see C.]. Gassen. Scripta Classica Israelitica 15 (Studies in Memory of Abraham Wasserstein [). 1996.20-24.

13 Hosea 1.2 (see n.4) the words «QX;' loyou refer La God's first messa(!;e to the prophet which is followed by otbers (I. 4; 6; 7; 9).

14 See W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (see n.2). 330-332. esp. 330-331. For the following quotations cf.A. Rahlfs (ed.). Septuaginta (see n. 4). II 563-564: Malachi 3. 1: I 125: Exodlls 23. 20; II 619: lsaiah 40. 3.

15 E\myyeALOv occurs seven times in Mark. Cour tirnes in Matthew. never in Luke and John, but Luke has t'Üayyd.LtEoGat ten times, not onIy in the strict sense or"good tidings oftheMessiah"; see below. Matthew uses EuayytA.l.ov twice indescribjng Jesus' t .. ching (4, 23; 7. 35) and attributes it twice 10 Jesus bimse1f(24. 14; 26. 13).

Page 80: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

72 ]V, The Introductory Sections ofthe Four Gospels

"Jesus went to Galilee"), first hirnself portraying him as K1jQuoowv ~o EliuyyH.tov ~OÜ Beaü ("preaching the good tidings of God") and then quoting him as saying J.lHUVOEt~E Kat 3tLlTtEUEtE EV t<il EvaYYE/..Lcp ("repent and beUeve in the good tidings"). Later he invariably makes Jesns use this term where he resurnes the references to hirnself as (, 1JLO, "tOÜ avBQw3to1J ("the son of man") and begins to speak ofthe true disciplesbip (8,35; 10,29; [16, 15]) and ofthe lastdays (13,10) wbich will be preceded by the preaching of the good tidings. To this preaching Mark makes reference also at the end of the story of the woman anointing Jesus in the house of Simon in Bethany (14, 9), that is at the beginning ofbis account of the Passion, this being the last event before the preparations for the passover.

Returning to the beginning of the gospel, we find Mark illustrating Isaiah's propbecy by an account of John (1, 4-8) in wbich be introduces some words whieh turn out to be eentral for bis whole work; but he uses them - eorresponding to the Baptist's role as a forerunner - in a preparatory manner, one might say with a ,preliminary' meaning. To bis fust words. eyevETo 'IwaVV1j, [3a3ttl!;wv ("John was baptizing": 1,4), be adds xat K1jQUOOWV [3amLOJ.IU J.lETaVOLu, ELs; ä<j>EOW uJ.luQ"tliilv ("and preaehing baptism of repentanee for the remission of sins"); at the end he repeats the term preaehing again: EKl]Q1JOOEV Uywv €QXE"taL (, iO)(1JQO"tEQO, ... uu"to, 51: [3amLoEL u!,ä, 3tVEU!'UTL UYLql ("he was preaching, saying that the mightier one will come" and " that he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit"16), thus stressing that John's baptism would be superseded by another one (1, 7-8). And as Mark takes up K1jQuoowv I EKl]Q1JOOE (for John: 1,4; 7) by X1jQuoowv"to EuayyeÄ.Lov ("preaehing the good tidings" for Jesus: I, 14), so instead of [3am:LO!'U !,ETuvoLa, (for Jobn: 1,4) be makesJesus say J.lE"tUVOEr~E Kat m~EUE~E Ev ~ip EuaYYEUcp ("repent and trust in the good tidings": I, 15). This expression is used again by Mark only once, but at a very promlnent place, that is at the end of bis aceount of Jesus' aetivities in GaUlee; however, characteristically, for the disciples he prefers a simpler form: H;EABoY1:E, lKl]Q1J!;av Lva J.lE~avOÖloLv ("going out they preached that men should repent": 6, 12).

16 B. et K. Aland et al. post E. et E. Nestle (edd.l, Novum Testamenturn Graeee. 88 and B. Aland et al. (edd.). The Greek New Testament (see n. 1), 118 prefer the reading EV JtVetl!1a"t~ ayttp.

Page 81: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Mark 73

To the issue ofthe remission of sins Mark returns, after describing some acts of heaJing (1, 21-45), in the second chapter. In the story of the paralytic (2, 1-12), he shows Jesus flfst forgiving; and when Jesus realizes that the scribes reason (in their hearts) that forgiving is God's privilege, he emphatically states that e!;o1JCJ[av exEt 0 u[OS -eoü cXvegomo1J acj>tivaL a~ag-e[as btL tiis rfis ("the son of man has power to forgive sins on earth": 2, 10), at the same time also healing the paralytic. In another dispute with the scribes who accuse him of being helped by Beelzebul Jesus affrrms that while all sins shall be forgiven by tbe sons ofmen he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness forever [3. 28-29). Thus Mark stresses the supreme importance of the Holy Spirit, another key cODeept to whieh he gives prominenee at the very beginning in bis aeeount of the Baptist whom he makes prophesy of the Messiah that "he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit" (I, 8: ßam[CJeL u~aS 1tveu~an ayltp).

Mark himself uses 1tVEÜ~a ("spirit") without äYLOV ("holy") twiee in the next section, that is at the very beginning ofbis account of Jesus, first saying that as Jesus was being baptized, he saw the Spirit descending into bim and then that the Spirit drove hirn into the desert (1, 10; 12). Having made John indicate that the Messiah will baptize in the Holy Spirit (or with the Holy Spirit) Mark now leaves no doubt that the Spirit actually is in Jesus and that he is guided by the Spirit. He illustrates this further immediately afterwards in bis report ofJesus' activities: He describes bim as beaJing a man "with uncJean spirit" (h 1tVEU~a1:L aKaecig-etp: 1,23-27) who recognizing him addresses bim as "the Holy of God" (0 ÜYLO<; -eoü eeoii), and later he relates similar stories whieb emphasize the special nature of Jesus' spirit (3, 11; 5, 2-14; on 3, 30 see below). Again in presenting two important discussions between Jesus and bis opponents he points to the Spirit in Jesus, once saying that in his spirit he perceives what the scribes reason in their hearts about the remission of sins (2, 8, see above) and onee thatbe sighs in his spiritwhen the pharisees requesta sign from heaven (8, 12) shortly before he starts on his last joumey to Jerusalem.

Three times Mark makes Jesus bimself refer to the Holy Spirit, again always in contexts of special importance. Immediately after appointing his twelve disciples (in an early passage already mentioned: 3, 28-29) Jesus brings out the unique nature and position of the Holy Spirit: He distinguisbes between sins that sball be forgiven and blasphemies against tbe Holy Spirit for wbieh there is no forgiveness. And the evangelist very

Page 82: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

74 Iv.. The ltztroductory Sections ofthe Four Gospels

pointedly adds a comment of his own: Ö1:L EA.EyOV ltVEÜ!.La cIl«'dlaQ'tOv EXEL ([He said sol "because they said that he has an unelean spirit": 3, 30). Towards the end, in answering a question about the Messiah 's descent, Jesus tries to give a word ofDavid's additional authority by saying that he spokein the Holy Spirit (12, 36); andin his discourse on the lastdays, after prophesying that the good tidings will of necessity be preached to all nations, he encourages his diseiples by promising that in danger not they themselves will speak, but the Holy Spirit (13, 11). Mark ends his introductory seetion on the Baptist with the words ltVEUJ.La1:L aytq> (I, 8); obviously he wishes to draw the readers' attention to this tenn which he eonsiders to be basic and to which he returns, therefore, frequent1y in important eontexts.

Finally, a brief ward about another tenn which Mark underlines by using it twiee in the fIrst verses on the Baptist (l, 4 and 7: XI')QUOOELV). We have already met with it several times as it oeeurs frequently in passages which also contain other basic tenns (I, 14; 6, 12; 13, 10; 14, 9). After applying it first to John (twiee) and then with a more noble objeet (1:0 EuaYYEALov) to Jesus at the beginning ofhis work in GalUee (I, 14), Mark gives it further prominenee a little later by first making Jesus use it (I, 38 17) and immediately afterwards employing it twiee hirnself in summarizing his aetivity 0, 39 and 45). To these six occurrenees in the fIrst chapter, six later ones correspond. Twice Mark applies it to Jesus' disciples, onee referring to the work he wants them to do, once to the work they are aetually doing (3, 14 and 6, 12 with the important addition Lva J.LE1:aVOwoLV: "that men should repen!"), twice for people whom Jesus healed and who proelaim his deeds (5, 20 and 7, 36); twiee he makes Jesus use it towards the end for the preaching ofthe gospel in the future (13,10 and 14, 9). Making 1:0 eUayytA.LOV the object ohl')QUOOELV (1, 14; 13, 10; 14, 9), eombining it with J.LE1:aVOELV (1, 14; 6, 12) and repeating it six limes in the fIrst ehapter (1, 4; 7; 14; 38; 39; 45) Mark emphasizes the eentral importanee of this form of aetivity, leaving no doubt that it is not a gift of Jesus alone, but a gift whieh may be, indeed should be practised by the disciples and others to the last days,

By employing in the introductory seetion the tenns whieh he eonsiders to be basic for his message, Mark undedines, right from the start, with superb clarity what he regards as the eentra! content ofhis gospel: the good tidings of the Messiah as promised by the prophets and prepared for by the

17 Correspondingly near the end: 13, 10 .nd 14, 9.

Page 83: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Matthew 75

promised forerunner, the Messiah filled with the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, the Messiah who brings remission of sins and salvation, yet not without expecting repentence.

Matthew

The reader of Matthew's gospe[18 is at once struck both by the words B'ß"-oS YEVEOEro~ 'l1']ooij XQlO'tOij ,,[oij ßa"lö ,,[oij 'AßQaufL ("book of the origin of Jesus Christ son of David son of Abraham") and by the following genealogy. The fust sentence has puzzled scholars no less than the fust sentence of Mark, and here, too, it seems reasonable to assurne that the author is less concerned to inform his potential readers than to arouse their curiosity. BißkoS without article is reminiscent of such beginnings as ßtßklov OQUOEro~ Nao"fL ("book ofthe vision ofNahum", - after i\.fjfLfLa NlvE\J1'F "burden, commission, prophecy about Nineveh") or ßiß,,-oS Myrov Troßl1: ("book ofthe story ofTobit"), in either case with a genetive stating the content. 19 B'ß"-oS with thc genetive YEveoEws is reminiscent of two passages from Genesis where ail1:1'] TJ ßißko, YEVEOEro<; oUQavoij >tal yfjs ("this is the book ofthe coming into being of heaven and earth": 2, 4: with pronoun and artide) refers back to the preceding (completed) account ofthe creation ofheaven and eartb ("when they originated": Ö1:E eYEvE1:O) and aV1:1'] TJ ßIßko, YEVEOEroS 6.v9Qomrov ("this is the book of the creation of men": 5, 1) to the following account of the coming into being of Adam: TI TJJLEQ(l moi1l0Ev 0 eEOS 'tov AöafL ("on the day on which God made Adam") and of the procreation of his offsprings.20 Scholars distinguish two meanings here, the process of generation ofheaven and earth up to its concIusion Ci. e. as completed) and

18 Commentaries are listed by U. Luz. Das Evangelium nach Manhäus 1-111, Zürich [985-1997,12-7: II 2 and III 1-2: see also the bibliography in A. Sand, Das Matthäus­Evangelium, Dannstadt 1991, 169-[92 (commentari .. 169-172) and D. F. Watson and A. J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism (seen. 1), 167-168; most thorough W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Thc Gospe[ according 10 Saint Matthew I-lII, Edinburgh 1988-1997. D. B. Howell, Malthew's !neIusive Story, Sheffie[d 1990 has the subtit[e A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric of the First Gospel; it is very useful, but the approach is rather dif­ferent from mine.

\9 Cf. A. Rab[f. (ed.), Septuaginta (see •• 4), II 530: Nahurn [,land 11002: Tobil 1,1.

20 Cf.A. Rablfs (ed.), Septuaginta (see •. 4), 13 and 7: Genesis 2, 4 .nd S, 1.

Page 84: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

76 Iv. The Introdllclory Seetions ofthe Four Gospels

the generation of Adam and bis deseendants as a proeess with its eonsequenees (a proeess still going on).21 This distinetion is unneeessary and does not help in interpreting Matthew's phrase; for the evangelist seems to want his readers to understand both the faetors leading up 10 and those resulting from the generation - and this is what he, no doubt. eonsiders far more important - the generation of a person to whose name ('IT)ooü~) he adds first the epithel XQ~crt6~ and then the designation son of David son of Abraham: "Book of the eoming into the world of the Messiah".

While Mark supports his firnt mention of XQlcrt6~ by a referenee to Isaiah's propheey and the story of the promised forernnner John the Baptist (1,2-8), Matthew prefers the addition of a synonym eurrent at the time for the Messiah. \JlO~ ll.a\Jt~.22 and reminds his readers ofits original meaning, son ofDavid, first by adding the phrase san of Abraham, then by enumerating the long list of Abraham's deseendants, i. e. Jesus' aneestors (on 1, 16 see below), thus stressing Jesus' Messianie nature. his descent from Abraham the father, and in his own way also characterizing bim at the beginning of this work as the fulfllment of prophecies and expeetations. For as he points out (1. 17), at the end of fourteen generations David was born, and fourteen generations followed David before the Babylonian captivity, and again fourteen generations passed till the birth of Jesus. The reader may be puzzled by the fact that the writer after using eyeWT)OEV ("became the father") thirty-nine times (l, 2-16) changes the phrasing for the last generation, describing Joseph as husband of Mary "trom whom Jesus was born" (l. 16: e~ ~~ eyyevviJ6T) and by the fact that 'IT)ooü~ (XQlcrtO~) is now characterized as 'IT)ooü~ Ö 4y6flevo~ XQLcrtO, or XQLcrt6, ("Jesus who is called the Anointed").23 But the list of so many names cannot fail to inspire trust:24 Clearly. the author is well-informed, be is familiar with the tradition of the Holy Scripture, the names and the practice of such genealogical stemmata; and the objeet of his account. Jesus, occupies a special place amongst the descendants of Abraham, i. e.

21 See W. O. Oavies and D. C. Allison. The Gospel (see n.18). 149-155. 22. See W. D. Davies and D. C.AlJison. The Gospel (see n.18), 156-157 (with earlier

literature). 23 The question whether ODe sbould print XQlO'tO!; or XQtO'tOS is modem and artifi­

da! in view of the ancient manner of writing. 24 On tbe effect of such lists in speeches see C. J. Classen. Recht Rhetorik Politik.

DarmSlad, 1985, 385 (Register s. v. Aufzählung, Reihung); they impTess listeners or readers even if they cannot follow them and cannot understand the details.

Page 85: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Malrhrn' 77

in the history of Abraham and bis people; one might be templed to say God's bistory, God's bistory with Abraham. But Matthew does not mention God or the Lord in tbis first section, 6EO, or XUQLO" though he relies on the tradition of the Holy Scripture.

In the following aceount Matthew adds further referenees to the Holy Seripture and to the tradition, thus strengthening the readers' confidence even more. He speaks ofthe Holy Spirit (I, 18; 20), aconcept known from the psalms and the prophets, 2S and of an angel of the Lord (1, 20; 24) who announeing Mary's pregnaney quotes from the Holy Seripture (1, 21);26 and he eoncludes that 1:oii1:0 llE ÖAOV yeyovf:V Lva :n:A'lQoo6n 1:0 Q'l6tv u:n:o X1JQI.o1J tlul 1:oii :n:QO<p~1:01J MyoV"to, ("all this happened that it mightbe fulftlled which was spoken ofthe Lord by the prophet. saying": I, 22); and he eites averse from Isaiah (I, 23: lsaiah 7, 1427). References to the fulfilment of what the Lord said are not rare in the Old Testarnent;28 and while Mark only once speaks of the fulfllment of the Holy Scripture (14, 49), Matthew does so at least fifteen times, Luke five times, John seven times. As closer examination shows, Mark and Luke make Jesus use such pbrases,29 and similarly John who quotes Jesus several times (13, 18; 15, 25; 17, 12), but also speaks of fulfilment himselfin summing up J esus' activities (12, 38), referring to bis predietions (18, 9; 32), or in describing bis eruxifixion (19, 24; 28; 36). Matthew, on the other hand, aceompanies bis whole aeeount with such comments of his own, espeeially at the beginning and at the end, while he makes Iesus hirnself use such phrases only twiee, with regard 10 a very central aspeel of his teacbing, his speaking in parables wbicb he juslifies with a very long quotation from Isaiah (13, 13_153°) and with regard to anather centra! aspeet, bis rejeetion ofviolenee for his own defenee (26, 54).31

Z5 Cf. A. Rahlfs (cd.). Septuaginta (see n.4), U 650: Isaiah 63, 10; U 905: Daniel5. 12. cf. U 896: Daniel4. 8; 9; U 53:psalm 50 (51).13; II 358: sap. 9. 17.

26 Cf. A. Rahlf, (cd.), Septuaginta (sec n. 4), n 459: Jes. Sir. 46, land n 146: psalm 129 (130), 8.

27 Cf. A. RabIfs (ed.), Septuaginta (,ce n.4), U 575. 18 Cf. A. Rah!f, (cd.). Septuaginta (see n.4), e.g. I 629: III Kings (= I Kings) 2, 27

(cf. I 507: I Kings [= J Sam.] 2, 31-33); I ~47: In Kings (= I Kings) 8,15-16 (cf. J 578: n Kings [= U Sam. I 7, 6); I 818: U Paralip. (= n ehren.) 6, 4-6 (cf. n King' [ II Sam.17,6).

" Cf.l.uke4, 21; 24, 26; 24, 44, expccted fu!filmen<: 18.31; 22. 37; an ange!'s pre· diction is meant I, 20 (expected fulfilment) and 1,45.

30 Cf.A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta (sec n. 4), II 574: Isa;ah 6, 9-10. 3\ In 24, t5 Matthew does not ooly draw the readers' attentioo to Jesus' words (like

Page 86: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

78 Iv. The Introductory Seclioru ofthe Four Gospels

In relating Jesus' childhood, Matthew conc1udes three episodes with such aremark, twice giving the relevant quotation (2, 15; 2,17-18, not 2, 23,32), and he introduces bis account of Jesus' activity in Galilee (4, 15-16) with such a comment and again a long quotation (naming Isaiah: 8, 23-9, 133). In passing I may note that when introducing John the Baptist Matthew, like Mark, Luke and John refers to the prophecy of Isaiah and like the others gives the prophet's name and a quotation, but without speaking of fulfUment.34 He does, however, insen such remarks three times in bis account of Jesus' teacbing and heaiing, again naming the prophet Isaiah and quoting from bis work: after the heaiing of Peter's mother-in-Iaw and others (8, 17), after a warning that people should not make him manifest (12, 17-21, a very long citation) and after Jesus' teacbing in parables (13,13-15, see above).35 Finaily, in the last chapters of bis gospel Matthew identifies particular details of Jesus' passion as fulfilment ofprophecies: his use ofan ass when entering Jernsaiem (21, 4-5, giving a quotation without naming the prophet), his arrest (26. 56 -:- in general terms: wü-ro Be ö"OV yiYOVEV36 Lva lt"TjQoo9w01.v at yQa<j>aL -CWV 1tQo<j>Tj'wv: "but ail !bis has happened so that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled"), following Je5US' own remark (26, 54, see above), and the thirty silverpieces and the potter's field (27, 9-10, naming

Mark 13. 14: 6 avaYLyvwaxwv vod:tw ("let the reader take Dote [of thlsr'). but points outexplicitly that the pbrases come from the prophet Daniel. eLA. Rablfs (ed.), Septua. ginta (see n.4). 11 924; 932; 936: Dan. 9. 27; 11.31; 12, 11.

32 2,15: cf. A. Rablfs (ed.), Septuaginta (see n.4), 11499: Hosea 11, 1: Ma"". 2. 17-18: ibid. II 721: Ier. 38 (31),15; on the problems of2. 23 wbieb does notrefer to a parti­eular passage of the 01d Testament see W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Tbe Gospel (see n. 18), I 274-275.

" Cf. A. Rahlfs (ed.). Septuaginta (see n.4). n 577. 34 Cf. Mauh. 3, 1-3; Mark 1,1-3; Luke3, 3-6 and lohn I, 23, allreferring to Isaiah

40,3 (cf. A. Rahlfs led.], Septuaginta [see n. 4]. II 619); Mark adds Mal. 3. 1 (ibid. 11 563-564) and Exodus 23, 20 (ibid. I 125) and Luke gives a longer quotation: Ies. 40, 3-5.

" Matth. 8. 17: cf. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta (see n. 4), D 639: Isaiah 53, 4; Malth. 12,17-21: ibid.1l622: Isaiah 42,1-4.

" Tbis formul. is used also 1, 22 and 21. 4 (toOtO öf YEYOV~) besides ÖEt yag y~Eaea, (24, 6), cf. Mark 13,7 (öet ytvEaBa,) and Luke 21, 9 (oel yag taüta YEvecr8at.: "for WS has to happen"), a phrase from Daniel2, 28: a bEt YEveo9aL. cf. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginla (see 0.4), liS7? In prophesying Jesus uses toos: av navta taüta YE"'1ta, ("till all this will have happened"): Matth. 24, 34, cf. Mark 13, 30; Luk. 21,32.

Page 87: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Matthew 79

the prophet Jeremiah, but citing Zechariah37). Not only does Matthew at the beginning of his gospel indirectly emphasize that his story is based 00

the Holy Scripture; later he rerninds bis readers more constantly and more urgently of the fulfi)meot of prophecies than the other evangelists and quotes more often from the Old Testament or borrows single phrases from there, though explicit references to Moses and his eommandments and laws or to the Holy Seriptures (YQaejl1', YQaq,a[ or phrases like cl>. yeyQcunaL) are no more numerous in Matthew than in the other gospels.38

It is not possible here to list all of Matthew's quotations from the Old Testament nor to give exact figures; for in some cases it is not easy to decide whether particular passages or phrases should be regarded as quotations from or deliberate references to the Holy Scripture, as vague allusions or even uneonscious borrowings. But whether one counts examples or whether one reads the four gospels side by side, invariably one gets the impression that Matthew connects Jesus and his activities far more often with the Holy Scripture than the other evangelists; and this he indicates in the introductory sections already.

Lastly, a few words need to be said about the phrases "son of David" and "son of Abraham". The latter may seem to be superfluous, as a son of David of necessity is a son of Abraham also. But at this stage areader may take "son ofDavid" as the Messianic title, and it is only the addition which clarifies the issue by emphasizing the actual deseent and thus the fact that Jesus was a true Israelite.39 However, the phrase "son ofDavid" is of far greater importance as a title of the Messiah who was expected from Bethlehem, the city of David. Matthew is anxious, Iberefore, to use Ibis phrase, but also to stress that here it refers to an actual person descending

37 21,4-5: cf.A. Rahlf, (ed.). Septuaginta (see n.4), n 650: Esaiah 62, 11 and n 554: Zechanah 9, 9; Match. 27, 9-10: ibid. II 556: Zechanah 11.12 (no'leremiah) and I 100: Exodw 9~ 12. In 26. 56 no pmicular passage is mentioned.

38 Only references to the prophets with quotations from the Old Testament are signi­ficantly more frequen' in Matthew: Mask has one (I, 2-3), Luke (1, 68-75: 3. 4-6; 4, 17-19) and lohn (I, 23; 6, 45: 12,38) have three each, Mauhew has eleven: 1.22-23; 2. 5-6; 2. 15; 2, 17-18; 3, 3: 4, 14-16; 13,35; 21. 4-5; 24. 15: 27. 9-10, se. also 2, 23-with different people speaking, the evangelist bimself seven times.

39 Tbe role the evangelists assign to Abraham is not easy to assess. Matthew men­tions bis name sb!: times, J ohn eleven times, Luke most often, Matthew, apart from the genealogical table (I, 1; 2; 17, see also Luke 3, 34), only where Jesus is speaking (3, 9 ['wic_]; 8. 11; 22, 23. cf. Luke 3.8; 13. 28; 20, 37; Mark 12,26), John only in on. story (8,33-58), Luke mostly with Jesusspeaking (13, 16; 19,9; 16. 19-31: the story o[th. rich man and L37.arus), but no' exclusively so (I, 55; 73).

Page 88: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

80 1Y. The Inrroducrory Seclions ofthe Four Gospels

from David.'o He mentions David in his genealogieal tree (1, 6), he points to his special position in this tree (I, 17) and he takes this up in the following aeeount of the dream of Joseph (where he makes the angel eall Joseph son of David: 1, 20) and again several times in the following ehapters where he repeatedly speaks ofthe city ofDavid, Bethlehem (2, 1; 5; 8; 16), onee quoting the relevant propheey ofMieah (2, 6).41 EIsewhere this propheey is alJuded to only onee by John who speaks of the seed of David also (7, 42), while Mark and Luke pay but little attention to the formula "son of David", using it in a story ofhealing (Mark 10,47-48 and Luke 18,38-39) and naturally in the aeeount of how Jesus ehallenges the seribes' view that the Messiah is the son ofDavid (Mark 12, 35-37: ülke 20, 41_4442). Matthew, on the other hand, repeats the phrase several times, distributing the referenees deliberately and carefully throughout his gospel. After introdueing it at the beginning, he puts it fITst in the mouth of two blind men who ask to be healed (9, 27) in a seetion (8-9) in whieh some scholars have diseovered Christology as leading theme'3 and in whieh Matthew seems an:tious 10 present Jesus as healing in aceordance with the Holy Seripture (8, 17, cf. Isaiah 53, 444). Next Matthew makes the people ask whether Jesus might not be the son of David (12, 23),45 after Jesus had referred the Pbarisees to David (12, 3-4) and the evangelist himself had eharaeteri1.ed Jesus by means of a very long quotation from the prophet Isaiah (12, 17_2146). In the fifteenth ehapterit is the Canaanite woman, i. e. a gentile, who uses the phrase aceording to Matthew (22'7), and in the last healing story it is again two blind men (20, 30--31), whereby the evangelist stresses at the end that Jesus' healing made people regard hirn as Messiah. Consequently, he makes the masses greet Jesus not

40 The descent from David is emphasized by Luke also: 1,32; 2. 4. and with regard toloseph: 1.27; 3, 23-31.

41 Cf.A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta (see n. 4),1I516: Micah 5. I and 3; Luke also .alls Bethlehem the city of David: 2. 4. er. 2. 11.

<2 In addition Luke makes tbe angel Gabriel speak ofDavid as "lesus' falbe," (I, 32) and Zechariah of''the house of David" (I, 69).

43 See W. D.Davies and D. C. Allison, Tbe Gospel (see n.18).1I4, refemng to 1. D. Kingsbury, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, 1978,559-573 .

., Cf.A. Rablfs (ed.). Septuaginta (see n.4), n 639. 4S Mark (3, 22-30) and Luke (11, 14-23) also teil the story aboutlesus and Beelze­

bul. but da not introduce it witb the question of the people . .. Cf. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta (see n. 4), II 622; I.aiah 42, 1-4. 47 Again Mark has the same story (7, 24-30), but without using the phrase "san of

David".

Page 89: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Manhew 81

merely with wcrawa. butwith wcrawa to the son ofDavid(21, 9) and he repeats this a little later (21, 15), while Mark (11,9) and lohn (12, 13) simply say wcravva.

Finally Matthew makes the Pharisees, when asked by Iesus whose son they think the XQ,O't6~ is, answer the son of David' (22,41-45). a view whieh lesus then rejects by quoting a psalm in wbieh David speaks of the Lord (Messiah) as his Lord.48 Matthew adds that thereafter nobody dared ask further questioDs (22, 46), Mark that the people heard Iesus with pleasure (12, 38), while Luke has no further eomment (20,44).49 Modern scholars have been puzzled and have offered different interpretations. In view of the care with whieh Matthew makes use of the phrase "son of David" it seems unlikely that he tries to eall in question its importance; I arn rather inclined to assurne that he wants to illustrate both the inferiority of the ready answers of tbe Pharisees and the superiority of Iesus in interpreting the Holy Seripture, also perhaps to underHne the mysterious nature of such an expression as ,son of David' whieb is not so easily explained as some of his eontemporaries thought.

At the end one should not fail to note that while Mark at the beginning ofhis gospellays special emphasis on the preaehing ofthe good tidings, on repentanee and remission of sins and Matthew in the course ofhis account refers to the eoneept of repentanee even more frequently than Mark and to remission of sins and preaching of good tidings hardly less often, he does not mention these terms in his introductory seetion. Instead it is dominated by the tradition of the Old Testament. For Matlbew regards the birth of Iesus and ltis life as Ibe eoming into the world ofthe "son of David", the Messiah, as predicted by the prophets, and for that reason he emphasizes the tradition of the Old Testament at the very beginning and shows his special concern for the fulfilment ofthe propheeies throughout his gospel and refers to this fulfilment more frequently than the other evangelists.

4B Cf. A. Rahlf. (ed.), Septuaginta (see n.4). n 124: psalm 110 (109). I. On modem interpretations see W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison. The Gospel (see n. 18), IU 253-255.

49 According to Mark (12, 35-37) Jesus spuks of the tcaching ofthe scribes in a dia· logue with one of them, while Luke (20, 41-44) makes hirn speik to several of them.

Page 90: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

82 Iv. The lntroduclory Sectioru olche Fou.r Gospels

Luke

When ODe turns from the gospels of Mark and Matthew to that of Luke50

one seems to move into a rather different literary genre. Luke does not try to attract his readers' attention by references to the content of his work or by using such promising or Messianic terms as "good tidings" or "son of David". Indeed, in his introduction, he does not address himself to the general reader, but to an individual, Theophilus,51 and shows concern about his own method, the manner in which he is about to present what he describes rather vaguely as "what was accomplished during my time" (I, I: 'Ca. Jt€Jt"I1QocjloQTJf.!tva Ev ~f.ltv 3tQeXwa'Ca). Whereas others, in introducing their works, might recommend them as superior to earlier writings, e. g. as more reliable or more refined, Luke is content merely to set his account beside earlier ones and to stress similarities: He speaks of the efforts of his predecessors to give a full version "from the beginning" (Cut' uQxi'i,), on good evidence as "eyewitnessess" (alm)3t'tuL) and "in good order" (uvu'CeXSucr6aL ÖLTtYT]O'LV) and correspondingly ofhimself as aiming at completeness, i. e. "from the beginning" (äV0l6€v) "with regard 10 alJ events" (3täIJLV), "with cxactness" (U"QLßW,), "order" ("a6Esi'i<;S2) and "reliability" (ucrcjleXkEta) with a vocabulary which is familiar from the introductions to works of history and is appropriate for iospiring confidence in the reader. Thus it is not single eateh-words by which the evangelist !ries to attraet the readers' attention and arouse their interest in

so Commentaries are listed by F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas I-n, ZUrich 1989-1996, 12-3 and TI 4--6; see also F. v. Segbroeck, The Gospel ofLuke. A Cumulative Bibliography 1973-1988. Leuven 1989, 216 (sec also 221 for studies on rhetori""l and narrative criticism) and D. F. Watson and A. J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism (see n.1). 171-173; very thorough and helpfull. Howard MarshalI, The Gospel ofLuke. A Commentary on the GreekText, Exeter 1978 and M. D. Goulder. Luke.ANew Paradigm I-ll. Sheffield 1989; see further R. MorgenthaJer. Lukas und Quintilian. Rhetorik als Er­zählkunst. Zürich 1993 (which I have not (ound helpful); M. Dierenbach. Die Komposi. tion des Lukasevangeliums unter Berücksichtigung antiker Rhetorikelemente. Frank­furt 1993 (usefu)) and G. Wasserberg. Aus Israels Mitte - Heil flir die Welt Eine narra­tiv-exegetische Studie zur Theologie des Lukas, Berlin 1998 (withgood remarks on the intended reader: 41-67 and on the (unction oetbe first two chapters: 116-133).

$1 Nothing is known about Theophilus, though attempts bave been made to identify hirn.111e insertion of such a personal address serves to add to the reader's confidence in the reliability of the following account.

52 'Ev '<1> "aaEi;~~ (8, I: "aftcrwards") and Tfi 'l;~~ ~~EQ\I (9, 37: "on the next day") give the impression that Luke is following his principle, though in fact the chrono­logiea1 referenccs remain falber vague.

Page 91: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Luke 83

the content of bis work, terms which it would have been advisable to repeat immediately afterwards. Instead he prefers a ratber detached reflection on his predecessors; and be maintains tbis style and tone in tbe following sentence, giving exact information as regards tbe time and tbe first persons to appear in his account (I, 5).

He says "in tbe days of Herod" - not just king Herod, but "Herod, tbe king of Judaea" (h "taL~ f)~EQaL~ 'HQq,öou ßacnMw~ tii~ 'Iouöata~), and witb tbe same concern for exactness he later provides the dates for Jesus' birth (2, 1-2) and tbe beginning of John the Baptist's activities (3, 1-2) by narning tbe respective officials with their titles, and not only one of them, but several, Augustus and Quirinius in tbe first case, Tiberius (witb tbe year ofbis reign), Pontius Pilate, Herod, tetrarch of Galilee,5J bis brother Philip, tetrarch of lturaea and the region of Tetrachonitis, and Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, as weil as the high priests Annas and Ca:iaphas in the second. He also gives a relative date for the annunciation (1,26) and Jesus' age at the beginning ofhis activities (3, 23)54 and adds a genealogical tree of Jesus who, as he remarks, "was believed to be a son of Joseph" (mv ut6~, w~ EvOfLl~E'tO, 'Iwcn\<I».

Luke is no less anxious to give information about other individuals in his story. Thus, at the beginning, he speaks not merely of a priest, but "a priest with the name ofZechariah of Abias' group of priests for service and his wife, one ofthe daughters of Aaron. with tbe name ofElizabeth" (I. 5: Le(!e1J!;"tL~ <')V6~aTL ZaxaQla, ES E<I>'1~eQla, 'AßLu, xai yuvi) alJ"tii' EK "twv 6uya"tEQwv 'AaQwv Kai 1:0 övo~a autii, 'EÄLoaßE't). And again, later in bis account, he adds information about people which is not found in the other gospels, e. g. about Joseph of Arimathea (23,50-51, cf. Mark 15,43; Mat/h. 27,57), tbus trying to fulfil what he promised the reader at the beginning. Earlier he calls Mary Elizabeth's "kinswoman" (f) auyyevl,: 1,36) and indicates that she lives in Nv..areth (I, 26--27), like Joseph about whom he also says more than the others (2, 4_555) before listing his ancestors (3, 24-38). Furthermore, he reports the story of Jesus' presentation in the temple, giving the name of Simeon, the Jew who having seen Jesus praises the Lord with werds from Genesis and lsaiah

S3 Luke gives more details about Hetod here than Mark (6. 14) cr Matthew (14, 1) who are as brief as Luke is in 9, 7-9; he refers to Herod also 3. 19: 8. 3; 13,] 1 and in chapter 23 with Pilate.

5'* There is nnother allusion to contemporary events with Pilate being mentioned 13.1.

ss John is lcss cxplicit (I, 45).

Page 92: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

84 IV. The Introductory Sections ofthe Four Gospels

(2, 29-3256) and of Anna, the prophetess, adding even the name of her father and her tribe (2, 36: ~v "Avvarcgo<Pii,t>, euy<l't1)Q cJ?avou~).., EX cj>u)..ii' 'Aa~Q) and further details ofher life and age. He introduces John the Baptist with his father's name (3, 2), thus also connecting this story with the earlier one about Zechariah, Elizabeth and John's birth (1,5-25 and 1,57-80). And as he earlier reJates Elizabeth's and Mary's pregnancy with one another (1, 26; 39-56), he presents the later events both with clear relative (3, 2; 21; 23) and absolute (3, 1-2; 3, 19) chronological references. Luke also provides names in accounts of particular events which are notfoundin the other gospels. Thus he mentions NaÜl (7,11) as a place or Mary of Magdala not only as one of the women who found the tomb empty after Jesus' death,57 but also as a woman being healed (8, 2) together with Joanna, wife ofChuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna (8, 3). Even the beggar in the parable of the rich man and the poor man is not left without aname (Lazarus: 16,20-31). In this context it should be noted that Luke explicitly reports the fact that Jesus gives bis disciples new names, calls them apostles (6, 12) and says to them they should rejoice because their names are written in heaven (10, 20). Admittedly, there are stories in which the other evangelists have more details and stories which Luke does not have at all, but generally speaking he tries to adhere to the principle enunciated at the beginning.

Another element that strikes the reader at the beginning of Luke's account is the mann er in which he characterizes Zechariah and Elizabeth­"righteous before God" (ölllal.OL ... EvaV'tLOv,oÜ eEOÜ), "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without blame" (I, 6: rcOQEUOj.LEVOL EV rcaaat> ,aL<; tVTo)..aL<; xat ÖLllaLIDj.LaaLv ,oü IIUQLOU iij.LEiJ.TC'tOL). Not that the terms righteous and cornrnandments are surpris­ing - they are, in fact, quite common - nor ÖLIlal.IDj.La,a or iij.LEj.LTC'tO<; as hapax legomena, for hapax legomena are frequent in Luke's writings.58

Thereaderis struck by the qua1ification "befote God" (1, 6: evavtlov ,oü eeoü) which Luke adds to IllllaLoL and which he repeats with variations in form and content six times in these first stories ofZechariah and Elizabeth,

S' Cf. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta (se. n.4), I 77: Genesis 46,30 and II 619: 638: 622: lsaiah 40,5; 52. 10; 42. 6.

" l..uke 24.10; Matth. 28, 1; Mark 16. I and 9; unHke the other evangeHsts Luke does not mention Mary by name as witnessing Jesus' death. butonLy as partofa group, cf. Mark 15, 40 and 47; Matth. 27, 56;John 19, 25: Luke 23, 49.

58 See R. Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlicheo Wortschatzes, Zürich 1958,27 and 166 (of2055 word. 971 Hap"" legomena).

Page 93: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Luke 85

Joseph and Mary:59 Zeehariah actually officiates before God (1, 8: EVUV"tL 'toü 6EOÜ), Gabriel speaks of John as one who will be great in the eyes of the Lord (1, 15: hwmov x\Jg(01) and who shall go before the Lord (I, 17: hwmov UtrtOÜ, referring back to XUQLO~ 0 9E6~: 1, 16) and ofhimselfas standing before the Lord (1. 19: hwrrLov'toü 9EOÜ). Later Luke makes Zechariah in his propheey express the hope (1,75) that the Lord will grant him "to serve in holiness and righteousness60 before him" (i. e. in the sight oftheLord: hwmov ml'toü, referring baekto XUQLO~ 0 eE6~: 1,68) and that the child (John) will go before the Lord to prepare his ways (I, 76: rrgorroQEucrn ... hwmov X1)QI01). Commentators disagree as to whether in verse 1, 17 God is ineant or Christ,61 though to me there seems to be no indication in favour of the latter interpretation, not even in the sense of God as manifesIed in Christ.

There is no less disagreement as regards verse 1,76.62 Does the author here give any help? He informs the readers of the announcement of the birth ofJesus who shall be called son ofthe Highest (L 32) and son of God (1)to~ 9EOii: 1. 35) and to whom the Lord God (XUQlO~ 6 eE6~) will give the throne ofbis father David (1, 32), further ofElizabeth blessing Mary and asking why the mother of my Lord is coming (I. 43: ~ 1-I~'tT]Q 'toü X1)QI01) 1-101) and of the birth and naming of John (1, 57-66), before he speaks ofZechariah's prophecy. Though Luke indieates thatJesus shall be called theson ofGod (1, 35; also 1, 32)-as yetnotXQl0't6~-in this early section he does not imply that John is or will be his forerunner; and as Zechariah here first (1,68) speaks oftheLord God ofIsrael with a formula (XUQLO~ 6 eEO~ [1:oü11crQu~A.) frequentiy used in the psalms,53 and then ofGod's promise to enable his people to serve beforehim (1, 75), itis most

S~ Tbe unusual frequency of EvOOj'flOV is noted by W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (see ß. 2), 53S-536 who also registers that lohn uses it onee, Matthew and Mark never, fvaVtLand EVavtLOV occurin Luke only. cf. 1,8; 1.6; 20. 26 and 24,19.

60 "Ev oat.6nrn xaL 6LxaLooUvIl. Tbe author of Eplresialls has the phrase äv ÖL­

XaLo"';VTI xat 6olonln (4, 24). " See I. Howard Mar,hall. The Gospel ofLuke (see n.47), 58-59 and M. D. Goul·

der. Luke (see n. 47). 1219; correctly E. KJostennann. Das Lukasevangelium, Tübingen '1975.9.

62 See I. Howard Marshali, Thc Gospel of Luke (see n.47), 93 and M. D. Goulder, Luke (see n.47). I 241-242; correctly E. Klostermann. Das Lukasevangelium {see n.61).27-28.

" Cf. A. Rahlfs (cd.). Septuaginta (see n.4), II 43; 76; 119: psalm 40 (41),14: 71 (72).18; 105 (106).48 (.,j).OYTl,o, XUQlO, 6 6'0, 'loQa~).: "praised be the Lord. the God of Israel"). also elsewhere, cf. e. g. ibid. I 553 or 626: I Kings (I Sam.) 25. 32 or In

Page 94: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

86 IV, The Introducfory Seelions ofthe FourGospels

natural 10 understand the following verse (I, 76) in the same way, i. e, that the child called prophet of the Highest will go before the face of the Lord (EvWrctOV KUQ'OU) to prepare his ways (in the sense ofmaking the people ready and prepare them for the Lord64), especially as irnmediately afterwards Zechariah refers again 10 God's mercy (1, 78: euo<; 8€oü),

From the very beginning Luke is most obviously concerned to leave no doubtin the readers' mind that he is talking about God and God's actions and about people who consciously live before Gm!. who value their lives in the light of God and expect to be valued accordingly. Therefore, he repeats the formula EvUVtLOV '(oü 8eoü or EvWrctoV KUQ'OU so frequently here65 and adds other elements to confirm this view in the readers' mind. He begins with a scene in the temple (I. 8-23) and makes God act first through Gabriel appearing to Zechariah (I. 11-20) and then visiting Mary (1,26-38), announcing acts forGod (1,16-17) andacts ofGod (I, 30; 32; 35. later: 58) and emphasizing his power (I, 37). One by one he shows people accepting God's acts, first Elizabeth (I, 25; 42-45) and Mary (I. 29; 38).laterZechariah (I, 63--64) and people in general (1.66, see also 1, 58). and also praising hirn, first Mary (I, 46-55), laterZechariah (1,64 and 68-79). Having introduced his subject in this manner and thus prepared his readers. Luke throughout his gospel presents the Lord God more frequently as acting or interfering than the other evangelists - a fact which for obvious reasons cannot be demonsttated here at length. However, it seems wortb noting that while both Mark and Matthew refer to the Messiah in the first verse of their works, i. e. right at the beginning, Luke only slowy reveals the nature of what he vaguely66 calls "what was accomplished during my time" (1,1), as he sees these events and wishes his readers to see them. First he teils them where they take place (I, 5). next what kind of people are involved. a priest and his wife, and then he speaks ofthe God ofIsrael (1, 16).

Luke uses several ether terms here at the beginning, as they- refer to elements and aspects which he "ishes to draw attention to; for he

Kings (I Kings) 1,48, see E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to Ibe Septuagint and the other Greek Version, of the Old Testament I-n. Oxford 1897, n 800-838, see aIso 574.

64 llQonoQtUta8aL may mean "tc go, walk before, in the eyes of"'; it need not ne­cessarily mean "ta go ahead of'.

65 It is not possible here to discuss at length all passages where Luke uses tbis expres­sion.

66 Or should ODe say: in a manner arousing the readers' curiosity?

Page 95: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

87

considers thern important and makes thern play an decisive role in his gospel. The first is that God acts through the Holy Spirit (in particular guiding Jesus in this way): Gabriel announces that John will be mied with the Holy Spirit (1, 15, cf. I, 17) and that the Holy Spirit will corne upon Mary (I, 35, cf. I, 47). Later Elizabeth is said to be mied with the Holy Spirit (i. e. John in her womb: 1,41, cf. 1,80) and so is Zechariah before beginning his prophecy (1, 67). Correspondingly, one fInds Luke later again and again referring to the Holy Spirit: Already in the cerrnony of Jesus' circumcision he speaks of the Holy Spirit as being upon Simeon who recognizes the Messiah (2, 25-27) and at Jesus' baptisrn as descending upon hirn (3, 22, as it was announced by Jobn: 3, 16). At the beginning of bis account of Jesus' activities (after the genealogy) Luke stresses that he was full of the Holy Spirit (4, 1), before he (like the other evangeHsts) reports him as going to the wildemess guided by the Spirit and after the ternptation as retumiDg to Ga!ilee in the power of the Spirit (4, 14).And at the beginning ofJesus' teaching he places the story ofhirn in the synagogue in Nazareth and rnakes hirn open the book of the prophet Isaiah and read a very long and central passage about the Spirit, thereby again underlining its importance for Jesus' work as he understands and interprets it (4, 16-20). Later he fashions other passages in a sirnilar way with the same intention: "Filled with the Holy Spirit Jesus rejoices"67 after the retum ofthe seventy disciples (10, 21) and describes itas a gift of God for those who pray forit (11, 3); and in another centra! passage, addressing his disciples (12, 10),68 he wams against slandering or blaspherning the Holy Spirit and encourages thern with the promise that the Holy Spirit will teach thern (12, 12): The readers are left in no doubt by Luke as regards the central role ofthe Holy Spirit and its power.

Another element which Luke tries to rnake clear to his readers is the essential role of the spoken word. While Matthew rnakes an angel address Joseph threetimes in adream (1, 20-23; 2, 13 and 2,19 -20, cf. also 2, 22),

67 One should read: ~ya)J..uiaa'to [tv] "'<1> nve1Jj.La-rL "'C<p ayi.cp. B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Stuttgart 21994, 128 also brackels EV, whlle he regards"t<p ayiq> as secondary; according to W. Bauer. Griechisch·deut· sches Wörterbuch (see n. 2), 7. the one who causes the joy is given in the dative. E. Klo· stermann (see n.61), 118 paraphrases "in prophetie inspiration", on the meaning see .Iso M. D. Goulder, Luke (see n. 47). n 479-480 and F. Bovon (see n. 50), n 65-67, on text and meaning I. Howard MarshalI. Tbc Gospel of Luke (see n. 47). 433 ("Jesus is lilled withjoy .nd Ibe Spirit").

68 12,6 he also repeats the phrase E-vwmov 'to'Ü 9EOii. cf. further 12. 9.

Page 96: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

88 N. The InlToductory Sections oftlU! Four Gospels

Luke begins with a dialogue between Gabriel and Zechariah to be followed by another one between Gabriel and Mary; and he makes Gabriel end with the most instructive quotation from Genesis:6' "For no word that comes from God will be without power" (1, 37: oux &ö1Jvan](JEL ltaQa 'toü 8eoü näv lifil-la) and Mary reply to Ibis: "It may happen to me according to tby word" (I, 38: ytvOL'tO l-IOL xa'ta TO lifil-LCt 001J).70 Furthermore he makes both Mary and Zechariah recite long songs of praise (I, 46-55 and I, 68-79), thus stressing the words as means of worsbip.71 And after the angel has spoken to tbe shepherds (2, 10-12) and tbe heavenly band has praised God, Luke speaks of the word of God that has been said to Ihe shepherds (2, 17), who themselves refer to the word that has happened (2, 15), and to Mary who preserved these words in her heart (2, 19). Still close to the beginning ofbis gospel, Luke uses the story about the circumcision of Jesus not only to describe Simeon as having tbe Holy Spirit upon bim (2, 25), but also as pointing (through a quotation) to the word ofGod as being fulfilled (2. 29). Andalittle later John the Baptist is described by tbe evangelist as beginning his activity when "the word of God came upon bim" (3, 2: EYEVe'tO lifil-la geoü sni 'IroavvTiv). Most frequently word(s) of Jesus are being reported and expressions like (xai EYro) Aty<o (yaQ,IlE) Ul-ILV I oOL, (al-l~v) al-L~v Atyro (ooL) abound in all gospels. But while QfiJ.la is very rare in Markand Mattbew,72 Luke, having used it so frequently in bis introductory stories for tbe word of God, applies it in some carefully chosen cases to Jesus' words also, first where his parents do not understand bis reply in the temple (2, 50), next where Peter trusts Jesus' words and begins fishing again after his earlier failure (5, 5),later where his disciples do not understand bis prediction about bis passion (9,45; 18. 34) and where those who are sent to catch bim in what he says fai! to do so (20, 26, cf. 20, 20). Finally, Luke uses tbe telm for the

.. Cf. A. Rahlfs (ed.), Septuaginta (see n. 4), I 23: Genesis 18, 14. 70 Tbis after a standard expression of submission (t~ou ~ 601JA.ll xUQ{ou: "See, I am

the servant of the Lord") which she repeats a little later (1. 48) in a fuller form (btE~lEl.j1Ev brl. 't'llV'tClJTELVlIJOW tilo;: öou).."o; auto'O: "he has Iooked at thc humbleness of his servanf') in accordance with I Kings (I Sam.) 1, 11, cf. A. Rah1fs (eel.), Septua­ginra (see n. 4). I 502.

71 Earlier. when Zechariah expresses his doubts, he is punished with dumbness; and whcn hc also suggests the name Jobn for his son and js aUowed to speak again. he praises God and thc words about all trus are spread around.

12 Referring to Jesus: Mark 9, 32; 14.72; Mattlt. 26.75; negated 27. 14; words of God: Marr". 4, 4 (quolation), words of others: 12,36; 18. 16 (quotation).

Page 97: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Luke 89

women who at the tomb rememberhis words only when being reminded of them (24, 8, cf. 24, 6); but when they try to report them to the apostles they appear to be empty talk in their mouth (24, 11).

Ohviously, in bis introductory stories Luke shows the word as God's instrument - whal the angel announces is A.tA.aA.ll~Eva ... :n:aQu XlJQLOlJ ("spoken by the Lord": 1,45, cf. 1,55: God) - and he emphasizes its power to prepare the readers for hls account ofJ esus who also acts through words whose exceptual narure and power becomes most c1early manifest when people fai! 10 undersland them, that is when these words prove 10 be beyond human understanding, but also when people believe in them, as Peterdoes.

The essential role offaith (:n:tlnl!;) is broughtout by the evangelist at the beginning by contrasting Zechariah who is rebuked and punished for his doubts (I, 18: "whereby shall I know this?": xm:a cl yvroao~m ,;oii,o) and Mary who simply asks "how shall this beT': :7t(Ö, elnm 'toii,;o (I, 34) and then obeys (I, 38) and is praised, therefore, by Elizabeth (I, 45): "Blessed she who believed that there will be fulfilment of what has been spoken (A.tA.aA.T)~Eva) to her by the Lord". Luke further illustrates Mary's belief and acceptance of the role assigned to her by God by making her recite the magnificat and Zechariah 's beliefby hls account of the naming­ceremony (1,46-55) and his song ofpraise (I, 68-79). Of course, faith is a centra! concept in all gospels, and John, not Luke speaks most frequently of it. What I consider important. however, is that whlle Mark is content with making Jesus at the beginning ofhls teachlng in Galilee once exhort the people "Repent and believe in the good tidings" (I, 15) and Matthew does not mention people with faith till some warning in the sermon on the mount (6, 30) and faith itself even later (8, 13), Luke shows it at the beginning ofhls work 10 be essential (as John does in the first seetion ofhls gospel also, though less clearly).

Unlike Mark, Luke does not speak of "good tidings" (tuayyEA.Lov) at the very beginning nor ofrepentance.13 though in the course ofhis work he refers to the latter more frequently than the other evangelists. But Gabriel speaks of hls own mission as "bringing good tidings" (tuaYYEA.l~Eaem: I, 19) and again in the next chapter of "preaching joy" (2, 10: claYYE­A.l~O~aL -u~tv xaQ<lv), repeating a noun whlch he used earlier in address­ingZechariah (I, 14,cf.I,58, notealsouyaA.A.laaL,: 1,14;44;47);and we

73 Mark connects the two in 1, 15, see also 1, 1 and 14 for eua.yyeklov and J, 4 for IlE'tuvoLa.

Page 98: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

90 rv. The Introducrory Sectioru ofthe Four Gospels

meet with E'ÖayyeAiteLv and eiiayyeAitecr6al several times later in tbis gospe1.74 However, where Gabriel addresses Mary, it is another eoneeptto wbieh Luke draws attention, the throne ofDavid, the reign over the house of Jacoh, the kingdom without end (I, 32-33), i. e. the kingdom of God, taking up phrases from the prophets Isaiah (9, 6) and Mieah (4,7); 7S and he stresses this aspeet Ihroughout his gospellike Mark and Matthew who pre­fer, however, to speak ofthe kingdom ofheaven. And wbile Mark eonneets Jesus' preaching ofthe good tidings and ofthe approach ofthekingdom of heaven with the demand for repentanee and in speaking of John the Baptist also with the promise of the remission of sins, Luke makes Mary refer !wiee 10 God's "merey" (EAEOC;: 1,50; 54), also Zeehariah !wiee (1, 72; 78, cf. also 1,58) andMary ODee to "the saviour" (0 ooo"t"l\Q: I, 47),Zechariah Ihree times 10 the "salvation" (ooo"tT]Qia: 1,69; 71; 77, also to A,l!"tQOOOLC;: 1,68), once in a verse in whieh he addressing his son John eharacterizes the salvation as eonsisting in the remission of sins (I, 77).

While Mark hegins with a prophecy, a quotation from the Old Testa­ment and the aetivity of the Baptist and Matthew begins with a list of Jesus' (Joseph's) aneestors (based on the Old Testament) and Mary's pregnancy which the Lord's angel explains to Joseph in a dream, Luke, having laid down the general principles for his work in his Hrst sentences makes God through his angel enter into a dialogue with those he has chosen, as they lead their life before God, Zechariah, the (unexpected) father of the Baptist, unexpected because his wife was too old, and Mary the (unexpeeted) mother ofJesus, unexpeeted beeause she was very young and not married; and he makes both of them reply immediately and later praise God, both eiting what he, the Lord, had said to their forefathers (Abraham and bis seed: 1,55) and through his prophets (I, 70). Tbereby he demonstrates in his inlroduction the manner in whieh the Holy Spirit functions and emphasizes Ibe fundamental importanee of the spoken word; and he illustrates the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of the spoken word again and again throughout bis gospel, whether he shows Jesus heaJing. preaehing or prophesying, at the same time continuously slressing the essential role of faith and the final goal, salvation.

74 Cr. 3,18:4,18:43;7.22;8.1; 9.6; 16.16;20.1. " Cf.A. Rahlfs (ed.). Septuaginta (see D. 4).11518 and 515.

Page 99: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

lohn 91

lohn

'Ev agxii f)v 6 Myo., xat 6 Myo. ~v >tgo. "tov ge6v, xai geo. ~v /) Myo. (I, I): "In the beginning there was the ward, and the ward was with God, and the ward was God." The words are well-known, and yet not easy to understand.76 Who is expected to understand thern, to whorn are they addressed, to whom are they meant to appeal? They do not promise any factual information or entertainment, but merely offer reflections of philosophical or theological nature. Qnly gradually something appears in the following verses that looks more attractive and relevant to the potential readers, first "life" (I, 4: ~WT]) and "light of mankind" or "light for mankind" (I, 4:"to <\>ciipciiv av9gtimwv) and then, after adisillusionizing statement - "the darkness did not compTehend the light" (I, 5: xai " oxo"tla au"to ou xa"tei..aßev) - a story seems to ernerge: "There was a man, sent from God whose name was John and he carne to bear witness, to witness about the light so that alJ mlght heUeve through hirn" (I, 6-7: eYEvE"tO äv9gw>to~, clnemai..fLEvo. >taga geoii, ovofLa aU"t~ 'IwuvvlJ •. o\;"to. f)i..9ev Et. fLag"tUQlav, eva fLag"tUQT]On >teg< "toii <\>w"to., Lva >tuV"te. ltLO"tWOWOLV ÖL' aU"toii). The author continues, in a somewhat elaborate and repetitive style, explaining and c1arifying most words and conceplS of the first sentences, but not aJI (not e. g.1tLO"teUELv), himself eontent with definitions and elucidations without referring to any action.

This is not the manner in whicb philosophers or religious teachers would begin their works, nor is the style narrative - despite 'Ev aQxft f)v77

- or argumentative. It has been eompared to a hymn; 78 but readers, unless they are aJready believers and know what the author is talking about, will

76 Commentaries arelisted by G. v. Belle, Johannine Bibliography 1966-1985. A CumulativeBibliography on the Fourth Gospel, Leuven 1988, 147-167 and J. Schnelle. Das Evangelium. nach Johannes, Leipzig 1998, XVI-XVII; for rhetorical studics see D. F. Watson andA. J. Hauser. Rhetorica1 CriLicism (see n. 1), 175-178.

n Tt reminds the reader either of Genesis 1. 1 (cf. A. RahIfs [cd.]. Septuaginta [sec n.4)], I I), of a (mythologieal) tale (cf. Kritias frg. 25 DieJs Kranz), a fable or the beginning of the narrative part in a speech.

78 See R. Bultmann. Das Evangelium des Johanocs. Göttingen 2°1985 (with Ergän­zungsheft Gtlttingcn 1957),2. a piece of"culLic-liturgical poetry" (see R. BuJtmann, The Gospel of John. A Comrnentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murr.y, Oxford 1971, 14). For recen[ research on the hymns jn the New Testament including the first verses of John's gospel see the survey by R. Brucker, ,Christushymen' oder ,epideiktische Passa­gen'1, Göttingen 1997, 1-17.

Page 100: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

92 IV, T7te IntToductory Sections olthe Faur Gospels

soon feel uncertain who is being honoured or praised and will be irritated orpuzzled or intrigued and thus encouraged to read on in order to find out what the writer is trying to convey.79 For nobody can fail to notice the writer's concern for such tenns as aQx1j, Ä.6yo~, 8EO~, ~Ol1j, <!>!Ö~, llaQ'wQ[a ("witness") and äA1jBELa ("truth"), and contrasts like ~" and eYEvEw, that is being and coming-into-being, and <!>aLvELv, <POl1:L~ELV and xa1:aÄallßavElv ("shining" and "comprehending" or "understanding", see also YlyvroaxElV: I, 10).

eloser examination shows that the introductory seetion (I, 1-18) falls into four parts. First John introduces four key concepts, Ä.6YO~, BEO~, ~Ol" and <p(Ü~, as they fonn the basis of his gospel; and he states their mutual relationship here at the beginning before he employs them in his later account: In the beginning there were God and Word (Logos), and for these he uses ~v four times to stress their etemal Being. It is through Logos that there is coming-into-being (eYE"E1:0 - EyEVE1:0 - YEYOVE": I, 3). Here John solves two old problems, that of how the Divine, the etemal Being, comes into contact with and acts upon the destructible by locating Logos with God and by attributing to Logos the power of making things come into being, ioto life, and that ofhow man canrecognize theDivine and the acting of the Divine by equating life and light of men.

Next he illustrates the two assertions that "the light shines in the darkness" (1, 5: 1:0 <p!Ö~ Ev Tft ax01:Lo;t <paLvEl) by introducing John as sent from God to bear witness to the light for all to believe; yet he does not characterize John nor his message, neither the light nor what people are expected to believe in. Through these verses he merely shows God to be concemed that mankind should comprehend the light (I, 6-8). Then he turns to his second assertion that the darkness did not cornprehend and gives further details as regards the nature of the light (i. e. the life in the Logos): a) as being "the true" light (revealed: 1:0 aÄ'l8lVOV: I, 9), b) as bringing lightto mankind (I, 9), c) as entering this world (I, 9), d) as being in Ibis world (1, 10), e) as that through which Ibis world has come into being (1, 10). He repeats what he said before about the Logos' activity, befote he reasserts that "the world did not recognize the Logos" (1, 10: xal {) xocrllo~ mhov mix ityvOl); and he states the same once again in similar terms: "He came to his own and his own people would not accept hirn" (1, 11: Et~ rÖla ~ÄBEV, xal OtLölOl aU1:ov ou :n;aQEÄaßov), this obviously being the central point for him. God's Logos has come into the world (into

79 See the beginnings of the gospels of Mark. Matthew and Luke.

Page 101: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

John 93

what was his own) and was not received. was not understood - with some exceptions: For some did accept him, as the evangelist stresses who points out a) that he gave to them "the power to become children of God" (e!;ouC,JLIlV "CEXVIl6wii YEVEC,J6IlL), b) "to them who believe in his name" (I, 12: "COL~ ltW"CEUOUcrLV EL,;"CO ÖVOlkllllu"Coii) and cl "who were born of the will not of the flesh, not of a man, but of God" (I, 13: oi oux E!; allkcl'toov oMi: €x 6EÄ.1]lka'toc; OIlQXOC; oMi; 1;" 6eÄ.1]1A1l't0C; avaQOC; aÄ.'J...' €x 6EOii EYEvv~61,oavl. Tbe language here used may at times seem rather strange, and the ideas expressed here may not be familiar to many readers - the reference to John is meaningful only to a few - but the train of thought is clear, and the author succeeds in emphasizing the importance of certain concepts, though he also poses questions: How does the light shine, when and where did the Logos come into the world .nd was not received orreceived only by some?

John does not leave anything unclear. Having contrasted "flesh" and "man" with "God" (miQ!;, &~Q and 6eoe;: I, 13), he continues: "Tbe Logos became flesh and lived amongst us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the one son of his f.ther, full of grace and truth" (1, 14: xIl16 AOYo<; mIQ!; eyevE"Co xal eox~voooEV €v TJIkLV Kal 1;6E1loelflE6a 't~v M!;av au"COu, M!;av we; IkOVOYEvoiiC; ltaga lta"Cgoc;, ltÄ.~QT]e; XelgL'tOe; "al uÄ.T]6E(ae;). Having in the first verses indicated that the Logos entered the world (I, 980; 10; 11) and some men (believers) could become chi1dren of God (I, 12-13). the evangelist now pictures the Logos amongstmen, more exactly "amongst us" (€v TJIkLV), .nd us.s recognizing hirn. his glory, hirn as son of bis father, him full of grace and truth. And after introducing the fmt person (plural), he speaks of John, not of hirnself, not of John baptizing, but of him who bears witness, with the phrases "he was before me" (EfLltgoo6ev Ikou) and "he was earlierthan me" (ltgÜJT.Oe; Ikou: 1. 15). refening back to the first verse ("in the beginning": 'Ev &gXii ~v). But now he emphasizes the concepts of "grace" (xelgLe;) and "truth" (&Ä.~6Ela). concepts which he presents as essential addition (not contrast) to Moses's law. These concepts he now attributes to Jesus Christ whom he mentions here at last by name (I, 17) and of whom he now says that he as the only begotten son "has explained" God, "has interpreted" God (1,18), using the technical term (e!;T]~OaTo) for those humans who expound the will of divine beings. i. e. prophets, seers, diviners.B1 Obviously, John is

80 The first hint is given in 1. 4: '[0 4»wc; "twv av9Qoo1t(J)V. 81 See W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (see n. 2), 545-546.

Page 102: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

94 Ill. The bttroducrory SecriOlu oftlle Four Gospels

concemed to single out those concepts which he considers essential 10 illustrate and explai n the relationship between God and the world, and he endeavours to show that a) God through the Logos causes the coming­into-being of everything, that b) God makes the Logos as light enter the world to enable those who believe to receive him, and as fIesh (being his son with grace and truth) to explain himself (God).

By introducing and explaining these concepts and tenns at the very beginning of his work and by showing them to be basic, John lays the foundation for his account of Jesus Christ. Neither the prophecies recorded in the Old Testament nor the actual circumstances of the birth of Jesus appear to him to be of any interest orrelevance. What malters to him is God, the way be acts through the Logos, gives life, brings light and sends his only son into the world, i. e. the functions ofLogos, Iife and light and of the son of God, as weil as the meaning of glory, grace and truth, and also the importance ofwitness, furthermore tbe nature ofthe world and tbe people therein, i. e. of the flesh. To illustrate in detail the role which John assigns to each of these concepts in his account would mean writing a full commentary on the whole gospel: Afew remarks bave to suffice.

According to Schmoller's Handkonkordanz82 ),,6yoS; in the sense "word of God" or "word of Jesus Christ" is used by Mark eighteen times, by Matthew seventeen limes, by Luke nineteen limes and by John thirty limes (apart from the occurrences in the first section: I, I and I, 14). As I have pointed out, all evangelists presentJesus as exercising his power primarily through words, whether preaching or heaHng. ButJohn obviously regards the word and speaking as even more irnportant in lesus' activities than the other evange]jsts; and for tbis reason he gives so much space and thought to elucidate its nature, placing it at the very beginning of his gospel.

Life is the second basic concept we meet with in this gospel. While 1;w~ occurs four times in Mark, seven limes in Mattbew and five limes in Luke, lohn uses the word thirty-six limes (including seventeen limes 1;w1'] aLwvLOS;). Again, not all passages can be discussed here and a few remarks have to suffice. At the beginning John states that everything came into being througb God (I, 3) - a statement which both Jews and Greeks could readily accept - and that in him (God) there was life, also easily acceptable (1,4, cf. 5, 26), and thatHfe was light for men (1, 4). Thereby heindicates that life was not merely hidden in God as a potential, but present as an

8Z A. Schmoller. Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament, Gütersloh '1938,314-316.

Page 103: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Joh" 95

active force, active in the interest of men; and he implies laler that elemal life was a goal generally sought for (3, 15). Throughout bis gospel lohn is anxious again and again to elaborate and illustrate the meaning of these remarks: "For God", he says, "so loved the world thaI he gave his only son so thaI everyone who believes in hirn has eIemaIlife" (3, 16: o,h:w~ YUQ ~y<imjOEV 6 aEO~ "tov XOOfLOV, W01:E "tov ulov "tOV fLOVOYEVfj e/)wxEv Lva 1tä~ 6 1tt01:EUWV ei<; au"tov fLft lmOA.l1·WI äJ,J.." ExTI !;wftv aioJVlov); thaI iso everyone who believes in bis son (3, 26, see also 3, 15; 6, 40; 12,50; 20,31) after hearing his words (5, 24, cf. 5, 25), as his words are Iife (6, 63; 68). Laler he says ''for as God the father has life in himself also he gave 10

his son to have Iife in bim" (5, 26: W01tEQ YUQ 0 1ta'tftQ EXEI !;wi)v EV eau"tq" o;h:w<; xat"tq, utq:. E/)WXEV !;wi)v EV eau"tq,) who can thus claim that he is ''tbe way and the truth and the life" (14, 6: ~ Mo<; xat i! aA.t\ßEla xat ~ !;wt\) or "the resurrection and the life" (lI. 25: 1) avaO"taOI<; Kat,i !;wt], see also 5, 29; 6, 40; 54) and thaI he can give the life he has reeeived to others (17, 2, see also 5, 40; 10, 10; 28). Furthermore, lohn resorts to various images to emphasize that it is through God's son that men may attain 10 etemal lire: water (4, 14), bread (6, 27-58), or light (8, 12). Occasionally he also hints at what etemallife entails: contempt for Iife in this world (12, 35), recognition of God and Christ (17, 3) and also resurrection (5, 29, cf. 6.40; 54; 11,25).

Even more frequently than !;wt\ lohn uses "light" (cj>w<;) in the first few verses ofhis work wbich also occucs more often in bis gospel (twenty­two times) than in the others.83 ln the fIrst chapter it serves as metaphor for that which having come from God into the world is not recognized (1,4-5). that of wbich lohn should bear witness so that people might believe (1, 7-8), being the true light wbieh brings light 10 men (I. 9. cf. 5, 35). Correspondingly, lohn makes Jesus several times speak of hirnself as the light, twiee more elaborately. but indirectly: In the dialogue with Nicodemus (3, 19-21) he refers to the light that has eome into the world (cf. 1,9) and is hated by those who do evil works, while those who do the truth (also one of lohn's central concepts84) come to the light; and again towards the end Jesus encourages bis disciples to believe in the light wbi!e it is there (12. 35-36), identifying himselfwith itmore c1early a Iiltle later: "As light I have come into the world" (12. 46: hw cj>w<; Ei<; ,ov XOOfLOV

83 Mark uses it once, both Matthewand Luke six times each. 84 On a).:rtgela see W. Bauer. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (see n. 2), 70-72~

see also below n. 93.

Page 104: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

96 /V, The Introductory Seclions ofthe Four Gospels

fAN,uSa), as he had briefly done before, saying "I am the light of the world and he who folJows me ... shall have the light of life" (8, 12: EYOO ELIlL 1:0 q,w<; 1:0Ü x6(Jllou' (, UXOÄOUSÜlV 1l0L ... e;EL 1:0 q,Ül<; 1:fj<; ~oofj<;) and "WhileI am in the world, I am the light ofthe world" (9,5: Ö1:av EV"t<!J x6(J1lf!l <1, q,Ül<; SLI1L 1:0Ü XO(J110U).85

John gives tbis metaphor special prominence at the beginning of bis gospel because it is known to the Jews from the Bible86 and to the Greeks from their poets and philosophers.87 Moreover he wants to stress on the one hand that what Jesus brings into the world or what is brought through his coming inlo the world may be ,seen' by the mind, may be recognized and understood (for which reason he also speaks of the Logos so frequently), and on the other hand that through his coming into the world man is affected, is given something essential for his life (or even reallife itseIf),just as the sun gives life to everything wbich grows.

Closely related to the imagery of light and darkness and the terms recognition and comprehension (cf. I. 3) are two other concepts wbich John introduces at the beginning and to wbich he gives special emphasis by repeating them: ''witness'' (llaQTuQta) and "truth" (uÄ~SELa). FIrst he says: "He (John) came for witness in orderto bearwitness ofthe light" (1, 7: oii"to<; ~Ä9EV cL<; llaQ1:uQlav, Lva llaQ"tuQ~(J!l1tSQL1:0Ü q,001:0<;) and: "He was not the light, but (sent) in order to bear witness ofthe light" (1, 8: olll" ~v EXELVO<; 1:0 <j>&<;, uÄÄ' Lva l1aQ"tUQ~(Jn :1TEQL1:0Ü q,001:0<;); then he continues: "The light was the true light, which gave light to every man" (1, 9: 'Hv 1:0 <j>w<; 1:0 aÄ'l9LVOV ö q,ooTt~EL l"tclV1:a (ivSQool"tov), and finaIly: "The word was madeflesh ... full of grace and tmth" (1, 14: <'> Ä6yo<; (JaQ~ EYEVE"t:O ... l"tÄ~Q'l<; XclQL1:0<; xat W''lSEla<;). Again to these two concepts, witness and tmth. John draws the readers attention at this early stage as he regards them as essential, and he returns to them several times throughout bis gospel, while the other evangelists use them but rarely. For tmth and related words I count six examples both in Mark and Matthew, eight in Luke and forty-eight in John, of witness and related words there are seven examples both in Mark and Luke. six in Matthewand forty­seven in J ohn.

85 B. el K.Aland et al. postE. et E. Nestle (edd.l, Novum Test.mentum Graece. 274 and B.Alaod etal. (edd.l, The GreekNelV Testament (,ee 0.1). 348 read E~IOL On 11. 9-10 see R. Bultmann. Das EvangeHum des Johannes (see n. 74),304 with n.l and 3 .

.. Cf. e.g. A. Rahlf, (ed.), Septuaginta (sce n. 4). 11633; 646--647; 577: /saiah49. 6: "J shall giveyou as a lightfor the gentiles", also 60.1 and 3 and 9,1.

" Se. C. J. Classen.Aosälze,Amsterdam 1986,131-173.

Page 105: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

John 97

In the first chapter John is concemed to clarify the part of Ihe Baptist who is witness ofthe light, i. e. of Jesus, but is nol hirnself the lighl (1,7-8 [3 times]; 15; 19; 32-34, cf. 3, 26, also 32-33 and 5, 33-36). Laler the evangelist makes Jesus stress88 that he does not bear wilness ofhimself (5, 31_3289), but Ihal another (5,32), that the father has borne witness ofhim (5, 37). He adds that the works which the father has given hirn 10 do bear witness (ofhimself: 5, 36; 10,25) and also the Holy Scripture (5, 39), and thai the wilness is true (5, 31-36 and 8, 13-18) and thai its aim is salvation (5, 3490). In the following accounl we find Jesus promising that the spirit of truth, coming from the Father, will bear wilness of hirn (15, 26), and answering Pontius Pilate Jesus claims that he bears witness (testifies) for thetruth (18, 37)- in short il isJohn's aim toemphasize thatJesus as son of God the Father who has sent him into the world is in the position to beaT witness for the truth - Ibis being the other key concept.

John ascribes truth as a quality 10 the light or to the word which has be­come flesh, that is 10 Jesus, right at the beginning (I, 9; 14), because he wants Ibis to be seen as the message of his gospel: Tbat God, truly being the true God (3, 33; 7, 28; 8, 26; 17,3; 17), makes hirnself accessible and recognizable thTOUgh Jesus, through whom the truth has come (1, 17), that is through the Logos (the true Logos: 1, 14; 17, 17-19), through Ihe spirit of truth (14, 17; 15, 26; 16, 13), through the messages God gave to Jesus (8,40; 46; 18,37, see also 16,7; 17,17-1991). Jesus claims, therefore, that his actions are true as he acts with hirn who sent hirn (8, 14; 16), and he identifies himself with the truth (14,692). He attributes this also to otbers and their actions (3, 21), especially to anyone who seeks the glory ofhim who has sent him (7, 18), and he expects it of people who wOTship in truth (4,23-24, see also 8, 37; 17, 19) - whereas the devil is denied truth (8,44). And while John several times points out that people regard Jesus truly as the saviour (4, 42; 6, 14, see also 17, 8), the question whether a witness is true or not is discussed !wice at some length, as we have seen (5, 31-33; 8, 13-18)9' Tbe frequency of the occurrences of aA~eEta (and related words), the emphasis John gives to this term by repeating il several times

88 Cf. also 4. 44; 7, 7: 13.21; witness ofthe disciples: 15.27. of others: 2. 25; 3. 11; 28;4,39; 12. 17; 18.23; 19,35; oftbe writer: 21, 24.

so Butsee 8,14 and 18. 90 Tbc goal gi yen in I, 7 is belief. 91 Another gift of God: the true bread: 6. 32-33. 92 Inacomparison: 15.1. " 'AA~6tL" is applied to a maxim from the Old Testament 4,37, to people 1,47,10

Page 106: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

98 IV. The Introductory Seetions ofthe Four Gospels

within one passage and the basic role he assigns to it as the respective con­texts show prove it also to be one of the key concepls like Myo~ and ~w";, <t>öi~ and !!aglug(a, all of which John uses, therefore, in bis introductory section. Tbe same could, but need not be shown at length here with regard to x60!!0~ and oo.g/;, both very common in lohn and not in the other gos­pels, while l\6/;a is also clearly given special prominence by Luke.94

Xo.gL~, finally, is used by lohn in the introduction four times, but not later, wbile of the other evangeHsts only Luke has it (five times in various shades of rneaning). Though all the terms which lohn regards as centra! and basic to the message he wants to convey by bis gospel are introduced by hirn in the first section,95 not all of them appear to hirn to be of such importance as to be taken up later; this applies e. g. to XalaAaj.lßavELv and other words mearung "understanding". However, as in the other gos­pels, here tao, one notices how the writer uses the introductory seetion to draw the readers' attention to certaln concepts and ideas such as God's word (Logos) and truth, light and Iife wbich he considers to be fundamen­tal and to wbich he returns, therefore, throughout bis gospel.

With surprising clarity these observations have shown what the four evangelists have in common and how they differ from each other. Each of the four authors uses the introduction to prepare the readers carefully for bis work and to arouse their interest in the particular aspecls he wants to lay emphasis on. For Mark this is the good tidings of the Messiah who brings remission of sins and salvation, for Matthew it is the coming into the world of the son of David as fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament, for Luke it is (first his own rnethod of presenting his gospel, then) God's concern for man, the working of the Holy Spirit and the importance of the spoken word, for 10bn it is God giving mankind truth and life through the Logos as his son. As clearly and convincingly as one might wish one can tbus see already in the introductory seetioDs the great differences between the four gospels and their writers as weil as tbeir affiruties and the manner in wbich each one of tbern follows his own very particnlar intention.

the;r statements: 4, 18; 10,41; 19,35; 21, 24 .nd to their actions: 7, 26; 17,8 and to Pilat.'s quest;on: 18,38.

94 KoOJ.lO!; occurs in Mark twice, in Matthew eight times, in Luke three times and in John seventy·eight times; attg; three limes in Mark aod Matthew, twice in Luke and twelve times in John, l)6~a thineco times in luke, ninetecn times in John. three times in Mark. six tirnes in Matthew.

" See also oxot!a (1,5; 8, 12; 12,35; 46) and ",,6'0,(3, 19).

Page 107: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

V. Melanchthon's Rhetorical Interpretation of Biblical and Non-Biblical Texts

Introduction

Texts of aneient Greek authors have been expounded and explained from a very early stage onwards. R. Pfeiffer, in bis "History of Classical Scholarship", even says Homer "not only created but again and again ,interpreted' his own powerfullanguage in the course ofhis poem".1 First the meanings of single words, denoting objecls or persons, were clarified and gradually also more complex forms of expression and their function were appreciated. Observations on their effecls led to reflection upon the possibilities inherent in language and to their systematization: The experience of reeitations of rhapsodes, of dramatic performances and of public speeches togetber with the desire to make full use of the opportunilies which language offers resulted in tbe development of rhetoric, tbat is tbe tbeory of the most effective use of the possibilities of language, of the great variety of expressions and their funclions, the ways and means to apply them in practice with the greatest possible effect and also the factors one has to consider when trying to do so. Tbis theory soon proved useful not only for the composition of new texts of various kinds, but also for the analysis of a1ready existing ones. Thus rhetoric gradually became an indispensable part of higher education both in the Greek and Roman world and finally began not only to influence literary production, but also to be used as instrument ofliterary criticism2

Biblical exegesis, on the other hand, is also as old as the Bible itself. Some more recent parts of the Old Testament are based upon and make use

I R. Pfeiffer, !listory ofClassical SCholar,hip from thc Beginning' to tbe End oftbe HellenisticAge. Oxford 1968. 3.

2 See C. J. Classen. Rhetorik und Literackriti~ Entretiens Fondation Hardt 40. Gen~ve 1994. 307-352; id .. Rhetoric and Literary Criticism: Their Nature and Their Functions in Antiquity, Mnemosyne 48. 1995.513-535.

Page 108: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

100 V. Melanchtl101J:r Rhelorical f11terpretation

of older parts, whether they are being adapted to later periods or re­interpreted in aeeordanee with later theologieal views or reLigious beliefs.3

Later one finds in the Jewish tradition the Tora both as object and standard of interpretation, also e. g. in the Qumran texts, while both Jesus and Paul as well as other authors ofthe New Testament support their own teaching by means of references to, quotations from and interpretations of the Old Testament.4

I cannot, here, characterize the various forms of Jewish exegesis, Ha­lakha and Haggadah, or Philo's allegorizing togetherwith their respeetive aims.5 Nor can r illustrate at length the various types of exegesis practised in the New Testament by Jesus orby Paul and laterby the earliestFathers of the Church: One meets with a geeat variety of approaches, of methods (grammatical, historica!, philologieal) and of intentions, partly due to different kinds of influences (e. g. philosophieal ones).6 What matters is

3 Cf. Compendium Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. esp. II 1: M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (edd.), Mikra. Text. Translation. Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible inAncient Judaism and Early ChristiaDity, Assen 1988, also II 2: M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Assen 1984 (on apocrypha and pseudepigrapha): H. Graf Reventlow. Epochen der Bibelauslegung I-In, MUnchen 1990-1997, esp. I 11-23: B. Uffenheimer and H. Graf Reventlow (edd.), Creative Biblical Exegesis. Sheffield 1988; see also H. Fuchs. Schriflerk1ärung. in: G. Herlitzand B. KirschneT (edd.), Jüdisches Lexikon, I-N, Berlin 1927-1930, IV 2. 262-269; L. Schmidt. Henneneutik. in: TheoJogischeReaIenzyklopädie 15, 1986, 137-143 and now M. Szbel et al. (edd.), Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament. The History ofIts Interpretation. I: From Ihe Bcginnings 10 Ihc Middlc Agcs (Until 1300). I: Antiquity. Göttingen 1996.

4 On the Tora as norm see H. Graf RevenUow, Epochen (see n. 3), I 15-17; 20-22; 29-36 et saepius; on tbe Qumran texts 32-37, on the New Testament 52-103; on the Qumran texts see also M. Fishbane, in: M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (edd.) (see n.3), 339-377; D. Dimant, in: M. E. Slone (ed.) (see n. 3). 483-550 and J.Maier, in: M. S.,b~ el a1. (edd.) (see 0.3),108-129; on the New Testament see a150 E. Earle ElIis, in: M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (edd.), 691-725. On Ibc oral Tara see Sb. Safr,i, in: Sh. SafT.i and P. J. Tomsan (edd.). The Uterature of tbe Sages I: Oral Tora, Halakah, Mishna. Tosefla, Talmud, External Tractates,Assen 1987, 35-120.

, On Halaltha 'nd Haggadah see H. Graf Reventlow, Epochen (see n. 3), 117-20: 29-35; 106-116: on Halaltha see Sh. Safiai, in: Sh. Safrai and P. J. Tomsan (edd.), Tbe Literature of the Sages I (see n.4), 121-209 and P. J. Tomson, Paul and Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles, Assen 1990; on Philo see P. Borgen. in: M. E. Stone (cd.) (see n. 3). 233-282; Y. Amir, in: M. J. Mulder .nd H. Sysling (edd.) (see n. 3),421-453; P. Carny in: B. Uffenheimer and H. GTafReventlow (edd.) (see n. 3), 31-38: D. T. Runia., Exegesis and Philosophy. Studies on Philo of Alexandria. Aldershot 1990; on Philoand others see F. Siegert, in: M. Sa:b~ et al. (edd.) (see n. 3),130-198.

6 See n. 4 and 5 andon (he Church Fathers also W. Hombury, in: M. J. Mu1derand H.

Page 109: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Introduction 101

that during the imperial period, as for pagan texts, also for the interpreta­tion of the Holy Scripture rhetorical eriteria and categories begin to play an increasingly important part, as has been shown e. g. for Origen and for Augustin, who even recommended the Bible as a source-book for rbe­torie,7 but also for many others.

However, for reasons not to be analysed here, the medieval exegetes and commentators - broadly speaking - replaeed rhetorie by dialectie, so that rhetorie, as a tool for interpreting the Bible, lost its place (except for being used within the framework ofthe ars concionandi).8 In the West the Latin text of the Bible formed the basis of spiritual and a1legoricaJ inter­pretation, sometimes influenced by the scholastics, and also of literaI exe­gesis, as practised e. g. by Nicholas ofLyra (1270-1349) in bis "Postilla", a paraphrase wbich benefitted from tbe author's knowledge of Hebrew.9

But the Greek text was virtually unknown in the West and the Greek rhe-

Sysling (edd.) (seen. 3), 727-787; H. Graf Reventlow, Epochen (see n. 3).1116-193; on the .. rly Fathe .. O. Skarsaune, in: M. S.,b~ et aI. (edd.) (see n. 3).373-450, on the Antiochene sehool St. HidaI, ibid. 543-568 and eh. Scbäublin. Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunftderantiochenischen Exegese, Köln 1974; see also n. 7.

7 See R. R. Bolgar, The Ciassical Heritage and its Beneficiaries. Cambridge 1954, 53 with reference toAugust. doctr. christ. 4, 2 and 4, 20; see rather4, 3; 4: 5; 11; 12 etc., see also D. F. Wright. in; M. Sa:b~ et al. (edd.) (see n. 3),701-730. On Origen see B. Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe I-n, Basel 1987 and (also on others representing the A[exandrian tradition) 1. N. B. Carleton Paget, in; M. Sa:b. et aI. (edd.). 478-542; further literature js listed by H. J. Sieben, Exegesis Patrum: Saggio bibliografico suW exegesj biblica dei Padri deIIa Chiesa, Roma 1983.

8 See e. g. T. J. Wengert, Philip Melanchthon's Annotationes in JohaMem in Relation to its Predecessors and Contemporaries. Gen~ve 1987, 107. On the medieval ex.egesis in general see B. SmaUey, The Study ofthe Bible in the MiddIeAges, Oxford '1985 (first 1941); H. de Lubac, Ex~gese m~di~vale I-Il. Paris 1959-1964, on the fate of rhetode in general during this period B. Vickers. In Defence of Rhetoric, Oxford 1988, 214-253.

, See H. de Lubae (see n.8). I 23-26; Il 2. 344-367 et saepius; J. H. Benlley. Humanists 2nd Ho[y Writ, Prineeton 1983,21-31; T.1. Wengert (see n. 8). 96-1l8; R. Peppennüller, Nikolaus von Lyra, in: Lexikon des Mittelalters 6, 1993, l185. Of the Postilla I have consulted the editions Veniee 1481 (no titJe page, fol. 2r: Prologus primus Venerabilis fratris Nicolai de lyra ordinis seraphyei Francisci, in: testamentum vetus ... , see L. Hain. Repertorium Bibliographicum I-Il, Stuttgan [826-1838. I 1,426-427 no. 3164; Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 4. 1930. 147-[48 no. 4286) and StraBburg 1492, Prima pars venerabilis tratris Nicolai de lyra ordinis seraphici francisci (in: testamentum vetus ... ), correspondingly for the secunda. tertia and quarta pars; see L. Hain ibid. 430 no. 3169; Gesamtkatalog 156-159 no. 4292; also reprinted Frankfun 1971.

Page 110: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

102 V. Melanchthon s RhetDricallnterpretation

torieal tradition was not applied there, while in the East, where tbe Bible was read in Greek, speeulative and homiletie exegesis prevailed. lo

In tbe fifteenth eentury tbe humanists gradually began to apply the methods they developed for the explanation of pagan texts also to tbe Bible, and in the sixteenth eentury it was Philip Melanehthon who more than anyone else employed aneient Greek and Roman rhetorie for the interpretation of biblical texts. The questions whieh thus arise are how exactJy did Melanehtbon make use of ancient rhetorie, which eategories did he apply, did he apply them to al1 texts in the same manner or are tbere differenees, did he have any predeeessoTS, was he inspired by anyone or was he prompted by his own experienees in sueeessfully interpreting pagan writings.

Born in 1497 in Bretten, Melanehthon lI beeomes acquainted witb hu­manistic ideas at a very early age. He is trained very thoroughly in his horne town and at the grammar school at pfor7.heim by Georg Simler and

10 Cf. J. H. Bentley (see n.9), 15-17 (with furtheT literature); to avoid a mis­understanding I should emphasize tbat Greek was, of course, knowD by same scholars in the West, see e. g. R. Weiss, Medieval and Humanist Greek., Padova 1977. On the East see H.-G. Beck, Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, München 1959. esp. 413-422; 467-472; 514-515; 591-597; 649-655: 789-793.

11 The literature on Melanchthon is to~ vast ta be listed here, see W. Hammer. Die Melanch'honforschung im Wandel der Jahrhunderte I-IV, GUterslob 1967-1996. important: K. Hartfelder, Philipp Melanchthon als Praeceptor Germaniae. Berlin 1889 with lists (botb incomplete) of his worb (579-620) and his lectures (555-566, see n. 148), see also R. Keen, A Checklist ofMelanchthon Imprin15 through 1560. St. Louis 1988. For most of bis wortes ODe still has 10 use the old edition by C. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil (edd.), Philippi Melanchthonis Opera I-XXVIII, Halle 1834-1860. Recent accounts with furtberliterature: H. Scheible. in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 22. 1992,387-410 and id., Melanchthon. Eine Biographie. MUnchen 1997, see also id .• Melanchthon und die Reformation. Forschungsbeiträge, Mainz 1996; special studies: W. Maurer. Der junge Melanchthoo I-I!, Gättingen 1967-1969; H. Siek, Melanchthon als Ausleger des Alten Testamentes. Tübingen 1959: A. Sperl. Melanchthon zwischen Humanismus und Refonnation, München 1959; A. Schirmer. Das Paulusverständnis Melanchthons IS18-1522, Wiesbaden 1967; S. Wiedenhofer, Formalstrukturen humanistischer und reformatorischer Theologie bei Philipp Melanchthon. Frankfurt 1976; T. 1. Wengert (see n.8); J. R. Schneider, Philip Melanchthoo·s Rhetorical Construal of Biblical Authority. Oratio Socra. Lewiston 1990; T. J. Wengert aod M. P. Graham (edd.), Philip Melanch'hon (1497-1560) and the Commen'ary, Sheffield 1997; see also my own papers: Cicero orator inter Gennanos redivivus II. Humanistica Lovaniensia 39.1990.157-176 aod Paulus und die antike Rhetorik. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 82, 1991, 1-33; see also n. 42.

Page 111: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Introduction 103

also by his patron Johann Reuchlin. 12 Early. "still a boy". as he hirnself says later (adhue puer).13 he becomes a student in the liberal arts faculty at the university of Heidelberg where the "old method" (via amiqua)14 still domioates. Not content with the official programme of studies - he speaks of garrula dialeetiee ("Ioquacious dialectic") - he begins "due to some kind of boyisch keenness" (quadam avid;tate pueriU) to read works of poetry and history and also stories (historiae et fabulae). Whatever tbe words may mean exactly whicb he uses in his later report. earlier or con­temporary poetry, medieval or contemporary stories, he adds that "this ha­bit gradually led me to the writers of antiquity" (lzaee me eonsuetudo pau­latim deduxit ad auetores veteres).I'

12 On his early education see W. Maurer (see n. 11), I 14-23 and J. R. Schneider (see n.11), 13-]5. On G. Sintler see H. Scheible, Melanchthon und die Reformation (see n. 11). 35-44: 47-50: 55~1 (fust 1989) •• Iso ibid. 71-97 on Reuchlin's inlluence on Melanchthon (first 1993); OD 1. Reuchlin in general see H. Scheible, Reuchlin, in: Contemporaries of Erasmus 3, 1987, 145-150 and A. Seele, Reuchlin, in: Literatur Lexikon 9. 1991, 398-400.

13 See his de se ipso. originalIy meant as introduction for an edition ofhis works. in: Opera (see n. 11), IV 715-722: quotations: 715; on the date see Heinz Scheible and W. Thüringer (edd.), Mel.nchlhons Briefwechsel. Regesten I-X. StuttgortI977-1998. I1I 212 (no. 2780).

14 Via antiqua and via moderna were ehe terms used to characterize the two schooJs cf thought dominating the Gennan universities at the time, i. e. the followers of Thomas Aquinas and his realism as against the followers cf Wi1llam of Occam and his nominalism, see e. g. A. McGrath, The Intellectual Ongins cf the European Refonna­tion,Oxford 1987. 17-21; 75-85: 108-120 et soepius.

lS He goes on: cum ... nos adolescentuli sine deleetu omnia evolveremus, imo magis recentia, ur Polition; er simUia quaedam, amanmns, oratio mea quasi eolorem inde ducens. magis hos re/ert duriores er horridiores scriptores, quam veterum. venustatem er nirorem ("since ... we yaung peopJe read everything without discrimination, or ratber more reeent works. my way cf speaking (and writing). as if deriving its complexion from them, resembles more these more harsh and UDcouth writers than the charm and eleganee oftbe old"); however, in tbe De Rhetorieolibri of 1519. 61 (see n.42 ond 44) he praises Politian's most elegant statement in the account by which he praised history (elegantissima ilIa Politiani propositio in orarione qua historiarn laudavit) - probably his preface for Suetonius, see Onmia Opera AngeH Politiani ...• Venice 1498, fol. aa Vv-Xv. - J. Wimpfeling. Isidoneu. Germanicus .... Stroßburg 1497, XXI (fol. XJVv-XIXr: De lectione poetarum et oratorum) and Heinrich Bebel. QlLi auctores le­gend! sint (printed first Pforzheim 1504 in tbe collection Oratio ad regern Maxi­milianum ... ) give same indications as to the authors usually read at the time and of those recommended or attacked by humanists. see C. J. Classen. Zu Heinrich Bebels Leben und Schriften, Göttingen 1997, 26-37 (also on Bebers list of auctores taxati et en·orum accusati). - In the preface to his edition of the DiaJogus Mythologicus des

Page 112: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

104 V. MelaJlchthon:r Rhelorical Interpretation

In 1512 Melanchthon moves to Tübingen, studies again with Johann Reuchlin and Georg Simler, also with Wendelin Steinbach and Pranz Stadian 16 and at the age of sixteen obtains the degree of TTUlgister artium (in the via moderna).17 As instructor ("Konventor") for a small group of students at the bursa of the modernists he has to teach dialectic and rhetoric. 18 In addition he gives private lessons in Greek and assists the publisher Thomas AnsheIm for whose press he edits several works. Though he complains in later years that in Heidelberg he did not get the chance to develop a good style,19 already the fIrst letters and prefaces which have been preserved from bis time in Tübingen show not only his intimate familiarity with an incredibly large number of both Greek and Latin authors, but also bis own most impressive linguistic skill, bis appreciation of the good style of others and generally bis concern for a correct, clear and appropriate style which in bis view presupposes careful reading of texts. Thus, in the preface to the collection ofletters of famous men to Reuchlin he emphasizes the irnportance of irnitating good models and - also relevant for our investigation - the essential role of epistles in public life (Epistolis enim res maximae plaerunque aguntur: "the most important affairs are carried out through letters").2°One has to see this, of

Banholomaeus Coloniensis (i. e. B. Zehender). Tübingen 1514, Melanchthon rc­commends this work, because '<according to Plutarc:h through rather refined stories a basic principle is oUllined both tor life and for style" (fabellis elegantioribus fam vitae quam oraticnis regula praescribitur Plularcho auctore). see R. Wetzet aod Helga Scheible (edd.). Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte 1-!lI, Stuttgart 1991-2000, 1 39 (no. 3). (Vol. m is not as yet available 10 me).

I< On Wendelin Sleinbach (1454-1519) see H. Feld, Sleinbach in: Die Deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Ver(asscrlexikoD 9. 1995.249-255. on Franciscus Kireher de Stadion see W. Kuhn, Die Studenten der Universität Tübingen zwischen 1477 und 1534. Ihr Studium und ihre spätere Lebensstellung I-li, Diss. phil. Tübingen 1970. Göppingen 1971. 1 175 and W. Maurer (see n. [1),174-77.

17 See H. HermeLink, Die Matrikel der Universität Tübingen I-rn, Stuttgart 1906-1954.1191 (63.46: 1512-1513) and W. Kuhn (seen. 16),1507. On via antiqua and via modeT7UJ in TUbingen see H. A. Obennan, Werden und Wertung der Reformation, Tübingen 1977, p .. <sim; against S. Wiedenhofer (see n. 11). 102-106 see J. R. Schneider (see n. 11).26-33.

IB SeeW. Maurer (see n.ll ). 143:J. R. Schneider (,een. 11), 30-3[; onTh.Anshelm see K. Steiff, Der erste Buchdruck in TObingen (1498-1534), Tübingen 1881, 11-26; 75-136, for Melanchthon's contributioDs see 251 (Register) s. v. MelanchthoD.

19 Cf.Opera(seen.U),IV715-716. 20 See Clarorum virorum epistolae latinae graecae et hebraicae variis temporibus

missae ad Ioannem Reucblin .... TUbingen 1514, fol. a ß f-V and Me]anchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15).135-36 (no. 1).

Page 113: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

lntroduction 105

course, against the background of bis time in which letter-writing was the most important and most eultivated form of eommunication on which more handbooks were published than on rhetorie;21 indeed some works with the title "Rhetorica" were in fact a kind of ars epistolandi ("Art of leuer-writing").22 One has to bear this in mind when trying to understand the interpretation of texts, espeeially letters from the Bible during this period, and the particular interest Melanchthon took in these letters.

As in this preface, Melanehthon again and again shows bis admiration for good style,23 and he stresses the value of eloquenee whieh he ealls a "gift of the gods" (dollum esl deorwn). 24 1bis means for the young the need to develop the faeulties of speaking weIl and writing weIl; and in order to achieve this to study suitable models.As early as 1514 he edits and recommends the "Dialogus mythologicus" ofBartholomaeus Coloniensis (i. e. B. Zehender) to the students because it helps them to improve their style and their manners.2S And in 1516 he edits the eomedies ofTerenee and praises the author with referenee to Erasmus as optirnus dicendi artifex C"greatest master of style,,);26 but wbile he feels obliged to eriticize severa! figures in the comerues on moral grounds, he maintains that "there is a great deal of that kind in this poet that befits life, the development of manners and a good taste in style": Multa sunt eiuseernodi apud hune poetarn, quae vitae moribusque parandis, quae dietion;s elegant;ae conveniullt.21

21 00 letter-writing during this period in general see W. G. Müller, Brief. in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik 2, 1994,60-76, esp. 71}-72. on handbooks see C. J. Classen, Zu Heinrich BebeIs Leben (see D. 15),38-39 n. 125 and forGerman guides to letter-writing R. M. G. Nickisch. Die Stil prinzipien in den deutschen Briefstellern des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen 1969,248-260 and id .. Briefsteller. in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik 2,1994,76-86, .'p. 77-79.

2l See C. J. Classen, Zu Heinrich Bebei, Leben (see n. 15).38 n.125 (PS.-Diti): 40 n. 128 (Pontius) ind n. 126 (P. Lescher): 37 n. 122 (1. Mennel) ind below n. 53.

23 See e. g. Melancbthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n.lS).140-41 (no_ 4). 24 See Melanchlhons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15), I 38-39 (no. 3: preface to the

Dialogus mythologicus). 2S See D. 15 and Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15).138-39 (no. 3); for

the edition see also K. Steiff(n. 18),110-111. 26 See Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see D. 15), [ 45-51, quotation 49 (no. 7);

for the edition see also K. Steiff (n. 18), 131-133. For Erasmus on Terence see Erasmi Roterodami De ratiane studii ac legendi, interpretandique libellus aureus ... , Straßburg '1514, fol. !Iv.

27 See Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15). I 49. Like many of his contemporaries Melanchthotl often uses prefaces to proDounce general principles. For a

Page 114: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

106 V. Me1anchtholl:S Rhetaricallnterpreration

These are the principles which Pier Paolo Vergerio and other humanists advocated in educational treatises in accordance with the ideals of Cicero and Quintilian and without any trace of Christian influence;28 and this attitude manifests itself also in the other writings of Melanchthon of this period, in particular in his Greek grammar and his lecture on the liberal arts. In the grammar he complains ofthe poor state of many texts, implying the need for carefully prepared and carefully printed editions, and in the epiJogue he speaks in particular of plans "to renew Aristotelian studies" (ad instauranda ArislOtelica), indicating that the philosopher's writings have to be freed from the obscuring German commentaries.29 Moreover, he inserts a few verses from Hesiod and Homer with some elementary notes on all points of grammar (and some mythological malters), thus underlining that in his view an exact understanding of every single word of a text is imperative for the interpretation ofworks of the ancient authors.30

Hst ofhis prae[oliones see Opera (see n. 11), V 219-224; see also the list cf prefaces and dedicatory remarks by Martin Luther: D. Manin Luthers Werke 1-68. Weimar 1883-1999.61. 1983.90-92 (nos. 855-890) and 93-97 (nos. 907-955); funher E. F. Rice Jr. (ed.), Tbe Prefatory Epistles or Jacques LefCvre d'Etaples and Related Texts. New York 1972; C. Longeon (ed.), Etienne Dolet. Prefaces fran~aises. Gen~ve 1979; B. Botfield (cd.), Praefationes et episto'ae editionibus principibus auctorum veterum praepositae, Cambridge 1863.

28 On P. P. Vergerio (1370-1444) see C. Biscboff. Studien zu P. P. Vergerio dem Älteren, Berlin 1909. also O. Herding ct a1. (edd.), Jacobi Wimpfclingii Opera Selecta I-IlI. MUnchen 1965-1990, I: Adolescentia. 85-95 and D. Robey. Humanism and Edueation in the Early Quattrocento: The de ingerzllis moribus ofP. P. Vergerio, Gen~ve 1980,27-58; on hirn and others see further G. Müller. Bildung und Erziehung im Humanismus der italienischen Renaissance. Grundlagen, Motive, Quellen. Wiesbaden 1969 and id., Mensch und Bildung im italienischen Renaissance-Humanismus. Vittorino da Feltre und die humanistischen Erziehungsdenker. Baden-Baden 1984; A. Grafwn and L. Jardine (edd.). From Humanism to the Humanities. Edueation in the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe, London 1986; see also C. J. Classen, Humanislica Lovaniensia 43. ] 994, 82-84; 92-94.

29 Jnstitutiones graecae Grammaticae. Hagenau 1518, see also Operum Philippi Melancthonis Tomi Quinque, Basel 1541, V 119-171 (the comp1aint: 136) and Opera (see n. 11), XX 15-180 (the eomplaint: 68) and Mclanchthons Briefwechsel Texte (see n. 15). I 624 (no. 16): preface and 64 (no. 17): epilog.e with ,he remark o.Aristo']e which is misunderstood by J. R. Schneider (see n. 11). 56 and H. Scheible, Melanchthon und die Reformation (see n.l1), 158. He criticizes the commentaries on Aristotle also in his Oe Rhetorica libri tres (see n. 42),31-32.

30 23 selected verses from the beginning ofthe theogony wich Latin translation and explanatory nole" Operum Philippi Melancthonis Tomi (see n.29), V 137-141 and Opera (see n. 11). XX 72-82 (nothing rhetorical. but note the remark on the artes on

Page 115: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

lntroduction 107

In short, in tTUe humanistie manner he leaves no doubt that the aetual texts of the ancients should be studied and not eommentaries, that reliable editions should be made available and that texts should be chosen earefully, read earefully and analysed earefully so that students might benefit from thern for !heir way of life and their way of writing and speaking, i. e. their style.

In his leeture "Oe artibus liberalibus" (1517) Melanehthon develops these ideas al some length and supports them with detailed arguments. But while he has a good deal to say about the other disciplines, on rhetorie he is disappointingly brief: Quid vero iIla? Pars dia/ectieae, quosdam argu­mentorum locos popu/ariter instruens ("What is this now? It is apart of dialeetie, showing in an ordinary manner some plaees of arguments, i. e. where arguments may be found").31

Obviously. the art of dialeetie appears to hirn to be more valuable. But as he is irritated by those eontemporaries who teaeh philosophy, though they live far away from the realities oflife "leisurely in leeture-rooms or in privacy" (otiosi in schoUs et in umbra) and know neither "the world of po­Iities" (res publica, forum) nor "the fights in the Chureh" (ecclesiasticae pug1!ae), he tries to find his own way. Already in Heidelberg he was introdueed by his mentor Pallas Spangel and also by Reuchlin to the teach­ing of Rudolf Agrieola. 32 Now the study of Agricola's "Dialectica"

verse 60: twn demum recte artes troctantur cum aUae aliis ;unguntur: ··the arts are then finally being handled in the right manner wben they are connected with one another"), a passage from the I1i.d (11212-220): V 16&-170 .nd XX 144-147 (see .1so XVIII 124-126) and some verses from the bymn to Hennes (29-55): V 170-171 .nd XX 147 and XVIII 155-156; there are also some mythological and other expJanations and some parallels including two from psalms: Operum (see n.29), V 141 and Opera (see n. 11), XX 80 and 81. cf. A. Rahlfs (cd.), Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes 1-11, Stultgart '1935, II 39 and 38: psalm 37, 9 .nd 37, 1. On the grammar see now eh. Pörste1, in: J. Leonhardt (cd.), Melanchthon und das Lehrbuch des 16. Jahrhunderts, Rostock 1997,35-56.

3\ De artibus Uberalibus oratio, Hagenau 1518, fol. B Ir; on the edition see K. Steiff (seen. 18), 218-219; 242 and Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprach bereich erschienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts 1-20. Stuttgart 1983-1993. 13, 1988, 300: M 2587. Melanchthon's phrase hoc egi tantum ur quam honesta~ r~s ~ss~nt art~SJ quipp~ sacrae it1l~llige~ljs (fol. B IIIr: "I have only steiven that you should understand how worthy of respect the artes are, as they are uoder divine prolection" - i. e. of the Muses. as the context shows) is misunderstood by H. A. Stempel, Melanchthons pädagogisches Wirken, Bielefeld 1979.24 who concludes thatMelanchthon subordinates the artes to theo10gy.

32 Cf. Opera (see D.ll), III 673; on P. Spangel (1445-1512) see K. Hartfe1der. in:

Page 116: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

108 V. Melanc1lthon. S RlretoricallnterpreIGI;O'l

(posthumously published) encourages him to read the speeches of Cicero and Demosthenes more carefully and rnethodically and 10 pay elose attention to their rhetorical technique; and through thern he learns to examine tbe arguments and to distinguish their various types.33 Since he has to teach rhetoric and dialectic, he writes manuals on these subjects which he publishes in the following years in Wittenberg after be is offered achair of Greek in the faculty of arts at the university there. Three days after his arrival, on August 28th, 1518 he delivers his inaugurallecture.34

To understand and appreciate this fully one has to bear in mind not only the nurnerous educational treatises published during the fifteenth and six­teenth centuries (see n. 28), but the great weight hurnanists like Guarino of Verona or his son Battista Guarino, Peter Luder, Rudolf Agricola or Konrad Celtis attribute to such occasions and the programmes procJairned there and then.35

Allgemeine deutsche Biographie 35, 1893,32-33 and id., Melanchthon (see n.II). 18-24 et saepius; Melanchthon frequently refers to Agricola's writings. especia11y to the De inventione dialectica (see n.33) and De formando studio. a letter to J. Barbirianus. printed first probably Deventer 1508 (see G. C. Huisman, Rudolph Agricola. A Bibliography ofPrinted Works and Translations, Nieuwkoop 1985, 10 no. 3), bere used: D. Basilii Magni de instituenda studiorum ratioDe ." oratie paraenetica ... Praeterea Rudolphus Agricola de formando studio .... Basel 1537. 209-229 and Rodolphi Agricolae Phrisü Lucubrationes aliquot leetu dignissimae, Köln 1539. fol. Bb 3v-Cc 4r; he writes an introductory letter for these Lucubrationes (fol. + 3r4r) and makes a speech about his life in the same year, see Philippi Melanthonis curn Praefationum in quosdam illustres Autores: tum orationum de clarissimontm virorum vitis. Tomus secundus, Straßburg 1546. 451-465. see further F. J. Worstbrack. Agricola. in: Verfasserlexikon 1, 1978,84-93 and W. Kühbnann (Hg.), Rudolf Agricola 1444-1485. Protagonist des nordeuropäiscben Humanimus zum 550. Geburtstag, Bern 1994.

3J Se. Opera (see n.11), IV 716; cf. Dialeclica, Leuve. 1515 and De inventione dialectica libri amnes ... and Lucubrationes (see n. 32), Kalo 1539 and L. Mundt (ed.), Rudolf Agricola. De inventione dialectica libri tees. Tübingen 1992 (with literature: 721-741); P. Mack, Renaissance Argumeot. Valla and Agricola in the traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic. Leiden. 1993. 320-333.

34 Senno habitus apud luventutem Academiae Wittemberg. de corrigendis adu­lescentiae studiis. Wittenberg 1518. see also Opera (see n.ll). XI 15-25; on the first edition see Verzeichnis (see •. 31) 13, 1988,505 M 4233. other editions: 505-506 M 4234-4237: on this lecture see J. R. Scbneider (see n. 11), 51-63. on Melanchthon's educational programme also H. Scheible, Melanchthon und die Refonnation (see n.l1), 99-114 (first 1986).

35 See Guarino di Verona. Onttio ... quam recitavit in principio studü Ferrnriae coram marchione LeoneJlo ... (about 1442); Oratio Guarini Battistae de septem artibus liberaIibus in incobando felici Ferrariae gyrnnasio habita anno Christi MCCCCLUI; Luder: Oracio ... babita coram tola universitate almi studii Heydelbergensis (1456);

Page 117: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Inlroduc,;on 109

Melanehthon appears to be completely ehanged: Not that he dispenses with attacks on those who, in his view,lay claim to tilles and benefits in the institutions of learning unjustly by means of "power and deeeit" (vis et fraus) and against whom he feels obliged to defend "sound erudition" (bonae litterae) and ''!he reborn Muses" (renaseenIes Musae). Already in the first sentences of bis leeture he emphasizes the need to plead for the maintenance of the teaebing of Greek and Hebrew; and in bis historical survey be paints a vivid picture of the consequences which resulted from the neglect of Greek not only for philosophical studies, but also for theology, for''!he eeremonies and the practices ofthe Church" (Christiani ecclesiae ritus ac nwres) DO less than for ''!he study of antiquity" (studia litterarum), desastrous consequenees for both, according to Melanehthon, as both suffered equally so that Deither eould assist the other.36

It is not possible for me in tbis context to deal with all aspects of this speech; suftiee it to uDderline two points: On the one hand Melanehthon eongratulates the students, as they enjoy the privilege provided for thern by their prinee, the Elector Frederie the Wise of Saxony, "to deri ve the sourees of the arts, of education directly from the authors" (fontes ipsos arlium ex optimis auctoribus hauritis).37 One cannot help being touched by the humanist' s obvious satisfaetion and joy who feels free of the fetters, as it were, of traditional handbooks and commentaries and is aware of the opportunities offered by the immediate aeeess to the sourees, the auetores. On the other hand the professor, newly appointed to achair of Greek in the faculty of arts, turns to the sacra, the special demands or the study of the Holy Scripture, beginning somewbat unexpectedly with a quotation from the Song or Songs, not in Hebrew, as elsewhere, not in Greek, but, easy for aU to understand, in Latin. He supports bis claim that the study of the Holy Scripture requires special talent, regular praetice and intensive study with the words: "For the smell of the perfumes of the Lord is beyond the spices of human learning" (Est enim odor unguentorum domini super hu­manarum disciplinarum aromata), and he adds: "Led by the (Holy) Spirit and with the support ofthe service to human disciplines one may reach the

Agricola: In laudem philosophiae et rcliquarum artium (1476); Celtis: Oratio in gymnasio in Ingelstadio publice recitata (1492).

36 The firstqUotatiODS: Opera (see ß. 11), XI 15. tbe survey 16-18, quotation: ]8; he repeats this in his Ratio discendi. see Opera XX 701-704. esp. 703 (J 522).

37 See Opera (see D. 11). XI 22; this is oddly phrased. as Murrre exfontibus is usual or exhaurirefontes; LUCT. I 927-928 = N 2-3 fontes depends on accedere and on adire in HOf. sat. II 94-95; but gee Ten:. resurr. 63, 10_

Page 118: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

110 V. Melarrchrhon:r Rheloricaf Interpretation

saaa, i. e. one may come 10 an understanding of the Holy Scripture" (Duce Spiritu, comite artium nostrarum cultu, ad sacra venire licet).38

This is not the professor of Greek speaking in the hope to attract a few more students by stressing "the need to study foreign languages" (linguae extemae diseendae sum); this is the experienced teacher who knows how much pleasure, but also how much valuable insights asolid knowledge of languages may provide, and again using a phrase from the Bible he adds: "When we understand the letter, we shall obtain the prooffor the realities" (eum litteram percepimus, sequemur elenclzwn rerum).39 Melanchthon's efforts to put the achievemenls of the humanists to the best possible use by the interpreters ofthe Bible become even more obvious, as he continues by rejecting the "feeble glosses" (or glossaries: frigidae glossulae) , the "concordances" (eoncordanriae, playfully he adds diseordantiae) and "other obstacles for the nlind" (aliae ingenii remorae) and pronounces: "When we have concentrated our zeal on the sourees, we shall begin to understand Christ, his charge will become clear to us and we shall be imbued by that blessed nectar of God's wisdom" (eum animos adfontes comulerimus. Christum sapere incipiemus. mandatunI eius lucidum nobis fiet, et /leetare illo beato divinae sapientiae pelj'undemur).40

These are the ideas and phrases which Melanchthon chooses to introduce hirnself as professor of Greek at Wittenberg, at the same time announcing lectures on Horner and on the letter to TituS.41 And in the lighl

" See Open! (see n. 11), XI 22 and R Weber (ed.), Biblia Sacr. iuxta vulgalam versionem I-lI. StuUgart 1975, n 999: Cant. 4. 10; on the special importance ofthe Song of Songs during the MiddJe Ages see H. Riedinger. das Hohe Lied, in: Lexikon des Mittell.llers 5,1991,79-81 and H. U. Schmid ibid. 81.

39 See Opera (see n. J 1), Xl 23; cf. Hehr. 11, 1 wbere the author defines faith: lO"tLV !SE nLO'tL!; eÄJtLtofLEVOOV unoettaoL;, rceaYflo:'CWv EAeYXOS oil ßAEttOfLivoov: "Faith is the foundation of what is being hoped for and a finn proof of what is not seen"'. Me­lanchthon quotes and interprets this verse later at length in his works on diaJectic: Dia­lectices libri quattuor (see D. 85), fol. C 8v-D 2r, first translating UEYXO; with certum argumellium ("solid argument") and then parapbrasiDg ElEYXOS with certissima noticia. re ila deprehensa.. ul nihil dubitemus ("finn knowledge, after U1e object has been so un­dcrstood that we are not in any doubt about it") and L 5r-6r translating lÄEyxoS withfir­ma probatio ("indisputable proof'), see also Erotemata dialectices (see D.70). fol. Z IVv-Vr.

40 See Opera (see n. 11). Xl 23; on the concordances see n.134. 41 See Opera (see n. 11), XI 25. For the use in bis lectures Melanchthon arranges for

ehe text of the letter to Titus to be printed in 1518 by Grunenberg in Wiuenberg (cf. Supplementa Melanchthooiana VI: O. Clernen red.], Melanchthons Briefwechset I (1510-1528), Leipzig 1926,46-47, no. 41), .nd again in 1519 by Maler in Erfurt the

Page 119: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon:r Early Ha,ulboolu 111

of Ibis programme one has to try to understand Melanehthon 's first aetivities at Wittenberg, his Ieetures and his pub\ieations, first of all his "Oe Rhetorica \ibri tres" wbieh will help to answer the questions to what extent in expounding the text ofthe Bible he makes use of the eategories of ancient rhetorie, and to what extent in eomposing a manual on rhetorie he pays attention to biblical texts.

Melanchlhon s Early Handhooks

Tbe "Oe Rhetoriea \ibri tres", handed in to the pub\isher in January 1519 and published in Wittenberg in Mareh 1519, may have their roots in Melanehthon's teaehing at Tübingen, as he himself indicates later.'2 But the spirit that prevails in this work is not that ofthe leeture delivered at Tü­bingen in 1517, but ofthe inaugural given at Wittenberg in 1518. Tbere is 00 need to dwell at length here 00 his polemieal remarks. though he attacks Dot only the philosophers (again) - he mentioDs the numerous Sententiarii (Sentenliariorum sex millia) and later by Dame Johannes Eek - but also the Lyrani, i. e. exegetes 1ike Nicholas of Lyra and more generally all theo­logians of his time - he eonsiders even a eomparisoD with the pharisees. Nor is there any Deed to discuss in detai! the new elements he introduees sueh as the genus didaclicwn whieh he reclaims, in faet, from dia!eetie, after Agrieo1a took it away from rhetorie, and in eonneetion with this the manner in whieh he distinguishes rhetorie from dialectie43 or his

Greek te;tt with a Latin translation, see Verzeichnis (see n. 31) 2, 1984.724 B 5174 and B5175.

41 See Opera (see n. 11), IV 716. Tbe dedication of the work is dated in January, see Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n.15), I 99-103 (no. 40); for the edition see Verzeichnis (,ec n. 31).13, 1988,497 M 4180, othereditions: 497-498 M 4179 (Basel, May 1519. here used; preface: fol. a Iv-4v) -4185; see funher J. R. Schaeider (see n. 11). 65-95; J. Knape, Philipp Melonchthon, >Rhetorik<. Tübingen 1993 (di,oppointing) and O. Berwald, Philipp Melanchthons Sicht der Rhetorik, Wiesbaden 1994 (with my review: Gnomon 70,1998,81). For bis own laterremark see Opera (see n. 11), IV 7J6.

43 Polemies against tbe philosophers 4, agaiast Eck 46 and 108 (on hilD. see E. !serloh, Eck, Johannes, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 9, 1982,249-252), againS! the Sententiarii and Lyrani 4 (on the Sententiarii see P. Glorieux, Sentences, in: Dictionnaire de Thtologie Catholique 14, 1941, 1860-1884, esp. 1860-1868 and M. Asztalos, The Faculty of Theology, in: H. de Ridder-5ymcons, A History of the University in Europe I. Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 1992,409-441, esp. 417-420; on Nicholas of Lyra see n. 9); comparison with the pharisees 54; on the

Page 120: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

112 V. Melancl"hon~ Rheroricallnterpretatioll

oeeasional referenees to aneient Christian authors, GregOIY of Nazianzus, Origen, John Chrysostom, Boethius, orto more reeent writers such as Jo­hannes Tauler, George ofTrebizond, Rudolf Agrieola, Politian, Reuehlin, Luther and especially Erasmus whose works he refers to quite frequently44 and ofwhom he says (alluding to Cieeros famous remark about Soerates) that "he was the first in the judgment of the leamed who ealled theology back to the sourees" (qui primus etiam doctorum iudicio Tlleologiam ad fantes revocavit).

Melanehthon begins with definitions and descriptions ofvarious basie eoneeplS, before he gives a rather long aeeount of the demonstrative "kind" (genus: pp. 12-74) with numereus teehnical terms as well as quotations and examples from ancient, i. e. pagan sourees. At length he deals with the "narrative kind" (pp. 29-41: enarratorium genus) ofwhieh he distinguishes !wo types, paraphrasis and eomrnentary. He illustrates the former not ooly by referring to Erasmus' "In PauIi epistolam paraphrasis" and reeommending it for the training of the young;45 he adds that when he himself leetured on Paul's letter to Titus he eneouraged his students to practise this kind of exereise, as this epistle is particularly suitable for it with its many loei commWles. He continues by advising bis readers now to do the same, to reproduee PauJ's brief phrases more elaborately in their own words with their own ideas, proofs, arguments and examples; and he starts with one or !wo actual examples bimself, illustrating e. g. the principle that "to be a ruleris nothing else butte serve public welfare" (prineipem esse Ilihil esl a/iud quam publicis servire commodis). As elsewhere, he also emphasizes the benefits the stodents could derive frem such paraphrases for deveJoping their own power of judgment (pp. 30-31):

genus dido.cticliln 12-47; 64-65; 91-93 (see also n.67: 76; 131 and above chapter I D. 30); on the new division between rhetoric and dialectic see 5-8 (prefacc): 13-14: 41-42 el s.epius and now J. R. Schneider, in: T. J. Wengert andM. P. Graham (edd.), Philip Melanchthon (see n. 11), 20-47. Polcmical remarks against contemporary philosophers are quite frequent., see e. g. Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15). I 203-205 (no. 89).

44 For Gregory see 49; Origen 34; John Chrysostom 34; 106; Augustin 106; Boetbius 19; TauIer 34; George of Trebizond 49; 78: Agricola 45; 70; PoLitian 41; Reuchlin 4; Luther 4; Erasmus 4; 7; 30; 35; 40-41; 62-63; 67; 68; 70; 114; 129 et saepius; forthejudgment on Erasmus see 4, cf. eie. Tusc. V 10.

45 3D, see In Epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos Paraphrasis. per Erasmum Roterodamum, Basel 1518.

Page 121: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon:r Early Handbooks 113

In the following seetion De commemandi ratione ("On the method of commenting upon a text"), he deals with the other form of enarratio, com­mentary. Having distinguished various forms of oratio ("speech"),4<5 he discusses first the ad docendum compositio ("writing for teaching purpo­ses"), next the historical enarrano, identifying as the two essential ele­ments "particulars" (circumstantille) and "commonplaces" (loci commu­nes: p. 33); and to these he adds ''figures of intensification and of varia­tion" (augendi variandique figurae) as espeeially important in sacred writings. To show how narratives in sacris may be illustrated by the use of circumstantiae to increase the degree of their credibility he points to the letter to the Hebrews, however, without giving an exacl reference. Indeed, throughout this manual Melanchthon frequently eites passages from the Bible to exemplify particular precepts or forms of argument or figures of speech. How a story may be toId "with the guidance of the Holy Spirit" (spiritu magistro) so that its allegorical meaning becomes immediately re­cognizable, he shows with the help of Abraham's sacrifice. A Iittle later he emphasizes that in allegories one should pay special attention to the indi­viduals involved and to the loei communes; and he interprets the story of Cain (translating the Hebrew nod with fiuctuans) and demonstrates that the comparison between Cain and a sinner in general offers the opportuni­ty to describe the desastrous power of sin with all its consequences.47 He adds that in a similar way the Nazarites could be used for such an allegori­cal interpretation; for a elose examination of their nature reveals that they are comparable to the priests of the New Testament, and as Christ was foreshowed by the story of Abraham and Isaac, so the priests of tbe gospel are by the Nazarites.

He also deals with narratives in "advisory speeches" (orationes suaso­riae) for wbich he cODsiders three stages essential (p. 35): to determine the status ("issue"), to find the arguments it requires and the emotions it al­lows; and here he chooses for illustration Pau!'s legem non iustificare, gratiam iusnficare (Rom. 3, 20; 24: ''!he law does notjustify, but grace") together with litteram occidere, spiritum vivificare (2 Cor. 3, 6: "the letter, i. e. the written law, kills, the Spirit gives lüe") and a further argument,

46 Cf. 31~1; 31: onl1lis oratio est, aut ad docendum composita, out hisrorica. alt!

suasoria. out ollegorica ("All writings are eitbcr didactic or historical or advisory or allegorieal").

47 Abraham: 33-34: cain 39-40; Ibe Nazarites 40, cf. R. Weber (ed.), Biblia Saera (see n. 38), J 29-30: Genesis 22. 1-19: I 8-9: Genesis 4. 1-16; I 186-187: Numeri 6, 1-21.

Page 122: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

114 V. Melanchrhon s Rhetorical Interpretation

neminem eSSe qui non peccato sit obnoxius ("there is no one who is not liable to sin"), a phrase too general to be eonneeted with any partieular passage.48 Melanehthon eites Pau!'s thesis lex non iustificat (p. 46) agaln in discussing various forms of argument (p. 46); and where he considers the nature of status he stresses the importanee of determining it both for the interpretation of Cicero's speeches and of the Holy Scripture (sacra: p. 76). Also in the remarks on the genus suasorium he underlines the need to determine the status when interpreting psalms or, as he adds, the summa argumenti ("the gist of the argument": p. 35). Dealing with praise and eensure Melanehthon points out (p. 60) that Elias' prayer for rain (III : I Kings 18,41-46) or Moses' prayer for the fighting army may be cited as examples that prayers may be sueeessful with God or Dathan and Abiram could be named as rebellious people (Num. 16, 1-35).

Finally, in the seetion on the deliberative genre Melanehthon considers arguments one may use to dissuade people from starting a war against the Turcs (pp. 84-86).49 Such examples are, incidentally, very common at the time, both with arguments against such a war or in favour of it as weil as adhortations. The first, he says, may be ab honesto ("the honourable"), that a Christian should imitate Christ, a great lover of peace; or that it would not be permitted to a Christian to take up arms in order to inerease his power, furtber that the people of Christ are safe not because they are protected by their arms, but by Christ; and to support these arguments one should adduce exempla cum nostra, tum ludaica (p. 85); but he refers ex­plicitly only to tbe book ofKings and to the prophet Jeremiah.so Similarly for the epilogue of such an exhortation Melanchthon reeommends a eall [or peaee and repentanee logether with Evangelica and Iudaica exempla, examples from the New and the Old Testament (p. 86).

Jnterestingly, the seeond book (pp. 108-115) which is devoted to "arrangement" (dispositio) is very brief, and there seems to be hardly any

48 One may compare Rom. 3.9 and John 8. 34. 49 See 84-86. also 79-82; 113; 128-129. Such examples are discussed also •. g. by J.

WimpfeJing in his Rhetorica __ . pueris utilissima, appended to his Elegantiae majores, prefoce dated 1499. edition used: Hagenau 00 date, probably 1517, fol. E Ilv; for such writings from the years 1452-1474 see J. Hankins, Renaissance Crusaders: Humanist Crusade Literarure in lheAge ofMehmed 11, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49, 1995, 111-207 who edits same afthem: 148-207. Dunng the following decades numerous other such exhortations to fight against the Tures appeared which need not be listed here.

so Cf. R. Weber (ed.), Biblia SatTa (see n. 38),01223 and 1204: J.,..miah 38 (45). 17 and 27 (34), 12, also 111222 and 1195: Jeremiah 38 (45),2 and 21,9.

Page 123: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchlhon s Early Handbooks 115

reference to the Holy Scripture. Obviously, Melanchthon cannot easily find works in the Bible 10 illustrate precepts conceming the arrangement of a whole piece or other relevant phenomena. However, in the third book where he is concerned with style examples from the Bible, especially from Pau!'s epistles, are very frequent again. He regards the letter to the Romans as representing the genus grave ("the grand style") and thatto the Galatians as the genus medium ("the middle style": p. 116-117) and the two as evidence that the same subject-matter may be dealt with by the same author in two different ways. He also points to the wealth of figures of speech and of thought and to the allegories in the letter to the Romans, e. g. that of the old and the new Adam or that of letter and spirit, and to the examples from bistory; and he ends with comparing Paul with Pericles, using the phrase "Qu"ttCTtO, a:v8Qwnwv AiYELV ("most powerful of men in speech"), though it oceurs, in fact, neither in any Greek comedy nor in Thueydides nor is it used elsewhere for either Perieles or anyone else.

It seems more important to me that Melanehthon is somewhat reluetant to use this phrase for Paul: He adds "if it is permissible and fitting to praise him with human words" (si Jas esr eum verbis humanis praedicare). Clearly, respeet for the apostle makes hirn hesitate to eharacterize hirn with verba humana, though immediately afterwards he eites severaJ examples from Paul's letters (or letters ascribed to hirn) to illustrate partieular figures, e. g. for minutio ("extenuation": p. 119) Ga/. 1,6 and 3, 1: ut Paulus transferri dicit Galaras, ab eo qui voearit ete. deinde alio ait loeo: Quis vos Jascinavit non oboedire venmti, in priore verbo minor esl emphasis, quam in posteriore, ceterum res est eadem ("as Paul says that the Galatians are turning away from him who has called them etc.; then he says elsewhere: who has bewitched you not to obey the truth; in the first expression there is less emphasis than in the second, but otherwise the matter is the same"). Under the heading of "figures of thought" (figurae senrentiarum) he cites quid igitur dicemus? Manebimus in peccato? following "bi abundavit delictum, superabundavir gratia ("What, then, shall we sa y? Shall we persist in sin1" following "But where sin abounded, graee was present in even greater abundanee": Rom. 6, I and 5, 20), approving of the manner in whieh Paul interrupts hirnself by tbis "question" (interrogatio) and at the same time pointing out that it helps to understand the "strueture" (dispositio) of the whole and makes a praesumprio possible ("anticipation of a possible objeetion": p. 124-125). For a subiectio ("suggestion - by asking a question and indicating how to answer it") he dies the same passage (Rom. 6, 1-2: p. 125), for a dubitatio

Page 124: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

116 V. Melanchthon S Rhetoricallnterpreration

("expression of uncertainty, hesitation") ao earlier ooe from the same letter (4, 10: p. 125), for a praesumptio he probably quotes from memory a phrase which seems to be based on Rom. 9, 6; but instead of qui ex Israel sunt ("those who are from Israel") he says qui sum ex circuncisione ("those who are circumcised") as in Rom. 4, 12 and Co/. 4, 11 (p. 125-126).

As Melanchthon hesitates to characterize Paul with verba humana, similarly he emphasizes the special position and nature of the Holy Scripture which for him clearly is not a text as any other. Thus he disapproves of a comparison of the seven pillars of the temple of wisdom (prov. 9, I) with the seven liberal arts on the grounds that itis "not seemly" (indignum) to bring together in an allegory sacred matters and "the elementary disciplines" (p. 38-39: artes pueriles, a phrase coined by Seneca: epist. 88,21 and 23). In a similar vein he criticizes a little earlier the praetiee of more recent exegetes who unlike earlier ones in allegorieal interpretations tend to move too far away from the original meanings (p. 34), adding a referenee to the letter to the Hebrews: "Indeed, the word of God is effeetive and Iives and bums" (4, 12: Vere est efficax vivitque el ardet verbum domini, cf. also Jeremiah 23, 29 and Ecclesiaslicus 48, 151).

Obviously, for Melanehthon the Holy Seripture is not only a text of a special kind, it also has an important funetion to perform in the edueation and formation of the minds ofthe young.

"Thus," he says, "together with the process of beeoming acquainted with the Holy Seripture the love of what is worthy of respeet and the faith grow, the aversion to crime and wordly matters, and these heavenly plants of God, thaI is the minds filled with the Holy Scripture, the fruits of the Holy Spirit, are- eouldone doubt this?-nourishedandofthis Christ gives areminder several times and Paol often and later the Nieene Couneil took eare that 00 one of the Christians should be left without the saered books whieh they call Bible" (p. 53: [la simul cum cognitione sacrorum creseit amor honesti jidesque, odium seelerum, saeculique, er coelesles illae dei plantae, hoc est, sacris imbutae mentes, fructibus spiritus, quid enim dubites? rigantur, id aliquotiens CHRISTUS, saepe Paulus commonuit, el Nicena, postlUlC Synodus decretis cavit, ne quis e numero Christianorum sacris /ibris, quae Biblia vocan!, careret). As Melanehthon eonneets a phrase from Ovid (ars II 559: creseit amor) here with another one from the

" Cf. R. Weber (ed.), BibliaSacra(seen. 38),n 1846: HebrA, 12; II 1198: Jeremiah 23,29.

Page 125: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon :r Early Handbooks 117

letter to the Galatians (5, 22: Jntctus spiritus), few sentences could iIlustrale more impressively his concern. II is nol bis intention merely 10

formulate the essential precepts of rhetoric, but to oulline the basic principles of a Christian education, an education part of which is the training andimproving ofthe children 's Iinguistic abilities; in other words, to introduce them to the wealth of expressions inherenl in language and to the nwnerous means and ways of pUlting Ibem to the besl possible use, as shown e. g. by ancienl Greek or Roman aUlhors, and also to lead thern with Ibe help of exarnples and models to a decenl and proper, that is for bim a Christian way of life (see e. g. pp. 52-54).

For that reason Melanchlhon. after dealing with the demonstrative kind of speech (wbich he divides inlo the dialectic or didactic and the laudatory: pp. 12-74), the judicial (pp.74-93) and the deliberative (pp. 93-103), adds a section de sacris semrO/liblts (pp. 103-107: "on sermons"), beginning with polemies against the practiee of the preachers of his time. Ne"t he points out that sermons are either "demonstrative" in the sense of didactie or "advisory" (demonstrativae or suasoriae) and referring to Arislotle and John Chrysostom, Plato and Augustin he gives advice on how 10 deal with a "simple" and a "complex topie" (simplex thema and complexum thema). Obviously, from Melanehthon 's point of view it is quite natural to inc!ude this seetion on sermons; but in fact, it is rather surprising. For the earlier handbooks on rhelorie whieh humanists eomposed in addition to grammars and dielionaries, pupils' dialogues and letter-writers' guides were restricted 10 rules and preeepts of rhetoric in general, with no attention being paid to the special needs of the Church; and examples Were laken from pagan authors, oecasionally also from the Fathers oflhe Church or from conterriporary life, i. e. the question whether one should begin a war against the Tures, but nOI from the Bible. Tbis is true of the first, modem' rhelorie, Ihe "Rhetorieorum Iibri quinque" of George ofTrebizond (written about 1433, printed fITstin Veniee nol before 1472);52 this is true also of the other rhetorieal manuals written a Iittle later. Of these it must sufiiee to mention a few from Germany, e. g. the "Margarita poetiea" of Albrecht of Eyb which, developed out of a handbook of rhetoric (written 1459 in ltaly, prinled first in 1472 in

>2 See Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 9, 1991,384 no. 10657, other editions: 384-390 nos. 10658-10665: on the author see J. Monfasani, George ofTrebizond. A Biography and a Study ofhisRhetoric and Logic. Leiden 1976, alsoJ. Monfas.ni (ed.). Collectanea trapezuntiana. Texts. Documents and Bibliographies of George of Tre­bizond. Binghamton 1984.

Page 126: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

118 V. Melanchthon:r Rhetoricallntelpretation

Nürnberg), frequently quotes the ,Christian Cicero' Lactantius apart [rom Cicero hirnself, but neither other Fathers ofthe Church nOT the Bible, even though some of the texts printed as models at the end deal with Christi an topics.S3 Simi!arly the manuals by Pontius and Leseher, Celtis, Menne! (see n. 22) and lacob Locher do not make use of biblical texts, though Locher in his "Theologiea emphasis sive Dialogus super eminenti. quatuor doctorum ecclesiae Gregorii Hieronimi Augustini Ambrosii" (Basel 1496) advocates the study ofthe Fathers.S4 NOT are examples from the Bible or references 10 preaching found in Agricola 's "De inventione dialectica" (see n. 32 and 33) or in the books on rbetoric (39 and 40) in Giorgio Valla's encyc10pedic "De expetendis el fugiendis rebus opus", 10 mention another example from Italy.ss

As an exception one bas to mention Jacob Wlßlpfeling, also one of Melanchthon 's teachers at Heidelberg. In his "Elegantiarum Medulla" (Speyer 1493) and laterin his "Elegantiae maiores" (about 1499) be addu­ces but a few examples from Christian life, i. e. from every day life, or from tbe Bible for the correct use of particular words; and in !bis be in­variably follows Lorenzo Valla.S6 But concerned about the education of

53 See A. v. Eyb, PraecepLa anis rhetorieae, Basel about 1488 aod Toulouse abaut 1495 and Margarita poetica. Nümberg 1472, often reprinted. also in part (see Gesamt~ k.talog der Wiegendrucke 8, 1978. 177-186 nos. 9529-9541); on the .uthor see G. Klecha. Albrecht von Eyb. in: Verf.sserl~ikon 1. 1978, 180-186.

S4 See Rhetorica Poncii. Copia latinitatis et Epistolae Bruti et Cratis. De arte DOlari.tuS, Straßburg 1486; P. Leseher. Rhetoric •• Ingolstadt 1487, reprinted several timeSt on the author see F. J. Worstbrock, Leseher, in: Verfasserlexikon 5,1985,733-734; K. Celtist Epitoma in utrarnque Ciceronis rhetoricam eum arte memorativa et modo epistolandi utilissimo, Ingolstadt 1492. on the author see D. Wuttke, Conradus Celtis, in: Literatur Lexikon 2, 1989,395-400; J. Mennel, Rhetorica Minor, Freiburg 1494, on the author see K. H. Bunneister and G. F. Schmidt. Mennel, in: Verfasserlexikon 6, 1987. 389-395; J. Locher, Epithorn. rhetorices graphieum. Freiburg ·1496 .nd Compendium rhetorices ex Tul1iano thesauro diductum, Straßburg 1518, on the author see G. Heidloff. Untersuchungen zu Leben und Werk des Humanisten Jakob Locher Philomusus (1471-1528), Diss. phi!. Freiburg 1971. Münster 1972 (on the Theologia 31-33 and 223-252); P. Ukena. Locher. in: Neue deutsche Biographie 14. 1985.743-744 and W. Küh1mann, Locher, in: Literatur Lexikon 7.1990,317-318.

55 The work was printcd in Venice in 1501; on G. Valla see J. F. D'Amico and T. B. Deutscher, Giorgio V.lla. in; Contemporaries of Erasmus 3. 1987. 371; one should nOlice that the sections on letters (40, 39: De g~ne7e epistolico: n fol. KK ßv-IIIr) and on imitation (40,40: De imitalione: TI foL KK JIIr) are very brief.

S6 Cf. Laurentii Valensis ... Opus Elegantiarum Linguae Latinae, Venice 1483; see eh. Schmidt. Histoire litteraire de l'Alsace I-ll. Paris 1879,1147; on VaUa see n.101,

Page 127: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melallchthons Earl}' Handbooks 119

the young Iike many other humanists whom I cannot all mention here he demands not only a new direction for the education, bul- unlike otbers -as its foundation the Fathers of tbe Church in addition to the poets, philo­sophers or orators from (pagan) antiquity in his "Isidoneus Germanicus" (Speyer 1497) or even instead oftbe pagan authors in the epilogue to bis edition of Hrabanus Maurus' "Oe laudibus sanctae cmcis" (Pforzheim 1501).57 Furthermore, in bis "Rhetoriea ... pueris utilissima" appended to bis "Elegantiae maiores", he refers for tbe praise of individuals to the Fathers ofthe Cburch, to the laus pa/rum in Ecclesiasticus (44-50) and to the eleventh chapter of the letter to the Hebrews which he ascribes, of course, to PauL 58

Thus in the generation before Melanchthon One meets with a few first signs of the Christian Fathers and even of texts from the Bible being re­ferred to in bandbooks not specially designed for tbe training of the c1ergy or for the use of preachers, as the medieval artes praedicandi were, or the collections of sermons or the preaching manuals of the time whicb one must not forget in this context.59 For due 10 the invention of printing sud­denly numerous books of this kind appeared: well-known works from late antiquity such as the fourth book of Augustin 's De doctrina Christiana, a preacbing manual based on traditional rhetoric witb examples from the Bible, printed with the title "Oe arte praedicandi", ortheRegula pas/oraUs of Gregory the Great as weIl as many later handbooks.6o In 1504 Me-

on Wimpfeling's Elegan'iarom Medulla see O. Herding e' al. (edd.), Iaoobi Wimpfe. lingii Opera Selecta I-TI! (see n. 28),nI: Briefwechsel, 211-213 (no. 35: preface). on thc Elegantiores maiores ibid. 330-331 (no. 99). see also n. 49.

" On I. Wimpfeling see J. Knepper, Jakob Wimpfeling (1450-1528). Sein Leben und seine Werke, Freiburg 1902 and D. Mertcns, Wimpfeling, in: Literatur Lexikon 12, 1992,341-342: cUsidoneus (see n. 15), fol. XVIDr·XrXr and O. Herding et al. (edd.), I.cobi Wimpfelingii Opera Selecta I-nI (see n.28), ill: Briefwechsel. I 352-354 and 354-357 (no. 115. and b: pref.ee and epilogue of ,he edition ofHrabanus Maurus).

SB Cf. Elegantiae maiores with the Rhetonca ... utiJissima at tl1e end (see n.49); quotation: fol EHr.

5~ On the ortes praedicandi see H. Caplan, Medieval Artes Praedicandi. A Handlist, Ithaca 1934; id., Medieval Artes Praedicandi. A Supplementary Handlist, Ithaca 1936; 111, M. CharLand, Artes praedicandi. Contribution 8 ]'histoire de]a rhetorique au moyen age, Paris 1936; on Ihe printed editions see S. Gallick's (not always rcliable) list: Medi.ev.l Studies 39, 1977,477-489, also J. J. Murphy, Rhetorie in theMiddleAges. A History ofthe Rhetorical Theory from St. Augustine to the Renaissance, Berkeley 1974, 269-355 and M. G. Briseoe,Artes praedicandi, Tumbout 1992, 11-76 (useful bibliogra. phy: 11-16).

60 De arfe praedicandi: printed three times before 1500 with this title (see Gesamt-

Page 128: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

120 V. MeLanclltholl S Rhetoricallnterpretarion

lanchthon's teacher Georg Simleredited Hrabanus Maurus' "Deinstitutio­ne clericorum !ibri Ires" in the third book of which afler the acquisitio er exercitio virtumm ("developing and praclising virtues") one finds a kind of instruction forpreaching which is largely based on Augustin.6t In addi­tion 10 these and other time-tesled medieval manuals many later compila­lions are being published 10 which people try 10 give additional prestige by attribuling them to authors Iike Albertus Magnus orThomas Aquinas.62 Of greater importance are, of course, such new handbooks as Ihe "Manuale

katalog der Wiegendrucke 3, 1928,80-82 DOS. 2871-2873) and also as part of Ve doctri­na Cl!ristiana. especially ja the Opuscula (seven editions. see ibid. 3.1928.102-103 nQ. 2902 and 71-78 nos. 2862-2866 and 2868 (Opuscula); Reg,,'a: ten editions till 1500. ibid. 10, 1992,98-105 nos. 11440-11449. Forlaterpreaching manuals see I. I. Murphy. Renaissance Rhetoric, New York 1981.353.

61 Edited again in 1505 with tbe help of a beuer manuscript; on the editions see Ver­zeichnis (see n. 31) 9, 1987.417 oos. H 5270 (504) and 5268 (1505), see further D. Zimpel. Hrabanus Maurus. De institutione clericorum Iibri tres. Studien und Edition, Frankfurt 1996. on the author see R. Kottje, Hrabanus Maurus. in: Lexikon des Mittelal­ters 5,1991,44-147. on G. Simlersee •. 12.

62 See PS .. Alberrus Magnus, De ane inteIligendi. docendi ct praedicandi. frrst: Ulm 1478-1480 (see Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke I, 1925,273-274 no. 590 and 274 DO. 591; author: William cf Auvergne. see D. Roth. Die mittelalterliche Predigttheorie und das Manuale Curatorum des Johann Ulrich Surgant. Diss. phil. Basel 1956.45-48) and Tractatulus solennis de arte cl vero modo praedicandi ex diversis sacrorum dec­torum scripturis. et principaliter sacratissimi christianae ecclesiae doctoris Thornae de Aquino ex parvo SUD quodam tractatul0 recollecrus. Nümberg 1477; the Incunabula Short Une CataJogue. London 1994, registers sixteen early printings, same with the ad­dition ''una turn tractatulo eximii doctoris HenriclJs de bassia de arte praedicandi" in their title, c. g. Leipzig 1487-1495. though this tractatulus seerns in fact invariably to be missing: on the tractatulus see H. Caplan, Of Eloquence. Studies in Ancient and Mediaeval Rhetorie, Ithaca 1970,40-78 (first 1925) and D. Roth (as above), 140-147. also on its sources one of which is the Libellus artis praedicatianis of Jacobus de Fusig­nano (on him see D. Roth 87-lO2; on the printings: Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 10, 1996, 282-286 oos. 11716 [Köln 1476J: 11718; 11720: 11723 [Straßburg 1484-1486], always together with ehe Manipulus curatorum of Guido de Monte Roterio [Rochen); this is perhaps also trl1e aflbe separate editions Köln about 1475, see L. Hain, Repertorium Bibliographicum [see n. 9J, I 2, 424-425 nos. 7399 and 7400). Another SOuree oftbe tractatulus is the Tractatulus de arte praedieandi. wrongly ascribed to Hen­ricus de Hassi .. printed Leipzig 149~149S and Köln 1494 (see Bayerische Staatsbi­bliothek. Inkunahelkatalog 1-IlI, Wiesbaden 1988-1993. llll27 H 81 and H 82 ~ L. Hain [see above], 11 I. 9 nos. 8398 and 8399~8397; 00 this work see H. Caplan [see aboveJ, 135-159; D. Roth [see aboveJ, 137-140, also F. I. Worstbroek et al .. Heinrich von Langenstein, io: Verfasserlexikon 3, 1981,763-773, esp. 768). Otheral1es ofthat time are listed by H. Caplan (see n.59), 1934,36-37 and 1936,27, e. g. the Infomatio notabilis et praeclara de Arte praedicandi In thematibus De tempore et de sanctis am-

Page 129: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchtlwn ~ Early Handbooks 121

euratorum praedieandi praebens modum" of Johann Ulrieh Surgant, theo­logian at Basel, whieh in its strueture follows the uaditional manuals of rhetorie, hut uses examples from the Bible and, furthennore, diseusses questions Iike De quadruplici scripturae sensu ("On the fourfold sense of the Holy Scripture").63 Even more imponant seems to be the sIim volume "De arte praedieandi" by Melanchthon 's mentor John Reuchlin which combines the rhetorical theory of antiquity with the requirements of preaching in the Church.64 Thus one reads (fol. a II r): SERMO constat. Principio. Lectione. Divisione. Conjinnatione. Confutatione. Conclusio­ne ("A speech, i. e. a sermon, consists of: introduction, reading [sc. of a text from the Biblel, division, prooE, refutation, epilogue"). While Reueh­lin elearly prefers to rely on aneient authors for bis definitions, he takes bis examples mostly from the Bible and only in exeeptional eases from pagan authors, see e. g.: SIMILlTUDO esl eadem rerum differentium qualitas. Ab hac ita argumemabimur. Jacobi V. Ecce agricola expectat preciosumfruc­tum terrae, patienter ferens dOMe accipiat temporaneum et serotinum, patientes igilur estole el vos el conjimlale corda vestra quoniam adventus domini appropinquabit (James 5, 7: "Comparison is: the same characte­ristic in different things. With its help we may argue in the following man-

ficialiter deducta, Deventer 1479 (see Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 2, 1926,747 nO. 2669 and 747-748 no. 2670 and 1,1925, 274no. 591 togetberwith the piece byWi1-Harn of Auvergne, mentioned above), anonymously printed. but to be ascribed to the Franciscan Joho GaUensis (died about 1300, see D. Roth las above]. 76-86) or the anonymous optimus praedlcandi modus, printed at the beginning of the Evagatorium Benemy. Köln 1499 (fol. Aa 2r-Aa 4v). whicb H. Caplan, Of Eloquenee (see above). 112-113 n.32 attributes to Michael of Hungary, presumably because bis Sermones tredecim are in later editions also always printed after the praedicandi modus, see Ver­zeicbnis (see n. 31) 6,1986,446--447 E 4327-4332 and 13. 1988,654-655 M 5150-5155. Mention ha~ to be made alsoofthe Rethorica (sie) divina de oratione domini Gui­lermi Parisiensis, a rbetoric of prayer. also to be attributed to William of Auvergne (1180-1223, see Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 10, 1996. 373-375 nO.1I862: Opera, Nümberg about 1497 land later, e.g. Paris 1516] and 378-382 nos. 11865-11868, here used: 11866: Freiburg about 1491. see also D. Rolb (as above], 44-45; there 48-54 also on the ars praedicandl ofthe same authorwhieh was not printed tiIl1923).

6J On the editions see Verzeichois (see n. 31) 20,1993,145 S 10229-10237 (1503-1520); I have used the edition Stra8burg 1516 (tbe seetion I 5; De quadruplici scripturae selUU: fol. 9r-l0v. see also 24r-25v); on this see D. Roth (see n. 62), 150-186. aod OD the authoralso F.I. Worstbrock, Surgant. in: Verfasserlexikon 9. 1995, 544-547.

64 The work is dated in 1502, printed in Pforzheim first in 1504, see Verzejchnis (see n. 31) 17, 1991, 103 R 1250 (LiberCongestorum dearte praedicandi) und R 1251: 1508 (this edition used bere); for ReuchIin seen. 12.

Page 130: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

122 V. Melanchthon s Rheror;callnrerpreration

ner las in fames 5]. See, the fanner looks for the preeious crop from bis land. patiently waiting till he gets the early and the late (rain). Tberefore, you, too, should be patient and strengthen your hearts, since the arrival of the Lord will be approaching"), and he adds: Maxima propositio. De simi­Uhus idem esse iudicium (UVery important premise: about similar things the judgrnent is the same": fol. a Vv - Vlr).

I mention these works, written before the publication ofMelanchthon's uDe Rhetorica libri lres", to illustrate the background against which one has to place the new work and the context in which one has to understand it. For otherwise one cannot appreciate either its special nature or its im­portance. Indeed, it is ooe of the regrettable aspects of many recent studies on the Renaissance and Humanism that often single topics, authors or even works are selected and analysed without both the traditioo as a whole be­ing considered with all its different branches and the context, the special conditions ofthe individual concerned, his point of departure and bis parti­cular intentions. Melanchthon's rhetoric follows the tradition of ancient rhetoric as revived by George of Trebizond and the ltalian humanists. But the section on sacrae cOllciolles shows -like his lectures on the letter to TItus - that he regards himself as bound perhaps even more to another tra­dition; and as some Christi ans use ancient (pagan) rhetoric for their preaching manuals and to a very Iimited extent also for their exegesis, Melanchthon in his handbook on (general, not specifically Chrlstian) rhe­toric does not only include preaching, but exploits the treasures of examples as offered by the Bible. How unusual this is at the time is shown most clearly by a comparison with the manual by Johannes Caesarius who occasionally refers to Melanchthon, but, though a pupil of Jacques Le­fevre d'Etaples in Paris, even more rarely to Christian elements of any kind, remaining loyal rather to the ancient tradition or its humanistic trans­formation as represented by George ofTrebizond.6s

6S Rhetorica ... in septem libros sive tractatus. digesta, KöJn 1529: on Caesarius see I. Guenther, Johannes Caesarius, in: Contemporaries ofErasmus I, 1985. 238-239. for the editions see Verzeichnis (see n.31) 3.1984,644 C 139-144. and for the work on dialectic ibid. 639-643 C 98-137 (first Köln perhaps 1525, certainly 1529). On J. Le~vre d'Etaples see H. Heller, Jacques Le~vre d'Etaples, in: CODtemporaries of Erasmus 2,1986,315-318, also above n.27 and below n.104. Neither K. Bullerner, Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zum I. Buch der Rhetorik Melanchthons. Diss. phil. Erlangen 1902, Würzburg 1902. who bases his work on Melanchthon's third edition only (see 0.66) Dar J. Knape (see n.42) seern to be interested in the aspect here considered.

Page 131: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchrhon:S Early Handbooks 123

A few remarks need to be added on Melanehthon's two lateT handbooks on rhetorie, printed first in 1521 and 1531 respectively and frequently reprinted.66 The "Institutiones Rhetoricae", published without his per­mission from lecture-notes taken by students, is no more than a brief sum­mary of the essential definitions and precepts. Here the fourth "kind" (ge­nus) besides demonstrative, deliberative andjudicial, introduced already in the earlier work, is fully established as genus dialecticum, cODeerned in fact less with logieal reasoning than with teacbing;67 moreover a sbift of emphasis fromjudicial and political rhetorie towards teacbing and preach­ing becomes obvious e. g. from causa being supplemented by Ihema right at the beginning: Sicut caU$sarum ita thematum genera qualuor sullf (fol. A nr: "Tbere are four kinds as of cases so also ofthemes, subjects").

In bis discussion of the judicial kind Melanchthon points out that in Ii­terary disputes one ean employ almost the sarne arguments as in law-suits, and he illustrates this by Paul's argument in Romans 4,9-12. It should be noted that here not the text of the Bible is being quoted; rather we find a wording very similar to that in his "Theologica Institutio ... in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos" or bis "Artifltium Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos", the latter also based on noles of his students Iike the "Institutiones rhe­toricae".68

Melanehthon deals next with slatus for which he gives several defini­tions. To the first ofthem ("status is a summary statement ofwhat exaetly a dispute is about": est summaria sentenlia de qua proprie litigatur) he adds: "FOT instance Faithjustilles; that summary statement of Paul's dis-

66 Most of tbe editions are listed in Verzeichnis (see n. 31) 13, 1988, the Jnstitutio­nes: 417-418: M 3514-3527 and thc Elementorum rhetoriees libri duo: 364-368 M 3101-3136 (edition heTe used: WiUenberg 1536: it omirs certain sections for which I have torelyon the reprint in Opera [see n. 11], Xm417-S06); G. Maior reduced the In­stitutiones to TabuJae. see G. MaLor (ed.), Tabulae, De schematibus Petri Mosellani. In Rhetorie. Philippi Melanehthonis ... , Leipzig 1532 (first: Köln 1526), fol. B 8r·C 6r; Martin Crusius added explanations: Philippi Melanthonis Elementorum Rhetorices Libri duo. Martini Cmsü Quaestionibus Explicati in Academia Tybingensi, Basel 1563; Basel 1570: et Seholijs.

67 Fo!. A IIr-v, see also the Elementarem rhetorices (see n. 66), fot A 8v-B 1r and B 3r-6r = Opera (,ee n.11). XlII 421-429. see also n.43.

68 Cf. Instltutiones (fol. B IIv): Abraham anre circuncisionem iUSlificatus eSf, ergo non t!X circundsiofl~ and Artifitium (see E. BizeT ([ed.J. Tex.te aus der Anfangszeit Me· lanchthons, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1966.23): Abraam est iustificatus ante circwncisiontm Ergo non excircumcisione and Institutio (see E. Bizer red,]. Texte, 98): Abraflam iustifi­calw est antc circunzcisionem: ergo iuslificatio non est ex operibus.

Page 132: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

124 V. MelancfJthon s Rhetoricallmerpretarion

cussion is said to be the slatus". 69 Also for several types of arguments Me­lanchthon adduces examples from Pau!'s epistles; for inversio e. g. which he dennes as that "by means of which we show the evidence that speaks against us to work in our favour" (qua docemus signum quod contra /lOS

producit, pro nobis facere) he refers to the letter to the Galatians 3, 21 b, again with Pau!'s argument rephrased in a manner very similar to that found in the lecture-notes on Galatians.70 Similarly to sbow how 10 argue about "ambiguous texts" (de ambig"is scriptis, see also ex ambiguo) argu­ments of Pau!'s are adduced from bis epistle to the Romans, but nol in bis own words ("works do notjustify": clIm ". opera non iustiftcent and ope­ra legis non iustiftcare}.71

In Ibe following sections one fmds various figures of style illustrated by examples from the Bible, for metaphors e. g. CIWC pro mortiftcatione ("cross inslead of tribulation"), or "sift" (cribrare): "Salan has sought you that he may sift you as wheat" (Satanas expetivi! vos, ur cribaret: Luke 22, 31) or "fishers" (piseatores): "I will make you fishers of men" (Faciam vos piscatores hominum: Matth. 4, 19; Mark I, 17); for antonomasia ("use of an epithel for a proper name") he cites "saviour" (salvator) for Christ and the "Lord" (of the world: dominus) for Salan, and he adds that "cir­cumlocution" (periphrasisl on the basis of etymology also belongs here, e. g. for "gospel" (euallgeliwn) "message of salvation" (salulare lIun­eil/rn), not a biblical expression, but a phrase Melanchthon himself uses

69 UI, Fides iustificat. haee summaria sentenlia disputationu Paulinae dicituT status (fol. B !Iv).

10 Nllnquid lex adversus prolllissiones. si non iustifteat. Imo si lex iuslifjcaret. esset adversus promissiolles dei (fo1. BIllv); ES'lYTlau; Metbodica in Epistolam Pauli n:QOo; 'tous: y«Äa'tac; (see E. Bizer [ed.1. Texte [see n.68], 36): Inversio. Respondeo; lmo si per legem ~ss~r iustin'a foret contra promissionem. On the im'ersio see also De Rhetorica libri leeS (see n. 42), 100 with the same standard example (s; occidiss~m ill sepeliendo non pissem occupalus) as in 1521 (non sepelissem, s; occidiss~m). but witbout the additional examples from Thucydides and Paul; cf. also Elementarum rhetorices !ibri duo (see n. 66), fol. C 4v s; occidissem, non sepeliissem followed by the example from Galatians and K Ir: Sepeliisti. 19itur occidis/i. Potest inveni, lmo si occidisstnf. non sepeliissem (no examples); see furtber Erotemata dialectices continentia fere integram artem, ita scripta. ut iuventuti utiliter propani possiL Winenberg 1547, fol. R VIv-VIIv. with examples. that. ofPauJ in thefonn: lmc 05; rolleret (sc.lex) peccatum, nihil opus esset promissiofIL.

71 Cf. fo1. B IVr: Ur si quis disputet cur Paulus praecipiat bona opera cum tamen opera non iustiftcent and ex ambiguo: ut si disputetur. utrunt cum Paulus doceat opera legis non iustificare, velit hoc intel/eg; lan/um de ceremoniis. an de omnibus legis operibus ceremonialibus e' moralibus (fot B lVr-v).

Page 133: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melan.chthon s Earfy Handbooks 125

elsewhere.72 For what the rhetoricians call catachresis ("improper use of a word") Melanchthon cites a phrase from Paul's first letter to the Co­rinthians (2,14) in Greek ('P"XL"O~ av8Qw1Co~: "unspiritual man"). add­ing: humano more sapiens, ac iustus (fol C IVr: "wise andjust, as much as it befits a human being"), thus reminding his readers that it is not simply the Bible which is at the baek of his mind, but both its Greek and its Latin version.

He also deals with tropes, especially allegories and what he thinks should be c1assified with them. Again we eneounter a good many illustra­tions from the Bible or the religious language of the Christians; and the same is true of the final sections on schemata ("figures").73 Thus we see that Melanchthon both in his first handbook and bis early leetures on rhe­toric as reflected in the notes ofhis pupiJs, published as his second manual, enriches the traditional stock of examples and illustrations by passages from the Holy Scripture, rarely from the Qld Testament, mostly from Pau!'s epistles, in the first work of 1519 primarily for matters of style. in the published lectures of 1521 also fortypes of arguments. Two years later Melanchthon gives a lecture to defend the essential role ofthe artes dieen­di ("the rules of speaking and writing") for all kinds of studies, and in this context he stresses the importance of the ratio dicendi ("the theory of speaking and writing") for the treatment of the Holy Scripture, apart from pointing out in passing that the prophets used schemata rhetorica ("rheto­rical figures").1'

The third manual, "Elementoruin rhetorices libri duo". published in Wittenberg in 1531, obviously the work of a more mature author and a more experienced teacher, is more evenly divided, the first book (fol. A5r­F 3r) being devoted mrunly to invention (fo1. A 6v-E 7v) with abrief sec­tion on "arrangement" (dispositio: fol. E 7v-F 3r). the second to "style" (elocutio: fol. F 3r-M 2v), and the whole being structured more c1early as regards its demls. Striking and of special interest for our present study is the fact thatMelanchthon more than once emphasizes the value of rhetoric not only for writing and speaking correctly (fol. A 5v), but for understand-

72 Meraphors: fo1. C IIIv~ mortijicatio is used only once (2 Cor. 4. 10), crux occurs frequently in the Ne"" TestamenL Antonomasia: Col. C IVr.

73 Tropi: C IVr-v. all~goriae: D Jr-D lIr and schemata: 0 IIr-E illv. in three seetions: D IIr-D illv (dictiones), D IIIv-IVv(figuraesententiarum), D IVv-E IIIv (amplijicatio).

74 Necessarias esse ad amne studiarum genus artes dicendi, Hagenau 1523, pub­lished also with othertitles, see Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15). II 67-69 (no. 277) and Oper. (see 1J). XI 50-{i6, the referenees 64-65 .nd on the prophets 54.

Page 134: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

126 V. Melanchthon S Rheloricollnltrpretati011

ing and '1udging intelligently the writings of others" (fol. A5v: ad pruden­ter inteLUgenda aLiena scripta) as weil as "discussions of important issues such as religious eontroversies orlegal questions" (foL A5v: si ... velint ... legere aut iudicare res magnas, ut religionum controversias .. aut forensia negotia).75 Clearly, for hirn rhetorie does not offer the tools or the "me­thod" (via et ratio) merely for speaking and writing, as for the rhetorician in antiquity, but for understanding, interpreting and judging texts, not least from the Bible.

At the beginning he justifies the introduction of the fourth, "the teach­ing kind", the ötön!JXn).utov genus, as he calls it here (fol. A 8v-B 3r),76 pointing out that "it is most useful in the affairs of the Church at the very time when not only advisory speeches (i. e. sermons) have to be made, but more frequently people have to be instructed about reUgious dogmas in the mann er of dialecticians, that is by logical reasoning, in order that they may fuJly understand them" (cum hoc tempore vel maximum tlSum in Ecclesiis habeat; ubi non tantum strasoriae contiones habendae sunt, sed multo saepius homines, Dialecticorum more, de dogmatibus religionis docendi sum, ut ea perfecte cognoscere possint: foL A Sv). And where he defines the partieular object ofthis kind as eomprehension a little later (fol. B 2v), he uses ,religious' examples again for illustration. However, he also ad­mits that if anyone wants to have more detailed preeepts he should turn to dialectic, thereby indicating that traditionally these rules are taught in the context of dialectic.77 Tbe fact that Melanchthon transfers at least some of

7S See also Ul adiuvet adolescentes in legendis orationibu.s excellentium Oratorum. et in longis controver.rUs 'iudicandis (fol. A Sr-v: ··tbat it helps young men in reading the speeches of perfect orators andjudging extensive controversies") or: admonui praecep­ta inventa esse, non ul eloquentes efficerent. Sed ut viam ae ranonem ostenderent ado­l~scentibus iudicandi de disertorum orationibus (fol. K 4v: "r have drawn attention to the fact that the rules have been invented nol to make people skilful speakers. but to show young men a method to judge speeches of the eloquent") or 1I0e sibi persuildeant adolescentes. tttui iudicandum. et ad ma:cimas eaUSQS explicandas prorSU$ ea (sc. prae­eepla) neeessaria esse (epistola nuncupatoria fol A 3v: "tbe young shouJd believe that these rules are necessary both for judging and making the most important issues clear" , see also A 4r or G 4r (iudicare de sermone: '~udging tbe style").

" He calls it ÖIÖa><TIXOV in th. rhetoric of 1519 (12-47; 64-65; 91-93) and dialecticum in 1521 (fol. A II r-v), s •• n.43 and 67_

11 Fol. B 3r, see also his excuse given a little later and omitted in the edition of 1536 (see D.74) so that I quote from Opera (see n.ll). XUl425: quia copiosius traduntur praeceptG. de methodo. in nostris dialeeUcis libe7lis, hic ero breviar, tanturn exemplum unum atque allerum adscribam (""because the roles are given more extensively in my books on dialectic. I shall be more briefhere aod add only one or two examples").

Page 135: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchtlwn:S Early Hondbooks 127

them and includes them in his rhetorical manuals as a new genus dernon­strates most clearly how great an importance he attributes to thern for the education ofthe young.

In presenting this kind Melanchthon emphasizes the need always to be­gin with clear definitions. And he wams that "in theological disputes spe­cial attention should be paid to tbe nature of the language of the Bible, be­cause we use rnany Hebraic figures (of speech) which lead to many errors, ifthey are not reproduced correctly" (in disputationibus theologicis obser­vanda est phrasis sacranun liferarum, quia multis utimur Ebraicis figuris, quae, si non recte reddantur, multi errores sequu/ltur), refemng to Pela­gius' interpretation of grace.1B Tndeed, throughout the first book one finds Melanchthon using terms of Christian theology as exarnples orreferring to passages from the Bible, whether he deals with definitions (e. g. re­pentence and faith) or complex questions,79 or wants to illustrate "issues" (status) or the parts of speech or particular types of arguments. BO

Occasionally, but not very often, he chooses exarnples from the Old Testa­ment, especially the prophets or the psalms. Thus for an argument from a written law he cites Isaiah (I, 17) and a psalm (81, 4), for an argument from conflicting laws Abraharn's sacrifice.81 At the end ofthe brief seetion on "the deliberative kind" (genus deliberativum: fol. D 6r-8v) he remarks: "And in religious writings exhortations, consolations, pleas for mercy be­long to the advisory genus, as in tbe book of psalms ,Have mercy' is a statement and arequest, often repeated" (Peninenl ad genus suasorium, el in saeris Lileris Adlzorlaliones, Consolaliones, Depreeationes, "I in Psal­mo, Miserere, saepe esl repetila proposilio, ae pe/Wo: fol. D 8v).82

Discussing the laudative type of tbe demonstrative kind Melanchthon observes that tbere are some psalms belonging to this kind which describe Christ, and they may be regarded as short panegyries as e. g. the psalm

71 See Opera (see n.11), XlI[ 424, also Compendiaria Dialectices ratio (see ß. 85), fol.BIVv.

" Repenlence: Opera (see n. 11), xm 425-426; faith: fol. B 4r-5r, but different from Opera (see D. 11). XDI426-428. complex questions: fol. B 5r-6r.

80 Issues (status): B 8r: Rom. 3,28; parts of speech (exordium): fol. C Ir: Rom. 1, 16 and 17; particular types of arguments: fol. C 4v: again Goi. 3. 21 (see n. 70), cf. R. Weber (ed.), Biblia Sacra (see n. 38), Il1753; 1750 and 1805.

81 Written law: see Opera (see n.l1), XIIl437 and R. Weber (ed.), Biblia Sacra (see n. 38), IlI097 and I 874-875: Isaiah I, 17 andpsalm 81, 4; conOicting laws: fol. D 2r and R. Weber (ed.), Biblia Sacra I 29-30: Genesis 22, 1-19.

81 Cf. e. g. psalms 4, 2; 6, 3; 9, 14 el saepius, cf. R. Weber (ed.)T Biblia Sacra (see n. 38). 1772; 774; 778.

Page 136: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

128 V. Melanchthon:r RheloricallnterpretatiQn

"Tbe Lord said" (109 [or llOn, also psalm 67 "May God arise"; and he gives a very cIear and full explanation: "For he (tbe author) depicts, as it were, a triumphal procession of a king, and begins with calling down cur­ses and congratulating, for he wishes the enemies of Christ iII, but the pious he wishes well. The narrative part has the procession. Tbe Lord comes and with him he brings the army of those who preach the good tidings. Of these the heads of provinces are described and the apostles and the bishops who restore the troubled and devastated regions; he ascends to a high place, he leads in triumph the captives and shares out the gifts to his soldiers and his people, threatens punishment to Ihe enemies. Tbe people go in front and follow, singing the triumphal song. Tbis roughly is a sum­mary of lhe psalm, which if someone relates it in this way to lhe rules ofthe art (sc. of rhetorie) he will see and understand more elearly which loei should appropriately be linked up with Christ whieh attribute divine power to him." (fol. E 1 v-2r: pingit enim veluti triumphalem pompam re­gis, orditur ab imprecatione et gratulatione, nam hostibus Christi male precatur, gratulatu!' autem piis. Narratio continet pompam, Venit domi­nus, et dueit secum exereilus Evangelizanlium. Ex his sunt descripli Princi­pes provineiarum Apostoli el Episcopi, qui provincias aff/ictas et vexatas recreant. Ascendit dominus in altum, ducit in triumpho captivos disuibuit dona militibus ac populis suis, minaoll' hOSlibus supplicia, Praecedit po­pulus ac sequitur, qui canit triumphale cannen. Haecfere summa est Psal­mi. quem si quis hoc modo ad artis praecepta conferet, planius imelliget et animadvertet, qui loei proprie ad Cillistum accommodandi sint qui tri­buant ei divinam pote/leiam). Later, spealdng of the "eommon places" (loei communes) he gives tbe advice to lake them from the Old Testament as well as the gospels,s3 stressing that religious texts would be useless, if lhey were not connec!ed with lhe major points of lhe Christian doctrine.

In the sbort seetion on arrangement we mee! again with some referenees to tbe Bible, and the same is true of lhe second book. though there lhe ma­jorilY of examples seems to be chosen from pagan aulhors. The section which deserves special attention deals with "the fourfold sense ofthe Holy Scripture" (De qUaluor sensibus sacrarum lileranmz: fol. G 3r-Sv), a pro­blem we have already seen discussed by Surgant (see n. 63). But unlike

83 Cf. fol. E 4v; he mentions the story ofDavid being rebuked by a prophet because ofhis .dultery: n Kings = fI Sam. 11-12, cf. R. Weber (ed.), Bibli. S.<ra (see n. 38). I 429-432 and Mark 7, 1-3: Mal/h. 15.1-9 and Luke 13, 1-5, cf. R. Weber (ed.), Bibli. Saor. fI 1585-1586; 1549; 1635.

Page 137: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon $' Early Ha,rdbooks 129

him, Melanehthon quite vigorously rejeets such "absurdities" (nugae) and claims that the fools who advocate this type of interpretation even had to devise a kind of new rhetorie (fol. G 3r). In opposition to such practices he argues that "we have to remind ourselves that everywhere only one unque­stionable and straightforward meaning should be looked for in aeeordance with the rules of grammar, dialeetie and rbetoric" (fo1. G 4r: /lOS memineri­mus unam quandam ae ce/1am el simplieem sentenliam ubique quaeren­dam esse iuxta praeeepla Grammatieae, Dialeelieae et RhelOrieae) and that "mostly we have to be eontent with only one grammatical, literal meaning, as it is the case with God's commandments and promises" (fol. G 5r: plerunque uno sensu Grammatico contenti esse debemus. ut in prae­eeplis, el promissionibus Dei), But in exceptional cases he leaves room for allegorical interpretations, mentioning e. g. Paul's interpretation of Mo­ses' veil (2 Cor. 3,13-17) and recommending Luther's eommentaries on Deuteronomy and some of the propbets;84 for "they show what is appro­priate with respect to this kind ofinterpretation. For here not the allegories a10ne are being applied, but first the story as such is related to the common places of faith and (good) works, and from them the allegories develop. But no one ean imitate that method without exeeptional knowledge ofthe Christian doctrine" (fol. G 6v: qui ostelldunt, quid in hoc genere enarrandi maxime deceat. Hie non tradunlur solae allegonae, sed prius histona ipsa trans!enur ad locos eommunes fidei et opel7u1! Deinde ex loeis illis nas­cuntur allegonae, Sed hane rationem nemo imitari sine excellenti doctri­Ila pOleSI).

Onee more Melanehthon demonstrates what he wants his handbooks on rhetoric to be: not merely eollections of teehnieal rules and precepts, but a guide which shows what to do and what not to do, to lay down mies, but also to explain them, 10 illustrate how to use them and where to be eareful or to avoid mistakes, giving exemplary interpretations himself, but referr­ing also to others as models; therefore. his rhetorial manuals may be read with profit even today.

Dialeetic is the other propaedeutic discipline whieh Melanchthon has to teach in Tübingen and for which he publishes several introduetory manu­als, the first a year after the first handbook on rhelorie. But while this short aecount, aptly ealled "Compendiaria dialectiees ratio",85 differs

84 D. Martin Luthers Werke (see n. 27) 61,1983, 23-28. 85 I am using a copY ofthe edition Wittenberg 1520. made from the original in Ro­

stock. kindly supplied by J. Leonhardt (fonnerly Rostock, now Marburg). see Verzeich-

Page 138: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

130 V. Melanchlhon. s Rhetorical lrrterpretarion

from the "Oe Rhetorica libri tres" in that it is much better organized and structured, yet at tbe same time less original, as it reHes to a greater extent on tbe tradition,86 here too the Professor of Greek feels free to refer to issues or texts of tbe Christian religion. However, in recommending this ars he empbasizes its usefulness for students and teachers (in discendo er in docendo: fol. A IJr) without mentioning the special needs of preachers or theologians in their disputes; and the number of references to tbe Bible is comparatively small. In dealing with the definitio causaUs ("definition from what causes sometbing to be what it i5") he gives the advice always to look carefully for the proper function of everytbing, adds that Ibis is im­portant also for amplifications, and praises Pau!'s wonderfuI amplijicario in the eigbtb chapter of his letter to the Romans (fol. B IVr).87 Discussing examples he points to the use of similes in Cbristian teaching (fol. F llIr), and illustrating the Sorites (coacervalio: "proof by accumulation") he cites the seventh chapter ofthe letter to the Hebrews (1-28: fol. F IIIv-IVr, also in the "Dialectices libri" [1528=1531], fol. H 6r-7rand in tbe "Erote­mata dialectices" [1547], fol. G Iv-IJIr).

In the second version, published in 1528, Melanchthon leaves no doubt asregards his special concem fortbeologians and exegetes ofthe Bible. As often elsewhere, he complains about tbe practice in bis youth. when pre­cepts were taught, but notbing was said about their actual application "in making speeches or injudging tbe writings of others" (fol. A 2r: in dicen­do, auI in iudicandis aUorum scriplis, cf. E I v-2r). And ''for that reason", he says, "1 added numerous exarnples to the rules, though Ibis would ap­pear inappropriate in Other cases: passages taken from good authors and from the Holy Scripture, both to shed light on tbe precepts and 10 make c!ear how much help this art has 10 offer for the understanding of the con­troversies of leamed people" (fol. A 2r: [taque, quamquam alicubi videri poteril ineplun~ adscripsi praeceptis mullos locos ex bonis aUloribus, el ex sacris lileris sumptos, el ut lumen adJerrent exempla praecoplis, et ul videri posseI quanl!tm uli/iralis adJerat haec ars, ad intelligendas doc­lorum hominum disputationes). Thus he staleS bis aim and bis particular

nis (see n. 31) 13, 1988.327 M 2798, othereditions (\520-1523): 327-328 M 2797 and 2799-2800: for Ihe Dialeetiees libri qualuor see ibid. 350-352 M 2996-3021, firsl Ha­genau 1528. here used: Leipzig 1531 (M 3000).

16 For the ratiodnario (Udeduction") e. g. he simply reproduces a long passage from eie. illv.157-60: lai. D mr-IVr.

87 Rom. 8,1-16; see also fol. H!llr wherehe quotes Romans 4, 9-13 for Pau!'s use of circumstantiae ("particular aspects of a case'·). heee time.

Page 139: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanclttlwn's Early Handbooks 131

regards here at the beginning, as again later: His intention i. not mereJy to transmit a set of traditional rules, but to encourage people to develop their own faculties of speaking and writing. of preaching and discussing. of ac­tively taking part in theological disputes. that is the faculties to argue and to refute, to judge tbe spoken as weil as the written word.88 in short to help young people to look at the tradition critically, to accept it selectively, to find tbeir own position and to justify it, just as he is doing it hirnself in his manuals. For most of the rules he relies on the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian and Boethius and for the examples on Demosthenes. Cicero and Virgil as weil as on the Bible.

Sometimes he chooses aspects ofChristian teaching or basic terms such as saeerdos (fol. A Sr: "priest"), Christiana iustitia (fol. A Sr: "Christi an justice") or psyehieus homo (fol. A Sv), poenitentia (fol. D 3r) or servi (fol. D 4r-v: "slaves. servants"); or he reminds his readers ofthe daily practice of singing gloria in cxeelsis deo ("gtory be to God in the highest": fol. C 2v) which makes it necessary to define gloria89 or ofthe Holy Communion (fol. K 6r). In other cases he refers to particular passages from the Bible, e. g. to psalm 132, 2_3.90 once (fol. A 4r) to show how a simple phrase is adomed witb the help of a comparison (sieut unguentum and sieut ros: "1ike ointrnent" and "like dew") which has to be taken away 10 uncover "the bare facts" (nuda res). and once, after stressing the importance of clarifying the exact meaning of a word, to illustrate the meaning of be­nedietio ("blessing": fol. A Sr). He cites Hebrews 11. 19\ as example of a definitio eausalis ("definition from what causes something 10 be what it is"), in this case of 3t[01:L~ ("faith"), adding a thorough discussion of iJ3to01:aa~ ("substance"). and emphasizing that de volunale Dei tantum ex verbo Dei iudieandum est, non ex humana ratione ("one can make judgments about the will of God oniy on the basis of God's word, not of human reasoning": fol. C 8v-D 2r). To give an example of adefinition from its results he paraphrases Pau!'s remarks in his letter 10 the Romans 13. 4 and cites ÖUIKOVO, E01:LV aOL e, 1:0 ayaS6v (fol. D 2v-3r: "For it

.. Cf. also fol. G 7v; H 4r. 89 Adefinition of gloria is given Erotemata dialectices (see n. 70), fol. g IVv.Vr. 90 Cf. R. Weber (ed.), BibIia Sac," (see n. 38). I 936. IJI Already in bis inaugurallecture of 1518 he alludes to this verse, see n. 39; and for

the use of thc seventb chaprer ofthe letter to thc Hcbrews as illustration for tbe Sorites see abovep. 19.1ndealing with the questioDs which one has to ask in orderto determine thc meaning of a tenn he refers (fol. I Iv) to John's words "bear freits worthy of your repentence" (cf. Luke 3. 8. also Matrh. 3, 8).

Page 140: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

132 V. MelaJlChthon's Rheroncallllurpretation

lthe govemment] is [God's] helper working for your good"), thus not only applying the art of dialectic in order more adequately to understand a bibli­cal text, but expressing bis own views on some theological issue.

That arguments may be drawn from elements of a definition is illustrated by Melanchthon with the phrase Chrislus esl perpeluus sacerdos (fol. I 7r: "Christ is OUr perpetual priest") from which he derives the statement that "consequently Christ continually conciliates the father so that he continually forgives our sins and shows his mercy and saves us; by explaining the word ,priest' in !bis way which the Scripture often attributes to Christ the definition throws a good deal of light on it" (lgitur adsidue placat nobis palrem, ul assidue remittat peccata el misereatur nostTi oe servel nos. cum ad hunc modum exponitur nomen sacerdos quod saepe Iribuit Christo scriplura miram lucem affert definilio). And he goes on to quote from his own paraphrase ofthe psalm Dixit Dominus (109 or 110):

Namque sacerdotis summi quoque mImus obibit iralumque palrem nobis placabit el unus orabit veniam miseris mortalibus. atque victima eTi! pro deliclis gratissima nost.is.92

Elsewbere, too, Melanchthon is not content to teach the rules of dialectic, but tries with the help of the precepts to recommend particularviews, dog­mas or methods to the readers or to attack views of others or practices of the Church wbich be objeclS to. Tbus in the seetion on the proposilio ("pre­miss") he remarks that in judging people's writings with regard to any issue one has first of all to deterrnine the point in question; as examples be chooses first Cicero's speeches for Milo and for Roscius Amerinus and thirdly Paul's letter to the Romans. saying "justice before God consists not in human meritorious actions, butjustice before God is belief that because of Christ we shan be received in the grace of the Fatber" (fol. E 2v: iustitia coram Deo non sunt humana menta, sed iustitia coram Deo est credere quod propIer Christum recipiamur in graciam patris: see Rom. 3.20; 4, 5;

"For he will a150 talce upon bimself the duty cf thc highest priest and will reconcile the Father with us and alone will ask for forgiveness for us wretched mortals and will be the most welcome victim for aur sins.'"

See Operum Philippi Melancthonis Tomi (see n. 29), V 341 or P. Viocentius (ed.), Reverendi " .. Philippi Melanthonis Epigrammatum libri sex, Wittenberg 1563, fol. C 2v-3r, also Opera (see n. 11), X 517-519; the edition ofthe Oe dialectica libri quatuor of 1531 has amisprint (sacerdori instead of sacerdotis) and reads veniam miseris.

Page 141: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchlhon's Early Handbooks 133

5. 17 ete.). Without referring to partieular passages Melanehthon recom­mends Paul's proeedure in his letter to the Romans together with that of Aristolle. Avicenna and of the "Institutiones" as "what the ancients ealled methodus. that is the rational way of teaching eorreet1y and in some order in aceordance with the rules of dialectie" (fol. 12r-v: ratio recte atque or­dine docendi iuxta praeeepta Dialectiees). In a more general manner he remarks (fol. I 4v-5r): "the young should be reminded that what is in the Holy Scripture bas the same force as the demonstrationes. i. e. "argu­mentations with certainty"; for there is unquestionable truth in them also. We have to argue. therefore, that the promises and threats of God are as definite as what we earess with Our bands and see with our eyes" (Hie monendi sunt iuvenes quod parem vim demonstrationibus habeanl ea quae sunt in sacris literis. Nam in his etiam certa est veri(as, sentire igirur debemus certas esse promissiones ae minas Dei, quam eerta sunt, quae manibus palpamus et oeulis eemimus), and he adds several syllogisms, e. g.

"God makes rieh those who give generously to the poor, Abraham gives generously to the poor, therefore, God will make Abraham rieh." Deus ditabit eos qui largiuntur pauperibus Abraham /argitur pauperibus Igitur deus ditabit Abraham.

A little earlier he uses the wrong applieation of the rules for argumentation for an attaek on the Popes: "The levitieal priests had eertain rites. therefore it is right and proper that the Roman pontiffs establish eertain rites. (Tbis eonelusion is not eorreet, beeause) many elements are different here. For the levitieal priests did not establish the rites, but reeeived order and rites from God. The Roman pontiff did not reeei ve anything from God, not an instruetion to establish rites or that diversity of rites" (fol. H 5v-6r: Ponti­fices Levitici habuerunt cenas ceremonias. Ergo oponet Romanos ponti­fices instituere cenos ritus Nam hic multa sunt dissimilia, Pontifex Leviti­eus non instituit eeremonias, sed divinitus accipit et verbum er cere­monias. Roman"s pontifex nO/1 accepil aut divinitus aut ma/1datum de fa­eiendis ritibus, aut illam varietatem rituum). With a similar intention Me­lanehthon chooses the following as example of a wrong conclusion due to a false definition: "Peter was given the powerto bind (forbid, and to solve: alIow, cf. Matth. 16,19); to bind is to lay down laws, therefore Peter was given the power to institute new traditions and laws as regards the worship of Gcd and to pass laws about the foundation of kingdoms of this world"

Page 142: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

134 V. Mela.'lchthon 5 Rhetorical Interpretation

(fol. L Ir: Pelro dala est pOlestas ligandi; ligare est leges condere; ergo Pelro data esl patestos novas traditiolles et leges de cultu Dei condendi et Jerendi leges de constltuendls regnis mundi). And the "type of argument from the whole and its parts" (locus de toto et partibus) he uses for pole­mies against the monks (fol. K Ir-v). In discussing unjustified conclusions he criticizes that "some people in discussions about religious dogmas say a great deal outside the actual subject about the personality ofthe teachers or confusions whieh arose eIsewhere" (fol. L 4v: NonnulU in disputatione de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis. multa extra eaussam de personis doeentium et de tumultibus alicubi exonis dieunt); this is, of course, an old complaint and in the third book (fol. F 2r) he supports it with one of Martial's epi­grams (VII). At the end Melanchthon claims "to have dealt with all the rules which one would commonly use in difficult discussions in order to establish and maintain one's own position and to judge critically those of others" (Complexi sumus Jere omnia praeeepla, quorum aliquls in iudi­calldls et traetandis SUbliUbus eontroversiis usus esse solei); and he adds that the young should conform their manners of discussing matters and their stylistic exereises to these precepts: "Then it will happen that they grasp the power and the usefulness ofthese rules" (fol. L6r: I/ajiet. ut per­spiciant vim atque usum praeeeplionum).

In the same way as the other handbooks the "Dialectices libri quattuor" show to what extent Melanchthon is anxious to make the rules available not least to the young for practical purposes, i. e. for the actual application in their lives in reading and judging texts and in engaging in discussions, especially in defending their own point of view and attacking others in theological disputes; furthermore, unlike his predecessors, he is con­cemed to demonstrate how they may be used to analyse and interpret bib!i­cal texts for which he again claims a special authority. Indeed. he leaves no doubt, that his intention is to provide the tools for a correct understanding and interpretation of the Bible and to make both rhetoric and dialectic available for this purpose.

Melanchthon never ceased 10 be interested in this aspect of his activi­ties, and in 1542 he published a corrected version of his "Elementorum Rhetorices !ibri duo", in 1547 "Erotemata dialeetices""3 This work is

" Wittenberg 1542, see Opera (see n.II), XI1l417-506, reprinted by J. Knape (see n.42), 12 J -165, not meotioned by O. Berwald (see 0.42) who, however. liSls (104-142) numerous other works. speeches and texts which prove Melanchthon's ever live]y in­terest in the application cf rhetoric to various areas, especially to the interpretation afthe

Page 143: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Exegesis beloTe Melanchthon 135

much more extensive and more systematic than its predecessors; and again the author tries to meet the requirements of the theo10gians. He deals with the question Quid est Deus? (fol. D IIIr-v: "What is God?"), and considers numerous aspects of Christi an theology and religious practices as well as passages from the Bible and the Fathers of the Church, some of which he did not mention in the earlier works, whlle others referred to in the earlier works are not made use of here. However, basically the approach is the same as before, and there is no need here to discuss further details. Sufflce it to point out that at the end Melanchthon again expresses hls hope that the work would be useful (as he does in the title), that he again "encourages the youth to apply all parts of dialectic carefully both in judging all matters they leam and in writing as well as in their common discussions" (ad­hortor studiosos ut omlZes dialecticae partes diligelZter exerceant, bl iudi­candis omnibus materiis, quas discunt et in scribelldo, et in familiaribus disputationibus) and that he finishes saying that diaJectic is particularly necessary for the Church (fol. Z VIIv).

Exegesis before Melanchtholl

Here the question arises how and to what extent Melanchthon hirns elf makes use of the wealth of possibilities he unfolds in his manuals, in particularwith regard to the interpretation of biblical texts. But before I try to answer this question, it seems appropriate briefly to consider the earlier forms and types of biblical exegesis. At the beginning I made brief mention of the earliest stages incJuding the Fathers of the Church some of whom were, of course, thoroughly familiar with ancient rhetoric, as e. g. Augustin. Though Melanchthon c1early owes some ideas and suggestions to them, I cannot in thls context deal with them, their works or their methods and have to conflne myself to a few remarks on the Middle Ages and the period ofthe awakening humanistic movement.

Tbe numerous eolleetions of sermons of whieh large oumbers were disseminated after the invention of printing are destined primarily for edification; most of them do not go into the problems of a text, but use a text rather as a basis from whieh they staTt and then develop their own

Bible and other theological or religious activities. Tbe Erotemata DiaJectices were published in Wittenberg in 1547 (see n. 70), an improved version in 1548 (both used here).

Page 144: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

136 V. MeTanchthons Rhetorical Inte,preration

ideas, e. g. the "Pestilla super evangelia" and the "Pestilla super epistelas Pauli", printed under the name ef Guilelmus Parisiensis.94 In the Middle Ages exegetes tend te pay attentien mostly to details, the explanation of single words or phrases in various types of Glossae, and this interest in de­tails finds its expression in the development of Quaesliones also. Explana­tion of details is the object of the "Vocabularius perutilis tenninos bibliae novi et veteris testamenti praegnantes ac difficiles optime declarans" a work of Guilelmus Brito, but ascribed to Henricus de Hassia, printed about 1476 in tnm; similarly the "Marnmetractus" is concerned with the interpretation of single words, mainly with the help of (rather dubious) etymologies, a work composed about 1300 by the Minorite Giovanni Marchesini and despite its deficiencies printed and reprinted very often till the beginning efthe sixteenth century.9S And a beok with such apromising title as "Elucidarius scripturarum", written by Heinrich Jerung and printed in Nümberg in 1476 is ne mere than a dictienary in alphabetical .order,

94 Presumably William ofParis (died about 1485) is the editor, and the author is lohn HeroIt (died 1468, see F. J. Worstbrock. Herolt, in: Verfasserlexikon, 3. 1981, 1123-1127); for the editions see Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 10, 1996,438-480 nos. 11921-12025. here used 11960: Nürnberg 1488. See in general J. Longere etal., Predigt, in: Lexikon des Mittelalters 7 t 1995. 171-183 (172-174: PredigtsammJungen); see also n.59and 62.

9S On the glos{s)a ordinaria see B. SmaUey, GLossa ordinaria, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 13, 1984,452-457; F. Stegmüller (ed.). Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi I-Xl, Madrid 1950-1980, IX 465-556 (on the individual books of tbe Bible with names of authors and manuscripts); for the early editions of the Biblia euro glos(s)a ordinaria see Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke 4, 1930, 134-142 nos. 4282 (Straßburg about ]481, here cODsulted) -4284, also tbe edition with many additions: BibJia sacra cum glossa ordinaria I-V1, Antwcrp 1634 and (due to an erroneous ascription in) Walafridi Strabi ... Opera Omnia, Patrologia Larina, Paris 1852, 113, 67-1316 and 114, 9-752. For the Vocabularius see Gesamtkatalog 10, 1996. 385 no. 11871 (here consulled), see also L. W. Daley and F. A. Daley (edd.), Summa Britonis siv.e Guillelmi Britonis Expositiones vocabulorum Biblie I-ll, Pavia 1975. Fot lhe Mammetrac:tus see L. Hain (see n.9) 11 1, 333-336 nos. 10551-10574 (here consulted: Nilmberg 1489); after1500 the work seerns to bave been printed only in France: Mett 1509; 1511; Paris 1521: OD tbe author see A. Teetaert. Reggio, in: Dictionnaire dc Thf!ologie Catholique 13, 1936-1937,2102-2104. O. th. explanation ofthe Bibi. during the MiddleAges see on the glosses J. GribomoDt aod L. Hödl, Bibel: Bibelglossen, in: Lexikon des Mittelalters 2, 1983,42-43, on the commentaries J. Grlbomont, Bibelkoounentare ibid. 43-44, on the phases of the historical deve10pment see H. Riedlinger, Geschichte der Auslegung, ibid. 47-58 and 62-65 (N. T.) and J. Gamberoni, ibid. 58-62 (0. T.). on the Quaestiones L. HödI, Quaestio, Quaestionenliteratur, ibid. 7,1995.349-350. See also n. 8 and 9.

Page 145: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Exegesis be/ore Melanchthon 137

registering the words with elementary remarks on the declension and con­jugation, references to the occurrences in the Bible and German equiva­lents - with such words as evangelium and gralia, lex and pax missing and fides or peccatum disposed of rather briefly.9' The very popular "Vocabu­larius praedicantium" ofJohannes Melberis even less helpful; on the basis of Jodocus Eichmann's sermons German equivalents are given for each term and occasionally a paraphrase in Latin, but no references to the Bible.97 The great popularity of these compilations shows the level of much of the exegesis of the Bible at the end of the fifteenth century.

However, works of much greater value did exist at the time, e. g. the bulky "Summa praedicantiurn" (printed till the beginning ofthe sixteenth century) of the English Dominican John Bromyard, in which the author under such headings as abieetio, abstinentia, absolulio, accidia, cara, casritas, cor and gloria C"dejection", "restraint", "release", "gloom", "flesh", "chastity", "hearC and "glory") first suggests same aspects for the treatment (nature, special features, usefulness, dangers, examples) and then adduces and discusses numerous relevant passages from the Bible and theFathers, also from pagan authors and medieval theological or legal writings, partly with view to a possible application to preaching.98 The

96 On the author see F. Stanonik. Jerung. in: Al1gemeine Deutsche Biographie 13. 1881,779.

97 On J. Melber and his work see K.. Kirchert and D. Klein, Melber. in: Verfasserlexi­kon 6, 1987,367-371, for the editions see F. elaes, Bibliographisches Verzeichnis der deutschen Vokabulare und Wörterbücher, gedruckt bis 1600. Hildesheim 1977, 235 (Re­gister); on J. Eichmann see F. J. Worstbrock, Eichmann, in: Verfasserlexikon 2,1980, 394-397: edition here cODsulted: Nümberg about 148J.1t seerns worth noting that in front of the Margarita poetica of Albrecht von Eyb (see n.53) one fiods after a Tahula s;ve Registrum proesentis operis (fol. 2r-4r) an extensive lnveniendarwn auctoritatum tabrtla in alphabetical order (fol. 4v-26v), and this is even explicitly indicated in tater editions in tbe title (e. g. StraBburg 1503): Praecipuarum materiarum ac sententiarum Operis Margaritae poeticae insignitj iuxta alphabeticum ordinem collecta Annotatio (at tbe end oftbe work: fol.Aa Ir-Dd Xr).

98 In front ofbis work with very fun indices are printed (a tabula vocalis, a lengthy tabula realis and another tabula vocalis) to make the wealth of material more easily accessible. On the author see F. Wagner, Johannes von Bromyard, in: Lexikon des M;ttela1ters 5, 1991. 558. on his date (death before 1352, not in 1409) and thaI of his works see L. E. Boy1e, Speculum48, 1973,533-537, on the work also P. Binldey, in: J. W. Drijvers and A. A. MacDonald (edd.), Centres ofLeaming. Learning aod Location in Pre-Modem Europe and Ihe Neor Bast, Leiden 1995,255-275, who 257 stresses rightly that it 1S more man just a collectioD of exarnples: for the editions see Tb. KaeppeH. Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi 11, Rom 1974, 394~ in the edition I used

Page 146: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

138 V. Melanchthon s Rhetoricallntt'rpl'elalio,t

same eould be said ofthe "Compendium morale", eomposed or edited by the Augustinian Eremite Antonio de Rarnpegolis and anonymously published by Brother N. de Ianua, later frequently printed with various tit­les such .s "Liber manualis ae introduetorius in bibliae historias figuras­que veteris et novi testamenti peroptimus Aurea biblia voeitatus".99 In this work one finds numerous key eoneepts in alphabetieal order, eaeh with a definition or a paraphrase followed by some refleetions and referenees to Ihe Bible, e. g. ehapter 46: De fide ad deum ("On the belief in God"), ehap­ter 47: Defide magna mulierum ("On the strong belief of wornen"), ehap­ter 53: De gratiis agendis deo ("On the gratitude owed to God") orehapter 107: De proeeeplis dei ("On God's orders"). These eollections show that people were rnmnly interested in the content, the meaning of terms .nd eoneepts, not in theform oflhe writings oftheBible, notin an .ppreciation of their literary eharacter (psalm, gospel, epistle) or of the context, e. g. the argumentation, in which particular terms occur. Furthermore they also point to a special interest in moral questions (in addition to theological ones). A sirniIar ernphasis on problems of eontent rather than form is shown by the medieval commentators on the Bible some of whom -like the preachers - tend not 10 explmn a partieular verse or word, but to use it merely as starting point for a lang discussion of abasie theologieal issue.1oo

(Basel not after 1484) the article on fides has about sixteen pages. that on gratia more than nine. on lexJ/eges more than five, on pax about eleven and peccatum ten and peccacCJr another six; there is no pagination. but under eacb Jetter there &Ce separate chapters for each tenn.

99 The question whetber Bindo cf Siena (died 1390) is tbe author and Antonio de Rampegolis (about 1360-about 1423) the editor only, cannot be discussed here. The Liber qui dicitur compendium morale. utitis pro sennanibus el collacionibus faciendis was publisbed first in Augsburg, probably in 1473 (here consulted),later tive times in ltaly and France before 1500, first Milan 1494 (.Iso consulted here), also with the title Figurae Blbliae. The Reportatorium Bibliae aureum, Augsburg 1474, also with the title tibeT manualis ... (see text). Ulm 1475 or Aureurn repertorium bjbliae, Nürnberg 1481 (here used and cited, Da pagination; eleven incunabula) or Biblia aurea cum suis historijs necnon exemplis ... , s. I. 1496 (here used). ascribed to the same author, is more comprehensive and has a different arrangement The Verzeichnis (see 0.31) I, 1983, 431-432 registers of Ibe Repertorium three German printings: A 2968-2970, of Ibe Figurae five: A 2971-2975 (here consulted: Straßburg 1516); numerous others were printed in France and ItaIy, the tast in 1849.

100 See in general F. Stegmüller (see n. 95), B. Smalley, Tbe Study (see n. 8) .nd H. de Lubac, Exegese medievaIe (see n. 8). There are printed editions e. g. oftbe Glossa or­dinaria ac magistralis super epistolas beati pauli apostoli, Esslingen 1473 and Glossa Of-

Page 147: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Exegesis btfore Melanchthon 139

How did the humanists react? Lorenzo VaJla (1407-1455), scholar at the court of Alfonso 1., king of Naples, and later papal secretary, famous for his interest in and work on the Latin language (UElegantiae Iinguae la­tinae"), is the first of the humanists graduaJly to introduce the methods developed for pagan texts to the interpretation oftbe Bible, and especiaUy ofthe New Testament. He has the advantage ofknowing Greek and of be­ing in a position which enables him 10 use and collate several manuscripts (seven Greek, four Latin ones).IOI He becomes aware of different readings and the need of establishing a correct text; and he begins, therefore, to compare the Vulgate with the Greek text and to correct the Vulgate with the help ofthe Greek, whether he regards the Vulgale as conscientiously or

dinaria in prophetam, Nürnberg about 1476 (also 1478) ofPete, Lombard, who does no more than put together the commeots of some Fathers tl;nd exegetes from the early tvIiddle ages~ of Hugo de Sancto Caro (about 1200-1263) the Postilla super evangelium. Basel 1482 and the postilla super psalterium, Venezia 1496 and Nümberg 1498, also the Biblia cum postillis Hugonis, Base11498-1502; of Albertus Magnus apart from sermo­nes notabiIes ". de tempore et de sanctis (eight incunabula, see Gesamtkatalog der Wie­gendrucke 1, 1925,374-381 nos. 771-778) tbe ... postillain evangelium beati Johannis, Köln about 1478 (see Gesamtkatalog 1,1925,287-288 no. 612). ofThomasAquinas: Postilla ... in job, Esslingen 1474, continuum (in quattuor evangelistas), Roma 1470 (also: Grosa continua super quatuorevangelistas, Nümberg 1475; eight jncunabula) and comentaria super epistolas ." pauJi, Bologna 1481 (three incunabula); further of the Jate medieval commentaries: Nikolaus Gorranus (about 1210-1295), PostilJa multum soJen~ nis super epistolas Pauli. Köln 1478, and - with different titles. also in partial editions (first Roma 1471-1472) tbe Postilla super totam Bibliam of Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1349, see also n. 9); the Liber .. , super totwn corpus evange1iorum or Liber de gestis domini salvatoris, Straßburg 1484-1487 (also twoltalian translations as incunabula) oe Simon Fidati of Cascia (1290-1348). the Expositio ". in Psalterium, Speyer 1491 of Ludolf of Saxoay (1300-1378), edited by 1. WirnpfeJing (see O. Herding et al. [edd.]. Iacobi Wunpfelingii Opera Seleeta I-rn [see n.28], m: Briefwechsel, r 161-163 (no. 22]), tbe PostiUa super epistolas Pauli. Köln 1478 and the Postilla cum sermonibus evangeliorum dominicalium, Straßburg 1496 ofNicholas ofDinkelsbühl (1360-1433), the Expositio brevis et utUis super toto psalterio, Rom 1470 (twenty-one incunabula) 3f'd the Quaestiones Evange1iorum tarn de tempore quam de sanctis collectae, Roma 1477 (lwelve incunabula) of lohn of Turrecremata (1388-1468); the Expositio supe, librum plialmorum ofPetrus de Herenthals (1322-1390) compiles excerpts from earlier commentators. Severa1 of the works mentioned were printed both berore and even after 1500.

101 See J. H. Bentley (see n.9), 32-69. on the manuscripts 38, and in general S. C3mporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teoJogia. Firenze 1972~ also eh. Trinkaus, In Qur Image and Likeness. Humanity and Divinity in ltaHan Humanistic Thought I-lI, London 1970, esp. 571-578, also 674--682 and id., Valla, in: Contemporarie. of Erasmus 3,1987, 371-375.

Page 148: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

140 V. Melam:hrhon:S- Rhetoricallnterpretation

ußeonscientiously eorrupted or mistranslated. Rejeeting the traditional medieval forms of exegesis, apart from the historical the three forms of ,spiritual'. that is the allegorieal, tropologieal and analogical interpreta­tion (see n. 63), he tries in his "Collatio Novi Testamenti" in each case to find the one exact meaning of a word or a passage. Thus, his approach is rather narrow, with virtually no interest in rhetorieaI aspeets. His remark on the beginning of the gospel of Mark "One should begin with some wortby subjeet and with naming a man rather than with an action ofhis as ifhis name was mentioned already" (incipiendllmJuit a dignitate aliqua et Illl"cupatione viri potius quam ab eius actione tamquam de eius nomine Juisset iam/acta mentio)102 is not meant to give a stylistic eomment; he is coneemed to justify a suggested change of the text At any rate, vana does not appear to reflect upon the methods he is applying, nor does he seem to "employ (sc. for the New Testament) some of the methods he used in bis textual scbolarship on classieal works" .103 And while he gains fame by proving the Donation of Constantine to be a forgery (also the correspon­denee between Paul and Seneea), he refrains from diseussing authorship or authentieity ofbooks ofthe New Testament. However, occasionally his careful examination of the text leads bim to corrections or improvements with important doetrinal eonsequenees.

Valla's ..... in Latinam Novi testarnenti interpretationern ... Adnotatio­nes ... " were pubHshed by Erasmus who regards Valla together with his eontemporary Jaeques Lerevre d'Etaples as his predecessors. 104 Lerevre, a Frenehman, trained and first aetive in Paris, influenced later by Aristote­Hanism througb his friend Pico della Mirandola and by mystieism Ihrough the writings of Nieholas of Cusa, translales, interprets and preaches the word of God. In 1509 he pubHshes a "Quincuplex Psalterium, gallicum, romanum, hebraicum, vetus et conciliatum" with several translations, grammatical notes, an Expositio continua and acollection ofparallel pas­sages and in 1512 "S. PauH epistolae XlV ex Vulgata, adieeta Intelligentia ex graeeo, eum eommentariis", thatis the Vulgate, a translation ofhis own

10! Valla wlote his Col1atio Novi Testamenti in 1442-1448 (not published till 1970 in Florence by A. Perosa) and rewrote it 1453-1457, printed by Erasmus: Laurenti Vallensis ... in Latinam Novi testamenti iuterpretationem ... AdDotationes apprime utiles .... Paris 1505. On Vallas remarlcs on the Vulgate see eh. C. Celenza. The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 24. 1994.33-52 (with further licerature).

\03 Se. H. Bendey (see n. 9),39. 104 See G. BedoueUe. LeRvre d'Etaples et l'Intelligence des Ecritures. Genev. 1976

.nd above n. 27 and 65.

Page 149: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Exegesis belore Melanchrhon 141

(from the Greek), • theologicaJ commentary .nd Examina/iones circa lil­teram in which he compares different translations .nd .dduces paralleIs from the New Testament. IOS He seems to regard the Holy Scripture .s. gift of God, transmitted by the Holy Spirit through the various authors of the Bible as ;nstrumenta and to be further elucid.ted with the help of God through commentators as subinstrumenta, provided they approach their task in an attitude ofhumility and belief. Most important for the interpreta­tion, he thinks, is the Holy Spirit as whose instrument the exegete has to understand himself. Starting from certain assumptions about the nature of the word of God, especially its dignity, Letevre is primarily concerned with its literal meaning which he tries to determine by philological me­thods on the basis of the Greek text, however, without showing interest in rhetoricaJ problems.106

Erasmus, born and educated in the Low Countries and influenced by the Devalia model7la, the Brethren of the Cornmon Life, and more especially by the beginnings ofhumanistic studies north oftheAlps, early develops a keen interest in language and literature of the Greeks. I07 Tbe encounter with John Colet in Oxford makes him turn to religious matters. IOB Well

lOS A second edition of the Quincuplex was published in Paris in 1513. of the commentary with the litle Epistoie divi PauJi apostoli cum cornmentarüs in 1515 and 1517, the preface being dated in 1515. Later Le~v[e published Commentatorii initiatorii in quatuor Evangelia, Meaux 1522 and Commentarii in Epistolas Catholicas. Basel 1527.

"6 Se. his dedie.tory letter to the (younger) Guillaume Bri~onnet (1472-1524), introdudng his commentary on Paul's epistles (fol. a Iv-a Irr), in part reprinted by G. Bedouelle (seen. 104). 141-145,seealso 146-151 andhispraefatio forthe commenlary on the gospels of 1522 (fol. a !Ir-aIVv), in p.rtreprinted by G. Bedouelle 152-157, see also E. F. Rice, The Prefatory Epistles (see n.27), 295-302 (text of 1515) aod 434-442. On Lhe role of the Holy Spirit see G. Bedouelle 185-189. on Lelevre's philologieal method 27, on his exegetical principles see further F. Hahn, Faber Slapulensis und Lutber. Zeitschrift fllr Kirchengeschichte 57, 1938, 356-432, esp. 396-424; S. Hausammann. Römerbriefauslegung zwischen Humanismus und Refonnation, Zürich 1970, 8S-117; J. B. Payne, Er.smus and LeTevre d'Etaples as Interpreters of Paul, Archiv ftlr Refonnationsgeschichte 65, 1974,54-82.

107 See only C. Augustijn, Erasmus, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 10, 1982, 1-18; O. Herding, Erasmus, in: Lexikon des Mittelalters 3, 1986, 2096-2100; H. Holeczek. Erasmus, jn: Literatur Lexikon 3, 273-281.

lOB 1467-1519, see J. B. Trapp, Cole!, in: Contemporaries ofErasmusl, 1985,324-328. His commentaries remained unpublished for a lang time: J. H. Lupton (ed.). Ioannis Coleti Enarratio in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romanos, London 1873 and in primam Epistolam S. Pauli ad Corinthios, LODdon 1874 {hath reprinted Famborough 1965 and

Page 150: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

142 V. Me/onchthol1 S Rlretorical Interpretation

versed in Greek he soon realizes Ihe need for a eareful examination or re­examinalion of the basis of the Christian faith, the lext of the Bible; and afler writing a eommenlary on the epislles of Paul, which was never prinled, in 1516 he publishes the Greekiexi ofthe New Testament logether with an importanl methodologieal introduction and Adnolationes and since 1517 "Paraphrases" on mosl parts ofthe New Testament. In 1519 he is bold enough 10 edil a new Latin translation (10 replace the Vulgate). Thereby he revolutionized the study of the New Testamenl and paved the way for Melanchthon's work and for that of many others.I09

Erasmus is familiar with rhelorieal theory, e. g. with Quintilian, and re­gards rhetorical training as useful for a future theologian; and he refers 10

Augustin not only to support his own views, but also for the observation that Paul employs rhelorical schemala. But in his own exegesis rhetorie plays virtually 00 part. lIO His method is basieally philologie.l; for his aim

1968); see now B. O'Kelly and C. A. L. Jarrott (edd.), John Cole!. First Corintbians, BinghamtoD 1985.

109 Cf. Novum Instrumentum amne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum .... Basel 1516 (with Methodus: fol. bbb lr-bbb Sv and. following tbe text. Adnotaüones 231-675. prae/atio: 225-230), reprinted witb corrections: Novum Testamentum omne. mulla quam antehac diligentius ab Erasmo Roterodamo recogni­turn. emendatum et translatum. Basel 1519. again 1522; 1527; 1535: Tomus primus Paraphraseon D. Erasmi Roterodami, in novum testamentum, Basel 1524 and Tomus se­cundus cODtinens Paraphrasim D. Erasmi Rot. In omneis epistolas apostoIicas .... Basel 1523 (this edition here used); for the numerous early editions of his paraphrases and eommentaries see Verzeichnis (see n. 31) 6, 1986, 192-308: E 2459-2461; 2504; 2727-2743: 3052-3071: 3093-3131; 3320-3387; cf. also J. C1erieus (ed.). Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia ... I-X. Leiden 1703-1706,5: on various psalm. (171-556); 6: Novum Testamentum; 1: Paraphrases in N. Testamentum. Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi RoterodamLAmsterdam since 1969. esp. 5, 2 and 5, 3.1985-1986: Enarrationes in Psalmos: The Collected Works cf Erasmus. Toronto since 1974 esp. 42: New Testa­ment Scholarsh.ip. Paraphrases on Romans and Galatians. 1984; 46: Paraphrase on lohn. 199 J; 49: Paraphrase on Mare, 1988. See further A. Reeve and M. A. Sere.eh (edd.), Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: ACES, Romans, land U Corinthians. lei­den 1990. For the two versions of the Methodus see A. and H. Holbom (edd.). Desi­derius Erasmus Roterodamus. Ausgewählte Werke, München 1933. 150-162 (1516) and t77-305 (expanded version: Ratio seu methodus 1518 and later with additions). On Erasmus' exegesis see c.g_ S. Hausammann (see n.l06). 117-144; J. H. Bentley (see n.9). 112-193; F. Krüger. Humanistische Evangelienauslegung. Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam als Ausleger der Evangelien in seinen Paraphrasen, Tübingen 1986; E. Rummel. Erasrnus' Annotationes on the New Testameo4 Toronto 1986. see also Th. Wengert. Melanchthon'sAnnotationes (see n. 8).

110 Rhetorical traininlt: A. and H. Holborn (edd.). Desiderius Erasmus (see n. 109),

Page 151: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Exegesis before Melanchthon 143

is to establish a conect text (in bis edition) and to justify it and to make it intelligible through bis Adnotationes and his translation. Thus he colJates manuscripts, and with their help examines the text carefully, conects corruptions (also wrong translations), considers variant readings, tries to solve linguistic difficulties by pointing out grarnmatical f1aws and explaining single words or phrases, using the c1assical Greek authors as standard, while hirnseI! not unaware of the special nature of the language of the New Testament. While rejecling the four senses of the Holy Scrip­tures, occasionally he indulges in allegorical interpretation. Sometimes he considers historical questions, or discovers and discusses discrepancies in the various accounts of the apostles orthe authenticity of particular works, or addresses hirnself to moral or doctrinal issues. But his main "purpose is to render the text more accurate and lucid, and to improve the Latin".l1l In paying special attention to these aspects he shows hirnself aware of the basic roles and principles of rhetoric; but in analysing and interpreting the texts he does not resort to its particular categories or terms.

Martin Luther, finally, Hke most of his contemporaries is also, clearly, farniliar with the rhetorical writings of the ancient authorities and, of course, with Augustin 's De doctrina Christialla; indeed, he notes a few rhetorical terms in the margin ofbis copy, especially of the fourth book.1!2 But in bis first lecture on the psalms rhetorical remarks are rare, and tbis is true also ofhis lectures on the letterto tbe Romans (1516-1518) and on the letter 10 the Galatians, edited by Melanchthon witb a preface and an epi­logue and printed in 1519.113 Quite obviously, Luther does not systema-

154; 185; 187 (Quintilian); 190-191; Augustin: 153 ; 184; Paul's rhetorkai schemata: ISS; 190.

111 See E. Rummel (see n. 109). 89. For his genera] advice for the young see his Ratio seu compendium verae theologiae, per Erasmum Roterodamum. Basel 1519. 12: Hic primus el unicus libi sil scopus, hoc votum, hoc unumage, ut muteris, ut rapiaris. [d

affleris, ut Iransj'ormeris in ea, quae disäs. 112 See Luthers Werke (see n. 27) 9,1893,11-12 and H. lungh.ns, Derjunge LUlher

und die Humanisten, Göuingen 1985.209-210. 113 See Dictata super Psalterium 1513-1516: Luthers Werke (see n. 27) 3. 1885. 1-

652 and 4. 1886, 1-462. on Luther's rhetorical remarks see H. Junghans, (see n.112), 240-273: see also Auslegung der Bußpsalmen in deutscher Sprache, Werke I, 1883, 158-220 (printed fitst in Witlenberg, 1517) .nd Auslegung des 109. (110.) Psalms, Luthers Werke I, 1883, 687-710 (first Augsburg 1518, both without .ny rhetorical rcmarks): for the letter to the RomaDs sec Luthers Werke 56, 1938,3-154 (glosses) and 157-528 (scholl.) .nd Cor tholetlet 10 Ibo Galatians Luthers Werke 751l, 1939,5-108, see further In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas commentarius, Leipzig 1519: Luthers

Page 152: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

144 V. Meltmchthon's Rhetoricol Interpretation

tieallyavail himself of the opportunities offered by rhetorie, its eategories and its technieal terms, to understand and expound texts of Ihe Bible, whether Iheir structure or Iheir style. This is more or less Ihe picture which offered itself to Melanchlhon when he studied and tried to find his own approach and his own manner of interpreting Ihe Bible.114

Melanchthon:S Early Commentaries on Paul:S Letters

To answer Ihe questions how Melanehlhon developed bis melhods of exe­gesis one would have 10 know more exaetly how he proeeeded in bis first leetures. He begins very early to edit works of a number of pagan aulhors. For Ihe eomedies of Terenee he writes extensive Prolegomena wilhout touehing rhetorical malters (1516), and four treatises by P1utareh, one in Latin translation (1517; 1519; 1521), two treatises by Lucian in Latin translation (1518; 1520, Greek text of Ihe first: 1521), two sermons by Gregory ofNazianzus (1519; 1520), !Wo letters ascribed to Demoslhenes (abaut 1520), the Nubes by Arlstophanes and the Phaenomena of Aratus (1521) are printed eitber without notes or wilh a few marginalia mostly on Iinguistic points or the subject-matter, and only a very few on rhetorica! aspeets. 1I5 In addition we have Ihe notes on the brief passages wbieh he

Werke 2, 1 884, 43~18 with 443-445 (pref.ce by Otho Germ.ous = Melaochthon. see Briefwechsel. Texte [seen. 15], 1121-124) und 618 (epilogue: see Briefwechsel. Texte I ] 48-149; edition bere consulted: Basel] 520 wilh preface: fol. Iv-Ur and epilogue 245-246) also 442. Melanchthon's preface for [he edition Wittenberg 1523 (see Briefwechsel. Texte II 75-76); on thc prefaces seeJ. R. Schneider (see D. 11),97-113.

114 One might supplement it by references to Melanchthon's mentor Reuchlin whose intention in writing the In septem psalmos poenitentiales hebraicos inrerpretatio de verba ad verbum, et super eisdem commentarioli sui ad discendum linguam hebraicam ex rudimentis, Tübingen 1512 (see Verzeichnis [see n. 3112,1984.505 B 3406) was to tcach Hebrew or to Wimpfeling's pupil Thomas Wolf (1475-1509) who expl.ioed both pagan and biblical texts with the aim of moral education, cf. Bemardus in Symbolum Apostolorum ... Thomas Wolphius Iunior in Psalmum Benedicam (Straßburg 1507) with occasional rhelarical remarIes e. g. on 33. 12 (l'enite, filii ... ) Nunc propheta more oratorio audifores reddit benivolos ... (fol. D VIv), see also In Psalmum Damine quis habitiibt (sie) in Tabemaculo tuo, Straßburg 1508, see VeT7.eichnis (see n. 31) 22,1995, 308 W 4278-4280; 00 the author see Ch. Scbmidl, Mistoire (see n. 56). II 58-86; O. Herding cl al. (edd.) (see n.28) Adolescentia 144-151: on the limited interest cf Wimpfeling himself in the psalms and in Paul see O. Herding el al. (edd.). Jacobi Wimpfelingä Opera Setecta 1-1II (see n. 28), II1: Briefwechsel, I 16-21.

"' See K. Hanfeider, Philipp Melanchthoo (see n. 11),579-581 nos. 3; 5; 15; 46: 8;

Page 153: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchtho,rs Early Commentaries on Paul's Leiters 145

inserts in his Greek grammar, marginal notes printed in his two editions of the letter to the Romans, his "Theologica Institutio" and the notes taken down by students during his lectures on the letter to the Romans (see the "Artifitium" and the "PA WOAIAI" [sicD and to the Galatians.116

The notes in the Greek grammar cannot help (see n. 30). As indicated, they deal with linguistic details, not with stylistic malters, let alone aspects of structure, as only short excerpts are being explained. We have to turn, therefore, to Melanchthon's lectures. In 1518 he chooses as his topic the lelter to litus, in 1519 the psalms, the gospel ofMatthew and Pau!'s epistle 10 the Romans. As he regards this as a fundamental document of the Christian faith, he composes the "Theo10gica Institutio ... in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos", probably first for his personal use and gradually also for the benefit of his students,1l7 applying the tools of dialectic to it and reducing its content with their belp to the "basic issues" (lod): iustificatio ('~ustification"), praedestinatio et vocatio gentium ("predestination and the calling of the gentiles") and mores format ("moulding of conduct").

22; 42; 44 (incomplele); forthe details ofthe editions (an in Greek except. of course, ror Terence and the translations) see MelanchthoD Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15). I 45-51 (00.7: Terence): 56-58: 113-114: 118-119: 424 (nos. 13; 48: 52 [with a piece from Pindar] and 198: Plutarch); 72-75: 182: 272-273 (nos. 23: 79 [with a speech from Thucydides] and 133: Ludan); 147-148 (no. 64: Gregory, see also Verzeichnis [see n. 31] 8, 1987, 131 G 3093 and 3092); 161-162 (no. 71: Demosthenes); 203-205 (no. 89: Aristophanes): 420-421 (ne. 1 %: Antus). Melanchthon lectured on Horner's Tliad in 1519 (se. Briefwechsel. Texte [see n.15], I 115-117 [no. 50D, but whether he was also responsible for the editioD published in Wittenberg 1519 (see O. Beuttemüller, Vorläufiges Verzeichnis der Melanchthon·Drucke des 16. lahrhunderts, Halle 1960, 20 [no. 541 or Verzeichnis [see n.3119, 1987,331 H 4672) is quite uncenain. and !his applies also to other editioDs which are sometimes ascribed to hirn; he did, however, work on other authors. e. g. Hesychius. see BriefwechseL Texte (see n. 15), I 75-76 (no. 24) and 91-92 (no. 35).

116 Per his edition ef the Latin translation of the letter to the Romans see Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15), I 211-212 (no. 940); for the edition of the Greel< text ibid. I 292-293 (no. 142: 1521), while K. Hartfelder (see n. 11), 580 (no. 27) and SI. Strohm et al., Griechische Bjbeldrucke. Die BibelsammluDg der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttga" I 3, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1984. 9 (C 9) assurne 1520 os date of publication: for the Iostitutio see E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n. 68),90-99, for the lecture-notes see !he Artifitium ibid. 20--30, the PA 'l'OAIAI EN IIA Y AOY AD ROMANOS ibid. 45-85 and the ES'!Y'1at, Methodico ibid. 34--37.

117 See W. Maurer, in: Luther~lahrbuch 27. 1960, 1-50. esp. 2-6 and id., Der junge MelanchthoD (see 0.11), n 103-107. also A. Schirmer. Das Paulusverständnis (see n. 11) andl. R. Schneider (seen. 11), 131-146. Fortheloci see E. Bi,er (eel.), Texte (see n. 68),90 ..

Page 154: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

146 V. Melanchthon:r Rlretorical Jnt~rpretation

He adds a Summa, an explanation of the structure of its first eight chap­ters and of the argumentation, here using the categories of rhetoric. He de­tennines the "issue" (status causae), "Justice through faith without good works" (illstitia ex fide sine operibus), assigns the work to "the judicial kind" (genus iudiciale), and registers thc presence at least ofthree essen­tial parts: "introduction" (exordium), "statement of facts" (narratio) and "proor' (confinnatio), adding that they are "fittingly put together".118 Next he notes the "address" (inscriptio) and implies thereby, after using oratio ("speech, utterance"), that this is not a speech, but a letter, befoTe pointing to two topics appropriate for the introduction: securing "good­will" (benevolentia) and "attention" (attentio). Briefly he summarizes "the purpose ofthe statement offacts" (consilium narrationis) and enume­rates the six basic propositions in this seetion which he thus shows to be not "an account of events", but a part on which Paul can draw and rely for his argumentation. In addition he identifies two digressions here (2, 1-16 and 3, 1-8), which he advises the reader "not to overlook, because other­wise he would not grasp the thread ofthe discussion".119 Passing on to the confin7Ultio ("proor'), he begins with a list of the arguments in chapter four, points to an amplificatio ("amplification") at Hs end aDd an exhorta­rio ("exhortation") at the beginning of the foJlowing chapter,120 analyses the next section (5, 12-7, 14) and labels it as locus didactieus ("a teaching piece") "by means of which Paul shows what sin, grace and law are and wheTe they originate from" (quo quid et unde peccatum, gratia et lex sit, docet).Again he marks a digression here (6,1-7,7), this time conta1ning a moralis disputatio ("a moral discussion"), and adds: et is loeus arbitrii Ii­bertatem lollit ("and this point eliminates the freedom of decision"), there­by revealing his theological concern.

After a sbort summary of the content of7, 14-8, 12 Melancbthon charac­terizes the rest up 10 chapter nine as exhortatory and consolatory, indicates

118 See E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n. 68), 97: apte composita. 119 See E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n. 68), 98: liane Mrrationem Paullß utendit ad

caput usqUt quanttrn, er miscer ei aliquot digressiones. quas nisi quis observet, non Jodle putern adsecuturum dispurQtionisjilwn.

120 Exhortatio is occasionally used by Quintilian in a technical sense for a kind of discourse or part cf it, e. g. inst. 07. X 1, 47 tagether wlth laudes and consolationes in a combination similar to 1 Cor. 14, 3, see also Sen. epist. 95, 65 (Posidonius) and Mar. Victorin. rhet. 1.5 p. 174,29-38 wha emphasiz.es that some exc1ude it from rbetarie; see also abovechapter II n. 44. However, exhonatio accursin tbe Vulgate several limes, and this mayaiso have influenced Melanchthon.

Page 155: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchth()n S Earl}' Commentaries on Paul 's Leffers 147

the content of chapters nine, ten and eleven with very brief remarks and sums up even more abrupdy the last five chapters with "the rest is about conduct", in a manner reminiscent of the Iod of the "Institutio" .121 As re­gards the rhetorical categories, it seems worth noting that Melanchthon gi ves a term like narratio a rather unusual meaning and, after inttoducing the genus c5Lc5ax"tlxov in bis "De Rhetorica libri" for a special kind of the demonstrative kind, here he uses locus didacticus for the first time. 122 As Melanchthon is at the same time engaged in presenting the theory of rheto­rie and in analysing texts, successful crossfertilization yields new insight in the two areas. In the "Institutio" his main concern is fuJly to grasp the dogmatic issues raised by this letter and he enlists the help of diaJectie; but the addition of the Summa shows that a fuH understanding of the text is possible for hirn only on the basis of a thorough rhetorical analysis of the structure of the whole, of the argumentation and of the style.

121 See E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n. 68), 99: Reliqua usque ad IX. Cap. adhonatoria sunt er consolariones q/(aedam. Caput IX. praed(!st;nationem er vocationem gentilun continet. Capul X. comparationem iuslitiae fidei et iustitiae pharisaicae. Coput Xl. adhorlaJionem. Reliqua moroUa sunt.

122 Melanchthon may have been inspired by tbe Greek ÖlÖa'K"tI,xo~ which occurs in 1 TIm. 3, 2 and 2 Tim. 2. 24. the Church Fathers aod Philo to introduce didacticus which he seems to be the first author to use in Latin. Later in his Elementorum rhetorices !ibri (see n. 66) be prefers 10 speak oftbe ÖLÖClOl<aÄ'l<ÖV genus 0536: fol. A 8v-B Ir) 0' Ibe gtnus didascalicwn (fol. B 3r-B 6r), perhaps because not only ÖLÖaOXaAlKOV is more common. and even didascaUclU is not entirely unkDown (cf. E. Lommalzsch, in: Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 5. I. 1909-1934, 1015); see also c. g. on psalm 51 (written in 1551: Opera [see n.IIJ, xm 1225). It should be no"'d tbat in bis De officiis concionatoris MeLanchthon. in distinguishing tria genera concionum names ötöax'n,,6v with Vtl'tQeJt'tI.XOV and 1taeaLVE"tL:v.oV and discusses it at length: De gene~ didactico. I am using the text. as it is printed at the end of G. Maior (ed.), Enarratjo Epistolae Pauli Secundae Ad TImotheum. Praelecta Anno 1562. A D., Wlttenberg 1564 (fol. 114v-122r, see esp. 115, and 116r-122,), a ve ... ion nol mentioned by lhe modem editors P. Drews and F. Cohrs (Supplementa Melanchthoniana V 2: Homiletische Schriften [Leipzig 1929], [ext: 5-14, list of earlier editions: XXXI-XL) who assign this work to May/June 1529 (LI); lhe remark in the edition of ]564 (foL I 14v) scripllU1l ame anßOs 36 ("written thiny-six years ago") seems to be unknown to them. also other pieces by MeJanchthon. printed there. e. g. Melhodus discendi sacras literas (fol. 110r~114v). Praeceptum de studio etexercitio doctrinae (fol. 144v-145r). De tribus partibus offieii concionatoris (fol. 145r~ 149r) and Oe tribus contionum generibus in enarratione dicti Paulini 1. Corinth. XlIII (fol. 162v~165v). where Melanchthon speaks of a species alhCl(J)(,aAl.X~ (fol. 162v) besides adhortatio and consolatio (no date given).

Page 156: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

148 V. Melanchthon 's Rhetorical Interpretation

This is also proved by rhetorical notes in the margins of his editions of the Latin and of the Greek text of Paul's epistle to the Romans 123 and by the "Artifitium ", another set of notes from Ihe lectures on this letter which have much in common with Ihe Summa. l24 But there are also differences which are instructive, as they prove !hat Melanchthon is constantly at work in order to come to a more adequate appreciation of this letter in a1l its details and thus to a fuller understanding of its message. Having identified a loeus didaeticus in the fifth chapter in the Summa he now as­signs the whole letter to his new genus I'llöa"n"ovl25 and adds numerous technieal terms from rhetorie as well as dialectic together with some which are found in both in so far as both deal e. g. with argumentation. A little surprisingly on I, 18 he notes Elocutio ("expression"), a very general term, the intention probably being to draw attention to the special manner in which Paul gives expression to God's anger. Later one meets with re­marks on the structure: digressio, digressiuncula or excursus ("digres­sion": 2, 1; 16; 3,1; 5,1; 6, I; 7, 6; 10,4), epi/ogus ("concluding part within a speech: 8, 12) andperoratio ("final part ofa speech": 15, 15),126 also on the argumentation: amplijicatio ("amplification": 3, 10[-18]; 4, 16), contentio ("anti thesis: 8, 5), occupatio or occupatiuncula ("anticipatioD of an opponent's argument": 2, 25; 3, 19; 31; 9, 1: pathe/ica: "emotional"), quaestio ("question": 6,15) and simile or similitudo ("eomparison": 7, I; 12,4: elegantissima). Furthermore there are notes on the types of speech: adlwNatio ("appeal": 13, 11; 15, 1, cf. 8, 12), consolatio ("consolation": 5, 12; 11, I, cf. 8, 12), parameticus [oeus

123 For the editions see n. 116; the nates (more exhaustive with thc Greek text) may be fOURd most easily in the footnotes ofthe edition of tbe Artifitium by E. Bizer (ed.). Texte (see n. 68). 20-30.

124 See e. g. the remarks on status. epigraplu or e:cordium with its loei: E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n. 68). 97 (Summa) and 20--21 (Artifitium).

125 See E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n. 68), 20 and 24 for the remark on 5 .. 12: n()vus loeus et Didactiew. Melanchthon does not use narralio again here by which he characterizes the seetion 1, 18-3.31 in the Summa (see E. Bizer [ed.l, Tex.te [see n. 68], 97-98: three limes) and which one finds in the edition of the Latin text (see E, Bizer [ed.]. Texte [,ee n.68], 21) and.gain in bi,Annotatione, of 1522 (see fol. B 2v).

(26 Here the rhetorica1 theory is explicitly referred to, see E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see D.68), 30: Peroratio qua pr;mum per Rheloricam licentiam excusat Quod liberius scripserit. Deinde mulla C'ongerit ut sole.", in Epistola ("Tbe concluding part where he fust, with the liceDce granted by rhetorical theory, excuses why he writes with greater freedorn and then assembles many points, as peaple da in a letter"). One should remember that !icentia as liberius dicere is listed by Melanchthon in his De Rhetorica libri tres (see n. 42) 126 as ODe of thejigUl-at sentemÜJrwn.

Page 157: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Me/aTZchtlzon s Early COlnmentarles on Paul's Letters 149

("admonishing seetion": 12, I) and obiurgatio ("rebuke": 1,30) and on matters of style: apostrophe ("addressing someone": 11. 13), O1JV­

a9QoLO!!0,ICoacervatio ("piling up": I, 29), exclamatio ("excla­mation": 10, 1) and shema (O')(ij!!a: "unusual expression": 10, I). Sim­i1arly, Melanchthon tries to cIarify the argumentation and identifies and enumerates several series of arguments (e. g. on I, 18 or 4, 1) and eharaeterizes arguments or parts of a syllogism or other logieal procedures: propositio ("premiss": I, 18; 3, 9; 21; 4, 16; 14, I; 10); probatio ("proof': 14,5); confirmatio ("corroboration": 4, 1); distributio ("division": 1, 18; 2, 21); solutio ("solution": 7, 7); illversio ("turning into the opposite": 11, 11); argumellta ("arguments": 14,23); argumell/um a maiori ("major premiss": 5, 6) andfadle argumentum ("argument based on auxHiary faetors": 8, 26).'27 Thus these leeture-notes of the students leave no doubt that Melanchthon made every possible effort to assist them with the belp of rbetorie and dialeetie in understanding eaeh step in the argumentation as well as the partieular funetion of eaeh phrase Paul uses in this letter.

However, another set oflecture-notes demonstrates equally clearly that Melanehthon insisted no less on the exaet understanding and interpreta­tion of every single word from a linguistie and grammatieal point of view. Most details of the "PAWOt1IAI EN IIA Y AOY AD ROMANOS" need not eoneern us here. 128 However, oeeasionally stylistie aspeets or rhetorical figures are explained; moreover Melanehthon assigns the letter to the genus didacticum ("the didactie kind"), and adds that "it is based on orderly arrangement and, clearly, on rhetorieal skilI" (Constatque ordine et artifitio plane Rhelorieo). 129 At the end ofthe introductory seetion he re­marks: Paulus si ineruditus homo ftdsset, non potuisset lam ornatum COIl­

texe,." exordiwn, i1t quo magna verborum Emphasi utitur and a diseussion of the exaet meaning of XCtQL, and XCtQLo,La ("graeious eare" and "gra­eious gift") makes hirn stress: Essemus magni profeeto theologi, si pro­prium scripturae sermonem inrelligerel/lus.130 Here, too, Melanchthon's

121 One should nocice also the use of sequitur. non sequirur. ergo. ponere. colligere. concludere etc.

128 See E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n. 68). 45-85. 129 See E. Bizer (ed.). Texte (see n. 68). 45; 46 he uses again artificiosissime ('<most

sldlfully"'). Later(49) he remarks on 1, 8: Exordio noudum disputat Apasfolus, Ilondum proprie docet quia emrdio non so/emus C'ontenden:, dacere, SeJ ubi proponimus ("In the introduction the apostle does not as yet argue and does not real1y teach. because in the introduction we da not nonnally argoe. da not Ceach, hut where we state aue case").

130 See E. Bizer(ed.), Te~te (see n. 68). 50: "IfPaul had been an uneducated man, he

Page 158: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

150 V. Melanchthon:S Rhetorical InterpretatioPJ

chief aim is to determine the exaet meaning ofwhat Paul says in this letter, i. e. the dogmatic content, and to achieve this the Imowledge ofthe Greek language is as necessary as the facully to apply the categories of dialectic and rhetorie. This is funher confirmed by the lecture-notes on the leiter to the Galatians which bave been dealt with thoroughly in the first ehapter so that I can turn now to Melancbthon's next imponant pubJication, his famous "Loci communes".131

Tbe origin of this work in its various stages and its importance for the development of Melancbthon's theological views have been more fre­quently and more tboroughly investigated than its roolS, i. e. the models he may have followed and the ideas and suggestions of others that may bave influenced and inspired him. Melancbthon begins with a general statement that "in all disciplines some main issues are nonnally looked for in wbich the substance of eacb single an is summarized and which _re regarded as goals towards which we direct all our effons" (fol. A IIIr: requirl solent in si/lgulis artibus Iod quidam, qUibus artis cuiusq"e summa comprehendi­tur, qtti scopi vice, ad quem omnia studia dirigamus, habenIur). But then be makes a distinction with regard to theology between the "the old" (vele­res) - no doubt the Fathers of the Cburch - wbo try to achieve this in a moderate and sensible manner and "more recent" writers of whom he mentions Jobn ofDamascus and Peter Lombard whose procedure he qua­lifies as "inappropriate" (inepte). "Tbe former", he says, "philosophizes tao much and the latter prefers to accumulate the views of others rather

would not have heen able to weave together so richly embe1lished an introduction, in whictl he employs great emphasis in his diction" and ibid. 51: "We woul~ indeed. be great theologians if we understood the specific language (idiom) of the BibIe." One meets wilh numerous polemical remarks in these notes also_

131 Loci communes rerum theologicarum, seu Hypotheses theologieac, Wittenberg 1521. see Veneichnis (see n.31) 13, 1988,428 M 3584, furthcr428 M3583: B.se11521 (here cited) and 428-429 M 3585-3600. in German: 429-430 M 3601-3603. On the prcliminary writings sec Opera (see n. Il), XXI 11-48 and 49--60, the three versions ibid. 81-230: 253-560 ancl601-1106; on the importance ofthe locifor theexegesis see e.g. B. H. Siek (see D_11), 47--60, on the loei in general see Melanchthon's De Iocis communibus ratio (preface dated Detober 18th, 1526), edition here used: D. Basilii Magni de instituenda studiorum ratione ___ Phllippi Melanehtonis studiorum rationes. atque locorum eommunium index (see n_ 32), 253--258 (index. by PetTUs AandroDus: 259-261). On April 27th, 1520 Me1ancbthon remarl,. in a letter to John Hess that he is writing not only Dates. as he had first intended to da, but loei comnuure.s on the laws, on sin. on grace ete_. see Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see 0.15), 1189-197 (no. 84), quotation: 195.

Page 159: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon s Early Commentaries on Pauls Letters lS 1

than to explain the sense of the Scripture".132 And this, as one can see again, is Melanchthon's real aim, to grasp the full and tllle meaning of the Holy Scripture; and to reach Ibis goal, that is to put the essential ideas into some order and facilitate their understanding, he places at the beginning a list of what he, after reading the letter to the Romans, regards as the key concepts.

He selects some of them, hominis vires, peccatum, lex - divinoe leges, consilia, monachorum vota, iudiciales et cerimoniales leges, humanae le­ges -; evangelium etc. ("the human powers", usin" t ulaw" - "divine laws", "plans", "the monks' vows", "Iaws Telating to the courts and to religious ceremonies", "human laws" - "the gospel")13J and uses them as headings and starting points for a very fuH and systematic treatment of the essential aspects of the Chtistian faith with frequent references to relevant passages from the Bible. Wbile there can be no doubt that for his procedure Me­lanchthon was inspired by Agticola's "Dialectica", it is not so easy to de­termine exactly whether in addition he was indebted only to the works he altacks here and those he attacks elsewhere as the concordances 134 or also

132 Nimium enim philosophatur Damascenus. Longobardus conge,.ere lJomi,zum opiniones, quam scripturae sententiam re/ure maluit (fol. A IUr). He is, no doubt. thinlting of the "E,,50"'~ ci"QLß~> "rij~ oQ8ob6l;o" "l",:ew~ of John of Damascus (about 650-750) in the transJation by Jacques LefCvTC d'Etaples: In hoc opere Contenta Theologia Darnasceni quatuor Hbri explicata, Paris 1507 - (he Greek version was printed later - and of the work of Peter Lombard (about 1095-1160), partly based on lohn and widely read: Sententiarum libri IV, Straßburg befare 1471 (here consulted, 22 incunabula); see further M. L. Colish. Peter Lombard I-lI. Leiden 1994 and L. Hödl. Petrus Lombardus, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 26, 1996,296-303, esp. 301-302; on Jobn see B. Kotter, Johannes von Damaskns, ibid. 17, 1988, 127-132.

L33 Cf. Locicommunes, Basel 1521 (see D. 131), fo1.A Vr-B IVr; B IVr-D IVr; D tVr­F VUv and G Vr-H IUr; F Vllv-G Vr and H IlJr-H Vv, see also R. Stupperieh et a1. (edd.l. Melanehthons Werke in Auswahl I-VU, Gütersloh 1951-21983,111. 21952 (edd.: H. Engelland and R. Stupperieb), 1!'-185: 21-31; 31-54; 55-82 and 90-99; 82-90 and 100-103.

134 See Opera (see D. 1]), XI 23. On the real concordances see J. Gribomonr.. Bibel. Bibelkonkordanzen. in: Lexikon des Mittelalters 2, 1983. 44. Some of the works mentioned above D.9 and 100 were made more easily acccssibte through separate pubJications, see e. g. Famosissimi atque doctissimi viri domini Nicolai de lyra ... Repertorium super bibliam, Lyon about 1484 (four incunabula). others through indices, see e. g. for the Sermones Alberti Magni: tabula sive directorium (edition Speyer about 1476) orregistrum (edition Ulm 1478), a similar oße printed in front ofthe PostiIJae of Hugo de Sancto Caro. of the Postilla cum sermonibus evangeJiorum dominicalium of NikoJaus from Dinkelsbühl and of thc Quaestiones Evangeliorum of Johanncs de Turrecremata. Tbc Summa praedicantium of John of Bromyard is itself arranged

Page 160: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

152 V. MelaJJchthon:S Rheto,.ical Interpretation

to such other eompilations by John of Bromyard and Antonio de Ram­pegolis as rnentioned above which helped exegesis and preaching since the thirteenth century by systernatieally organizing the treasures of the Bible under particular headings or making Ihern more easily aceessible through registers. What matters here is that the "Loci conununes" reveal Melanchthon's basic concern, his theological and especially bis dogmatic interes! wbich dominates his activities in Wittenberg and for wbieh he considers an adequate understanding of the Bible as essential anci for !bis, in turn, asolid knowledge of Greek and Latin and even more of rhetoric and dialectie as keys to the interpretation of biblical texts.

Nevertheless. Melanchthon seems reluetant to publish such aids as commentarles for the understanding of the Bible. He writes prefaces for Luther's Jectures, he prepares editions of the text of several of Paul's letters, he encourages bis students to study them, he lectures on these letters and on the gospels of Matthew and John, and he makes available manuals for rhetoric and dialectic, because in bis view a genuine understanding of the Bible can best be achieved by everybody's own ef­forts, i. e. without eomrnentaries. This is expressly said by Melanehthon hirnself in the preface for the "Loci comrnunes", addressed to Tilemann Plettener: "I would wish no thing more than that, if it was possible, all Christians concerned themselves in full freedom alone with the Holy Scripture and transformed themselves distinctly into their character" (1mo ni/lU perinde optarim. atque, si fieri passit. Christianos oml1e;s in solis divinis literis liberrime versari, et in illarum illdolem plane transfor­mari). 135

To this view Luther also a1Judes in bis preface to the "Annotationes ... in Epistolas Pauli ad Rhomanos Et Corintbios"1 36 which are based on

alphahetleaUy and. in addition. preeeded by several tabulae (see n.98. also 97). One should remember, too. that many medieval encyc10peclias follow an alphabetical order, see e. g. that of Bartholomaeus Anglicus: Oe proprietatibus rerurn, Basel about 1470 (twelve incunabula and twelve incunabula of vemacular translations), see G. Bemt, Enzyklopädie. Enzyklopädik. Lateinisches Mittelalter und Humanismus. in: Lexik<ln des Mittelalters 3. 1986. 2032-2033.- On other influences on Melanchthon. e. g. by R. Agricola and D. Erasmus see P. Joachimsen. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1-11. Aalen 1970-1983,1387-442 (first 1926). butsee W. Maurer, Luther-lahrbuch 1960. 1-50.

13~ Cf. Loci communes. Basel 1521 (see n.131), fol. A lIr and Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see D. 15), I 267-272. quotation: 271. For his own procedure Melanchthon uses the such terms as parce and breviter.

136 Nümberg 1522. see for tbe letters to the Corinthians also Werke (see D. 133). IV, . '1980 (ed.: P. F. Barton). 16-84 and 85-132; rar the first edition see Verzeichnis (see

Page 161: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanc1rtlron:r Early Commentaries on Pauls T..etters 153

Melanehthon's leetures, but published without his eonsent frorn student's notes by Luther who writes: Sola scriptura, inquis, legenda est citra com­memaria ("You say that the Scripture is to be read alone without eornmen­taries"). Melanehthon refuses to aeknowledge these notes and, as he stres­ses later, tries to suppress thern (see below n. 146); it may be that for this reason modem seholarsbip tends to pay less attention to these "Annotatio­nes" . They are not reprinted in bis Opera (Corpus Reformatorum, see n. 11), and to the "Studienausgabe" only the eommentaries on the letters 10 the Corinthians have been admitted. Yet these "Annotationes" are of the greatest importanee, even though they were not authorized by Melan­ebthon. But one is, I am sure,justified in assuming that they c10sely refleet what he aetually said and tbey may, therefore, be used 10 find out how he praetises bis method of rhetorieal eriticisrn in bis early years, how fre­quently he resorts to rhetorical eategories to explain Pau!'s words, the par­tieular points of bis message and special aspeets of bis intentions.

Right at the beginning in the argumentum whieb preeedes the explana­tion of details he emphasizes two points, firstly that in tbis letter Paul wants to deseribe and depiet Christ for the wbole world and to teaeh what benefit the world reeeives through hirn: and for this reason he eharae­terizes this epistle again as didaetie. 131 Seeondly he stresses that tbe first eight ehapters ofthe epistle deal "with grace.law and sin. and they do so in

D. 31) 13, 1988.283 M 2447 (here used; Luther's preface: Col. a Ur-v, see also D. Martin Luthers Werke [see n. 27].10,2.309-310); otber editions: ibid. 283-285 M 2448-2456 and 2460-2469. German translations: Annotationes Philippenn Melanchthons Verzaichnung: unnd kurtzliche anzaigung des rech tenn und . .aigentlichen verstands der Epistel die S. Paulus zu den Rhömem geschrybenn hat verdeutscht, NUmberg 1523 (here used; L"uther's preface: fol. I r-v), see Verzeichnis (see 0.31), 13. 1988,284 M 2458 and M 2457: Augsburg 1523; 284 M 2459: Auslegung der Episteln S. Pauls eint an die Römer und zwo an die Corinthier Pbilippi Melanchthons gedeudscht, Wittenberg 1527 together with the lranslation of the commentaries on the letters to the Corinthians (here used); see further 285 M 2470: Annotationes oder Anr.eygung Philippi Melanchthonis über die Ersten Epistel S. Pauli zu den Corinthiem verteutscht. Nümberg 1524 and 285 M 2471: Annotationes oder Anzeyguog Philippi Melanchtonis über die Amiem Epistel S. Pauli zu den Corinthiem veneutscht. NUmberg J 524 (both also consulted hefe). A. Schirmer (see ß. 11), 48-70 concentrales on the theological problems discussed in these commentaries.

137 See the first argumf!ntum (Rom.): fol. a nIr and the second argwnentum (1 Cor.): fol. M Ur; forthe classification as belonging to the didactic genre see abo\'e D. 122; 125 aud 129 and later his Dispositio orationis in Epistola PauH ad Romanos, Hagenau 1529; edition here used: Hagenau 1530, fol. 49v.

Page 162: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

154 V. MelnncJuhon:S Rhetoricallnterpretaaon

the most appropriate order and clearly in rhetoncal manner".138 Next the status is given, i. e. the central theme, also, a Iittle later, the content of the second half inciuding the final section. Thus, we are alerted to look out for traces and indications of the rhetorical method and wonder where and how Melanehthon draws the reader's attention 10 them. Already on 1,3 Melan­ehthon registers an antithesis ("antithesis": foi. A IV r) and on 1, 8 he re­gisters in accordance with rhetorical theory that the "introduction" (exor­dium: foL B Ir) eonsists oftwo elements which arouse benevolence and at­tenlion.139 Indeed, occasionally bis remarks look very similar to those one finds in the earlier works, e. g. when on 1, 18 he gives a summary of the narratio ("account ofthe facts": foL B IIv): "The issue and the subject of !bis discussion is that the faith in Jesus Christ is considered as justice" (propositio et slalus huius disputationis est. solamfidem in christum rep"­tari pro iuslitia);14o he adds: "He deduces this thesis from some others by means of rhetorical amplification" (quam propositionem ex aliis quibus­dam rhelorica amplificatione colligit) and enumerales seveTai arguments. Similarly he states the topic of the seclion and the issue of the discussion on 3, 21 (foi. C IIIr).

Elsewhere he marks the end of a section, summing up its meaning: e. g. on 1, 32: Epilogus est. cuius haec sententia. Hii omnes sciverunt legenL peccaverunt, Neque modo peccaverunt ipsi. sed et, quod absurdius vide­tur. voluptati eisfuit alios peccare ("End of a section of wbich the meaning is this: All these knew the law and they sinned; and not only did they sin themselves, but also what seems more absurd, they took pleasure in the fact that others sinned").141 Or he points to both the end and Ibe beginning of seclions, e. g. on 4, 1: Propositio. qua status disputationis in hac Episto-

138 Pn'or pars epistolae acto capitum Gratiom.. Legem. peccatum. troerat. ldque aptissimo ol'dine et plane RheJorica methodo. Status causae, iustiflcari nos fide, quae sentent;o probalu.T multis argumentis, Tum lex er peccatwn Clun gratia confenrnrur ... Posterior pars epislala~ praedestinalionem er vocatiortem genlürm tractat (fol. a 1lIr: "thc main issue is that we are justified through faith, a view which is proved by many arguments. Then law and sin are being compared with grace .... The second part of the epistle deals with predestination and the calJing ofthe gentiles").

139 Thus already in thc Summa, see E. Bizer (ed.), Texte (see n.68). 97, in thc Artifilium. ibid. 21, in the edition. ofthe text, ibid. 21 andin the PA IjIOAIAI. ibid. 49 and 52.

140 For the Summa see E. Bizer (ed.). Texte (see n. 68).97-98. for tbe edition of the Larin translation ibid. 21, for the PA qJO,6.IAI ibid. 54-55. See also for the main issue ibid. 20 (Artifitium) and45 (PAIjIOAIAI).

14\ Cf. his remarks on 4, 16. or 5.12: fol. 0 IDv and E Iv.

Page 163: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

MeIancllthon's Early Comm~ntaries Oll Paul's Leiters 155

la continetur, absoluta capitulo 3. Iustitiam s( olam) esse fideln. quam pro­positionern Rhetorico ordine sequent; confirmatione communivit. Orditur autem confirmationem non simpliciter, sed Rhetorica subiectione qua res­pondet quarerentibus Iudaeis (fol. C IVv: "The argument which constitutes the main issue of the discussion in this epistle has been completed in chapter three, that faith alone is justice. In the following proof he has reinforced this thesis in rhetorkaI order [i. e. in an order as recommended by rhetorical theory], but he begins the confirmation not in a simple manner, but with a hypophora [3 rhetorical figure: a question put 10 the adversaries] through which he answers the guestions ofthe lews"); tbe repeated use of Rhetoricus shows that Melanchthon does not merely explain the letter, butjudges it from a rhetorical point ofview. Similarly on 5, 1 be comments: Absoluta propositione, Item confirmatione. quod sola fides iustificet, hic velut Epilogi vice, aliarn propositionem subiicit, rnire necessariam, et quae jidei vim apposite decIaret. Fidei opus esse pacem conscientiae ("After this argument has been finished and also its confmnation, that faith alone justifies, he adds here as a final section another argumentation, remarkably necessary and such that it suitably shows the power of faith, that the achievement of faith is peace of mind"). On 2, 17 or 3, 9 he notes the part of a premiss,I42 on I, 16 that one section follows the other "appropriately" (apte: fol. B Iv). In addition to the digression in 2, 1 he notes others on 3, 9 and 6, 8,143 an occupatio on 3, I (before 2, 25), on 3, 19 and on 3, 20;144 he points out on 4. 7 an argutia ("clever expression": fol. D Ir), on 12,2 a gravis el sublimis sententia ("a grand and elevated sentence": fol. K II1r), on 12, 3 an oratio ecliptica ("defective expression": fol. K IIIv), on 13, I an allegoria in vocabulis ("verbal allegory": fol. L Iv-Ur) and he also notes enthymemata (4, 13: fol. D Iv-IIr), an antithesi. (5, 3: fol. E Ir) and comparationes (5, 14: fol. E Ur).

Of even greater importance are the general remarks on some principles of interpretation whieh Melanchthon inserts more than onee. In connee­lion with the problem which plagued Augustin as regards Paul 's view (2, 14) that "tbe gentiles do by nature what the law (ofMoses) reguires" (Gen-

142 SecuruJa pars proposirionis: foL. B IVv and tertia pars: fot E lUv (see also E. Bizer [ed.]. Texte [see n.68]. 22: Artifitium); see also fol. G IIr (8. 12: sequilur proposirio ex superioribus); G IlIr (8. 13).

143 Not on 3.1; 6.1 or7, 6 asin theArtifitium: for2. 1; 3, 9 and 6, 8 see fol. B lUv; C Ur and E illv. also fol. I IJIr on 10. 14 a digressiuncula.

144 See fol. C Ir-v; C IIr(3, 9: as in theArtifitium) and (new) C IIv and CIIIron 3, 19 and 20. butnot on 3, 31 and 9.1 (as in theArtifitium).

Page 164: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

156 V. MelancluMn s Rheroricallnterpretarion

tes ... natura quae legis sunt,faciunt), he remarks: "Since the meaning of the Scripture has to be sought rather from the discussion as a whole than from anyone particular sentence, those rnisrepresent Paul who boast that this verse proves the justice of human powers. Now in this case, tao, one should consider the context and the intention of the whole discussion" (foL B lVr-v: eum sententia seriptorum potius petemw sit ex tota disputatione quam ex uno a/iquo versu, abutuntur Paulo qui hIrne versiculum pro fusti­tia virium humanarum probanda factant. fam et hic spectandus est ordo et ratio sennonis).

No doubl, same observations in these "Annolationes ... "are rather ele­mentary. But it does not follow Ihat they are, therefore, wrang, not even that they are superfluaus; indeed, they may be very usefuL At least the young Heinrich Bullinger thought so. For he made extensive use of thern for the lectures he gave in 1525 in Kappei (near Zürich).!45 Melanchthon hirnself, bowever, seems to condemn this early version of bis remarks in 1532; publishing a commentary with bis own authority he says allte ali­quol annos edita est si/vula quaedam eonm,entariorum illRomanos er Co­rinthios meo nomine, quam ego plane non agnosco. Hane ut opprimerem. paravi enarrationem locupletforem in Romanos ("Same years aga same sort of collection of noles on the epistles to the Romans and the Co­rinthians was edited under my name whieh I quite clearly da not aclenow­ledge. In order to suppress this I have now prepared a fuller commenlary on the letter to the Romans.")!46 Yet his judgment on tbe rhetorica! elements in bis criticism (as practised by bimselI) cannot have been so negative. For

145 vgl. S. Hausammann, R6merbriefauslegung (see n. 106), 145-155. also 211-315; 155-158 the author lists rhetorical remarks from Melanchthon's commentary on the lener to the Romans.

146 Commentarii in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Wirtenberg 1532. see Verzeichnis (se. n. 31) 13, 1988,321 M 2740 (other editions: M 2741 .nd 2742): forthe te.tsee also R. Stupperieh ct aL (edd.), Mc1anehthonsW.rke (see n. 133), y 21983 (edd.: G. Ebeling aod R. Schäfer), 25-371; edition used and cited here: Commentaru in epistolam PauH ad Romanos hoc anno M.D.XLrecogniti et locupletati. Straßburg 1540, see Ver7..eichnis 13, 1988,321 M 2743, Iater printings: M 2744-2747. Forthe dedicatory letterof 1532 to the A1chbishop of Mayenee see Opera (se. n. 11), n 611-614, Melanehthons Werke Y 25-29 (quotation: 26) and Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Regesten (see n. 13), n 79 (no. 1276); in the edition of 1540 it has bee. rep1aced by aletter to th. Landgraf of Hesse, see Melanchthons BriefwechseL Regesten (sec n.13),lllI5 (no. 2336). Opera (see n. 11), XV 495-796 is the revised version of 1544; it should be noticed that Melanchthon published yet another commentary: Epistolae Pauli scriptae ad Romanos, Enarratio, Wittenberg 1556, see Opera (see n.ll), XV 799-1052.

Page 165: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon's Early COlnmenlaries on PauI's Letter! 157

in 1529 he publishes a "Dispositio orationis in Epistola Pauli ad Roma­nos", in which he analyses the epistle "explicitly up to the last detail in ac­cordance with rhetorical princip1es".147 Basical1y, he adopts the same procedure which he also chooses in the "Summa", in his editions and in his lectures (see the "Artifitium", the ''E!;l1YI10LS'' ofthe letter 10 the Galatians and the "Annotationes ... "), a procedure which he presumably followed also in his lectures on the speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero as his "Dispositio orationis quam pro Archia poeta Cicero habuit" (Hagenau 1533) and others indicate which are based on his lectures of the years 1524-1537.143

In a disposilio it is Melanchthon's intention to make intelligible the structure and the train of thought of a composition, whether a speech or an epistle, not mere1y in rough outline, but in all its stages, identifying the major issues as well as al1 phases of the argumentation. marking conclu­sions and digressions from the main line of reasoning and naming particu­larrhetorical devices. Here he begins with an argumentum on the genus di­dacticum and on his method: EI quia optimum i1lterprelandi genus esl oi.'XovoIlLav orationis ostendere. Seriem omnium locorum, propositionum et argumenrorum annotavimus, UI genuina sententia Pauli cemi polest, et intellegi quomodo cOllsentiant inter se singula membra disputationis ("And as it is the best kind of interpretation 10 show the structure of a speech. I have registered the sequence of all topoi, premisses and argu­ments so that Pau!'s true meaning may be seen and it may understood how the various parts of the discussion are consistent with each other": fol. 49v-5Or); and he goes on with remarks on the loei of the introduction (benevolence and attention), the propositio ("the main issue") and the pro-

141 Thus R. Schäfer. see R. Stupperich et al. (edd.), Melanchthons Werke (see n.133). V '1983 (edd.: G. EbeUng and R. Schäfer), 15. On the first edition see Verzeichnis (see n. 31) 13. 1988.355 M 3042 and later printings: M 3043-3046; edition here used: Hagen.u 1530 (M 3043); in the Opera (see n. 11). XV 443-492 aversion of 1539 is reprinted.

148 The 1ecture. on Demosthene. (1524: 1525; 1526: 1527: 1533 [2J; 1537: 1538: 1548; 1557) arelisted by K. Hanfeider (see n. 1 I), 524-566 (incomplete). also those on Cicero's speeches (1524; 1525; 1529: 1530, 1531 [3J: 1532: 1533 [7J: 1535: 1542: 1549). see now also St. Rhein. in: T. J. Wengert and M. P. Graham (edd.), Philip Melanchthon (see n.I1). 149-170, esp. 164-170 and below n.166 and 174 for the editions based on these lectures. In the edition of 1533 the dedicatory letter is followed by the Dispositio (fol.A mr-B IVr), rbeporaphrasis (fol. B IVv-C IVv) and the text with some scholia in the margin (fol. C IVv-E VIv) which have not heen reprinted in the Opera (see n. 11), XVI 897-920.

Page 166: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

158 V. Melanchlhon's Rhetoricallmerprefation

positionis expolitio, et repetitio ("the elaboration and repetition of the main issue") at the end ofwhich he states: "A rhetorieal division bas been subjoined to the main proposition which divides the issue into its mem­bers. The gentiles are accused and the J ews are accused. These seetions are dealt with one by one. Tbe gentiles have not exalted God. He enlarges upon Ibis with the help of the results; for the eonsequences of impiety are enumerated later in an accumulation. Tbose wbo do not exalt God, are delivered to their depraved thoughts' so that they rush into different vices, become adulterers, murderers, lbieves." (Huie generaU propositioni eSl subieeta Rhetoriea distributio, quae partitur propositionem in membra. Gentes aeeusantur, aeeusantur el Iudaei. Haee membra ordine traetanlur: Gentes non glorijieaverunt Veum. Amplijieat ab effeetibus, nam impie­tatis fruetus postea per eonger'iem reeensentur, qui non glorijieant Veum, traduntur in reprobu", sensum, ut ruant in varia peeeata,jiunt moeehi, ho­micidae,jures).149

A comparison between tbe "Dispositio" and the "Commentarii in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos" (see n. 146) which Melanchthon edits again with correetions and additions in 1540 shows that be follows the same line with remarkable consisteney and aims at the same goal: to grasp the struc­ture of the letter as a whole, i. e. the strategy of its argumentation with the help of the categories of rbetoric (and dialectic). R. Schäfer has not only put together all rhetorical notes and remarks on the stroeture of the epistle in a table at the end of his edition; in the introduction he even maintains "that Melancbthon in 1532 more firmly than in 1529 makes the form ... a key to tbe content and thus achieves results belpful for a critical understanding". And he adds: "For as a work that was written in accordance with the precepts of rbetoric and dialectic the epistle to the Romans may be interpreted solely in accordance with these rules. One aspect of this is e. g. that all statements have to be related to the whole and the wbole has to be judged from he principalis quaestio, the main problem."I'o This is a principle which Melanchthon bimselflays down in tbe "Annotationes ... " and which he follows here also in the "Dispositio": in legendis gravibus disputationibus omnium propositionum et argUlnentorum seriem oportet animo eomplecli. In primis autem

149 In the edition of 1530 (see ß. 147) ODe finds the ArgumenTum fol. 48r-50r. the tod orlhe exordium fol. 50r-v. and the proposilio etc. foL 50v-51r.

ISO See R. Slupperich el.1. (edd.), Melanchthons Werke (see n. 133), V '1983 (edd.: G. Ebeling .nd R. Schilfer) 18.lhe I.ble 373-378.

Page 167: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanehthon s Early Commentaries on Pauls utters 159

meminisse statum, necesse esr, qui continel negolii summam, ad quem omnia argumenta lanquam ad caput referuntur ("When reading serious discussions, it is essential to understand the sequence ofthe premisses and the arguments. Above a11 it is necessary to keep in mind the main issue which contains the gist of the matter to which all arguments are related as to the ,head', the chief problem·,).tSI One may conclude that Melanchthon never replaces the elementary interpretation as practised in his "Artifitium" or the "E;T]YT]oro;" by an examination solely of theological issues and a discussion restricted to dogmatic problems; rather he intensifies bis efforts to corne to a more adequate understanding of the theological content of the letter by means of rhetorical criticism. One sbould not overlook that in doing so he invariably starts from the text itself, not from a theory in general nor from particular categories which he tries to locate in the text at all cost. He notices certain phenomena in the text, relates them to the theory, explains them and their function with the help of rhetoIicai categories and thus tries to appreciate as best as he can the meaning of the text, i. e. what the apostle is trying to convey.

In Ibe first cornmentary which Melanchthon himself publishes on letters of Paul, the "Scholia in Epistolam Pauli ad Colossenses" (Hagenau 1527),152 be explicitly justifies his procedure. "I may", he says on 1,3: "appear foolish when I am Telating Pau!'s manner of writing to the pre­cepts of rhetoric. Yet I am convinced that Paul 's way of expressing himself may be understood much better when the order and the arrangement of the whole is taken into account. For never at any time did Paul write without order or without method, something which his own work shows. He has his loei by whicb he prepares the minds ofhis readers, he has somehow bis own considered way of teaching and explaining, which in interpreting not to notice - what else is it, if not what the Greeks call dancing in the dark or as Chrysostom says fighting by night". JS3 Thus he describes the aim ofbis

151 See fol. B Nr·v and Dispositio fol. 54r-v. 1'2 Edition bere used. see also R. Stupperich et al. (edd.). MeJanchthons Werke (see

D. 133),IV 'lg83 (cd.: P. F. Barton). 210-303 andAuslegungederEpist. S. Pauli tU den Colossem durch Philips Melancho, Marbllrg 1527 (also used here). see Verzeichnis (see n. 31) 13, Ig88, 499 M 4187; other editions: M 4188-4193, German translations 499-500: M 4194-4195, see further D. C. Parker, Pau!'s Letter to the Colossians. Philip Melanehthon, Sheffield 1989.

153 Fol. A 5v: Videar fartass;s ineptus. si Pauli sermc'lem ad Rhetorica pra~eepta conferam. Ego tamen sie existimo intelligi m~lius posse orationem Paulinam. si series et dispo.viJio omnium partium consideretur. Neque enim omnino nullo ordine. aut nulla

Page 168: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

160 V. Melanehthon :s Rhetoricallnterpretation

procedure in his own words: to find a firm and reliable basis for his ex­egesis.

Melanchthan s Cammentaries on Other Texts fram the Bible

Several questions arise from the observations we have made so far: To what extent does Melanchthon apply the categOlies of ancient rhetoric andlor dialectic to the interpretation of other biblical texts. e. g. the gospels, the historical books of the Old Testament, the prophets or the psaJms? To what extent does be not only explain texts from the Bible with the help of the theory of ancient rhetorie, hut eite paralleles from the praetice of pagan authors for illustration? Wbich method does Me­lanchthon apply in commenting upon ancient non-biblical texts, does he also try to make use of rhetorical eategories? To what extent does he adduce biblicaJ examples in interpreting pagan texts (as he does in bis GTeek grammar, see above n. 30)? Is it possible to indieate the source(s) for Melanehthon's proeedure of rhetorical analysis and rhetorical eriticism which he practises in the interpretation of the letters to the Romans or to the Galatians?

In 1523 Melanchthon publishes commentaries on the gospels of John and of Matthew whieh are based on the lectures he gave in the previous years. IS4 Rhetorical notes are much rarer here than in the "Annotatio-

Talione scripsit Paulus. id quod res ipsa oSlendit. Habel SUDS loeos. quibus praeparar animos, habel suam qllandam docend; et nan'ondi rarionem, quam in enarrarrdo non animadvertere. quid alilld es', quam quod graeci dicuJU in tenebris sallore. seu ur Chrysostomus aU vux'tOj.laXE'[v. see also R. Stupperich et al. (edd.), Melanchthons Werke (see n. 133), IV'1983 (ed.: P. F. Barton), 214-215.

154 For the lectures on the gospel cf Matthew (1519-1520) see MeJanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15), 1158-159 (no. 68) und 194-195 (no. 84), also Luther's preface ibid.I473-477 (no. 230) on these and the lectures on the gospel ofJobn (1522-1523), see further ibid. II 57-58 (no. 268). Tbe editions: In Evangelium loannis, annotationes PhiJippi Melanchtbonis. Basel 1523. see Verzeichnis (see 0.31) 13.1988. 285 M2473. other editions with varyiog titles: 286-287 M 2474-2484. M 2474 togetber with tbe commentary 00 the gospel of Manhewj here used: M 2477 (Hagenau 1523); Gennan translation: Augsburg 1524: 287 M 2485; Annotationes Phi. Melanchthonis ... In Evangelium Matthaei, 1523 (here used), see Verzeichnis (seen. 31) 13, 1988,287 M 2486, o!her editions: 287-288 M 2487-2497 (apparently a Gennan tnll1slation does not exist), seefunber R. Stupperich et 01. (edd.), Melanchthons Werke (see n. 133), lV '1983 (ed.: P. F. Barton). 134-208: in the Opera (see n. 11), XIV 531-536 only excerpts have heen reprioted, but the commentary on John in full: 1047-1220.00 ehe commentary on

Page 169: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchtho,,:SO Commentaries on Other Texts from rhe Bible 161

nes '" "on Paul' s letters and one wonders whether this is due Ihe faetthal the eommentaries are edited by MelanehthoD himself and not eompiled by others from leeture-notes. OeeasionaUy one meets with the summary of a ehapter's content or with remarIes on partieular arguments (a syllogism) or a figure ofspeeeh (an antithesis); buton the strueture ofthe gospel of John as a wholeMelanehthon merely says: "John maintains the order of a historieal narrative in that as he is about to teU the story of Christ he firstrelates who he was, then why he eame, finally what he did" (fol. 7r: Historicum narrandi ordinem observat lohannes in eo, quod historiam de Christo scripturus, primum quis sit exponit, deinde cur ve­!Zerit, postremo quid gesserit). Onee he speaks of the summa of the whole work, once ofthe substance of John's testimony; but he does not attempt 10 give a rhetorically orientated interpretation of the structure of the gospel as a whole.1SS

The sarne may be said of the eornmentary on the gospel of Matthew. What is the reason for the difference between these cornrnentaries and those on the letters ofPaul? There can be no doubt, 10 my mind, that it is the nature of the texts. The gospels report events, Paul argues. Yet, one might say that in the gospels, too, the authors produee arguments, use fi­gures of style, and resort to allegorical forms of expression. But they merely embellish the narrative and do not help to elarify issues of dogma­tie importance. It is for!bis reason, I believe, that Melanehthon seems to be less coneerned that the reader should appreciate their function. In case of the gospels his prirnary aim is to explain the single stories or the single

lohn seeT. I. Wengert (see n. 8) and M. Hoffmann. in: T. I. \Vengen and M. P. Graham (edd.), Philip MelanchthoD (see n.ll), 48-78.

ISS Cf. el'ongelii summa: fol. 14r (on 1. 12): summa testimonii loannis: fol. 23v (on 1. 27); see also oralionis series et compositio fol. 8v (on 1. 9); more [han once he summarizes the content of a seetion at its beginning. e. g. fol. 36r and fol. 42v on chapters 4 and 5 or at the end: fol. S3v (chapter 6). or he determines the scopus of a story: on details oftheargumentation see also foI. 19v (on 1. 18);syllogismu,$: fol. 7v (on 1,2); cOll[utatio: fol. 45v-46r (on 5, 37); generally on the style fol. 13r (on 1. 9: verba simplicia, sed res maximae sunl: "tbe words are simple. but the subject.matter is of the greatest importancen ) and fal. 18v (on 1. 16: Nemo verbis eonsequi queallnagnifieam hane Eva"gelii seu Christi descriptionem: "Nobody could do justice with words [0 this magnificent description of ehe Gospel or of Christ'·); details: anritllesis: fol. I 3v (on 1. 10) .nd 17r (on I, 14); eireu",s/anti",,: fol. 23v (on 1,24); ",,,ElvWOl,: fol. 16v ("meanne .. ofstyle": on I, 14): occ"patio: fol. 65v (on 8, 26); allegoria: fol. 23v-243r (on 1, 27), In the first verses ofthe seventh chapter he notices severallod: fol. 53v (on 7, 1), 54r (on 7,2), 54v (on 7, 3). and eight Iod comtnunes after verse 14 of chaptereight: fol. 63v-64v.

Page 170: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

162 V. Melanchthan s Rhetoricallnrelpretation

parables, to show their partieular meaning; and he thinks he can afford to interpret thern without characterizing a!l details frorn a rhetoriea! point of view, even though in bis rhetorical manuals, especially in the "De Rhetori­ca libri tres", he gives so much roorn to the genus didacticum in general (12-47) and the genus enarratorium in partieular (29-41). What matters to hirn in case ofthe epistles is the eontext of the whole; for it is within the framework of the whole that the numerous particular argumentations eon­firm tho central message. And in order to elucidate how Paul argues, wbieh linguistic fonn he gives to each single argument, how he insists on the con­c1usiveness of each chain of arguments, how he combines them with eaeh other, Melanehthon resorts to the instruments offered by rhetoric and dia­leetie.

How does he deal with texts from the Old Testament? Soon after start­ing bis aetivities in Wittenberg as professor of Greek, he is called upon also to teaeh Hebrew in 1518 and again in 1519.And in thefollowingyears he continues to lecture on books of the Old Testament and he publishes some explanatory notes first "on some diffieult chapters of Genesis" and on the ten eommandments, 156 then - after notes on the Proverbs appeared on the basis ofhis lectures - a translation of the Proverbia Salomollis and, after giving another course oflectures (in 1527), "Nova Seholia ... in Pro­verbia Sa!ornonis, ad iusti paene eommentarij modum conscripta",151 and

156 In obscuriora aliquot capita Geneseos Phi). Melanc. Annotationes. Hagenau 1523 and Philippi Melanchtonis erklärung oder anzaygung in etliche schweresten CapiUeI des ersten buchs Moysi. ktimJich auß dem lateiIl ins teutsch gebracht, Augsburg 1524 (here consulted), see Verzeichnis (see n. 31) 13, 1988,411 M 3460 and 3467; other prinlings of the Latin version: M 346 I -3466, see also Opera (see n. 11). XIlI 761-792.- In caput Exodi. XX. Philip. Melanchlh. Scholia, Hagenau 1523 and Eyn kurez auszlegung uber das 20. Capitel E.'todi der zehen gebott. Philipp. Melanch., Win.embcrg 1525: on the editions see Verzeichnis (see n.31) 13, 1988.406-407 M 3433-3439 and 3440-3442 and F. Cohrs (cd.). Philipp Melanchthons SchrifieD zur Praktischen Theologie I. Katechetische Schriflen. Leipzig 1915 (Suppl. Mel. V I), LIX-LXI; CXVll-CXVIII and CXXU-CXXVl and 3-19 (texts). These notes on Exodus 20 do not deal with rhetorical aspects.

157 naQOlll-taL. sive Proverbia Solomonis. Hagenau 1525 aod TIaQoL}tI.a1., sive Pro­verbia Solomonis, filii Davidis. Cum Adnotationibus PhiUppi Melanchthonis, Hagenau 1525: Die spruch Salomo aus Ebreischer sprach verdeutschet durch D. Mar. Luther mit der auslegung Pbilipps MelanchtboD Verdeutscht durch Justum Menium. Erfurt 1525 andAuslegung Philipps Melanchthon vber die Spruch Salomo mit seiner gunst und wil­len verdeutschet durch Jusrum Menium. Erfurt 1526 (all fourused here), see Verzeichnis (see n. 31) 2, 1984.523 B 3572-3574, the German version: 528 B 3622 and 3623, also the translation alone: Solomonis sententiae, versae ad Hebraicam Veritatem. Straßburg

Page 171: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon's Commentaries on Orher Textsfrom the Bible 163

also notes on some psalms. In explaining these works Melanchthon con­centrates on details, as he does in interpreting the gospels, whether a single seetion, a single verse, a single phrase or a single word. But invariably, he tries also to determine the essential idea, the main thought. Thus he begins his preface to the book of Genesis as follows: "Apart from the fact that genesis means tbe creation (or foundation) of things, one should use it mostly for this purpose that one may from here leam the origin of sin and the first promise of grace, the two issues on which later the whole Scrip­ture depends" (761: Praeterquam quod Genesis rerum conditionem indi­eat, ad hoc ea potissimum utendum es!, ut inde discas originem peccati. er primam gratiae promissionem, ex quibus duobus iocis postea universa pendel scriptura). And he adds on the story ofthe creation: UI a conditione rerurn ordiretur, non historiae tanturn omo postulabat, sed et ipsa docen­dae pietatis ratio (761: "Not only the course of history required that he started from the ereation of things, but also the plan to teaeh piety"). Yet there is no train ofthougbt, no chain of arguments to be exarnined, and thus there is no attempt of a rhetorieal analysis of a longer seetion or the whole work; and only oeeasionally Melanchthon uses technieal terms of rhetorie to charaeterize particular phenomena.

Rather surprisingly he remarks here at the beginning: "The litera! meaning of the (story of the) creation is a representation and a human opinion about the nature of things" (Litera senten/iae de crealione esl hy­pocrisis el opinio camalis de conditione rerum).158 And on the title of the

1525, often reprinted, see Verzeicbnis (see n. 31) 2.1984,523-528 B 3575. 3576, 3578. 3581,3582,3584-3587.3589,3590.3592.3594.3595.3597, 3600. 3604, 3605. 3609. 3610,3612.3613,3614,3616,3619: forthe NovaScholia ... , Hagenau 1529 (usedhere) see ibid. 523 B 3579, for other editions 523-526 B 3580, 3583, 3588. 3593. 3599, 3602, also R. Stupperich et .1. (edd.). Melanchtbons Werke (see n. 133). IV '1983 (cd.: P. F. Barten), 306-464; in the Opera (see n.11), XIV 1-88 the version of l550 in the revised form of 1555 has been reprinted. On Melanchthon as exegete ofthe Old Testamenl see H. Sick (see n. 11), especialLy on his use ofrhetoric and dialectic: 41-88.

158 See Opera (see D. 11), XlII 762; apart from very general terms such as locus, pro· positio, orgumelllum., significare, exemplum and simpliciler dicere I register from the Annotationes (cited from tbe Opera [see n.l11. XIII) on 1.27: loquendijigura (771). see also on 3. 1 (777) and on 4, 9 (784 .nd 785), on 2. g .nd 3, 24: oll.goria (775 and 783). on 3, 22: ironia (782) and on 6, 8: O1..IVE)lÖOX~XÖJt; ("by way of synecdoche. i. e. an in­direct expression": 790). A similar remark on the title cf the Proverbia already in the two editions of 1525. cited in n.157: fol. a VIIr (in the margin) and fol. aa IHr. in the Nova SchoHa on the Proverbia one fmds common rhetorical terms such as proposirio. locus. ratio. argumennmr.. exemplum.figura. metaphora aod also congeries ("accumulation"); fol. Sv; IOSv; antithesis: fol. 34v; 36v; 53r; al'tw}..oyLa ("giving the cnuse"): fol. 48v;

Page 172: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

164 V. Melanc1rthon's Rherorical Interpretation

Proverbia, i. e. on the first verse, SalOlnonfilius David, rex [srahel ("Sa­muel, Sohn of David, king of Israel") he notes in the "Nova Scholia" of 1529 (fol. A Vv): Titulus esl propositioni additus more veteri. Nam el ad e«ndem nwdum hisloriam suam Thucydides incepit. Thucydides Alhenien­sis scripsil bellum maxime memorabile. Est aulem haec propositionis suntma: Ego Iradam praecepla pietatis el bonorum morom, se« tradam praecepta timoris Dei, el fidei erga Deum, et bonontm opentm. Adscripsit aulem nomen suum author, ut seiremus divinitus haec Iradila esse. Scrip­tura enint feslatl" Salomoni sapienriam a Deo dona/am esse, et infra capi­te oclavo significal se sapientiam Dei docere ("Tbe titie is added to the subject matter in accordance with ancient custom. For in the same way Thucydides also began his hlstory: Tbucydides the Athenian wrote an ac­count of the most remarkable war. And thls is the gist of the subject -matter here: I shall pass on precepts regarding piety and good conduct or rather I shall pass on precepts regarding the fear of God and the belief in God and regarding good works. Tbe author added his name so that we shall know that these were given by God. For the Scripture testifies that the wisdom was given by God to Solomo, and below in the eighth cbapter he indicates that he teaches the wisdom of God"). Such an illustration by a reference to a pagan author is rare in tbe notes on Genesis where Melanchthon only once mentions the chaos Plalonicum (on creavil: I, 1),159 whlle in the "Nova SchoHa ... in Proverbia Salomonis" in addition to using the ancient rhetorical terminology he adduces Greek and Roman examples, discusses Greek concepts and quotes a considerab1e number of pagan authors. l60

tpip/ronemata (Uexclamation"): fol. 10r, allegoria ((UJ~TJYOQLXW~): fol. 8r: 221, 30v; emphasis: fal. 129v: comparatio C"comparison"); 48v: epitasts ("intensity"): fol. 58v.

159 See Opera (see n. 11), XIIT 764; in addition he confronts Moses' accounton 1, 1; 1,10 and 1. 14 (765; 768 and 769) with that ofunnamed phifosophi. The Insignis et luculentissima sacrae scripturae methodus in Mose ostensa. a Philippo Melanthone: cum Anno 1541. Locos suos Theologicos Tetexeeet ..... Erfurt 1546 Is reported third hand (see preface: fol. A Inr) by the editor K. Brusehius (1518-1557. on hirn: H. Wiegand, Bruseh. in: Lileratur Lexikon 2. 1989.268-269) fol. A Vr-B nlr.

160 As e.templa he mentions Socrates, Thrason and the friends of Alexander. Cicero. Pompey, Caesar, Brurus. Antony and Nero, discusses concepts like btL€btELa and 1to).u:ltQaYf.l0a\rvT} and mentions or cites (often without name: figures in brackets) Homer three times, Hesiod four times (1). Phocylides once. Theognis once, Herodotus once. Thucydides once. Epicharmus once (1), Euripides five times (4), Xenophon twice, Plato once. Aristot1e ence, Aeschines ence. Demosthenes three times, the Epicureans once, Menander onee (1). Aesopus once, Plutarcb twice. Euscbius once. Terence twice (I). Catullus !wiee (2). Cicero five times (I), Nepos onee (I), SIlIlust onee (I). Vergi! four times (1), Horaee eleven times (6), Ovid nine times (7). Seneca three times (1),

Page 173: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Mefanchthon:r Commentories on OtherTe..ttsfrom the Bible 165

In his brief "Argurnenturn in Ieremiam Prophetam" (1542) there are no such referenees; but Melanehthon assigns the eontent to nine loei and adds rhetorical remarks on the strueture and Ibe argumenIation, while in his eommentary on the prophet Daniel, published a year later, he resorts quite frequently but very unevenly to illustrations from pagan authors, mostly in the interpretations of the visions of ehapteTs nine and eleven. There he names sourees for historieal events or for the explanation of proper names and refers to mytbologieal or historical examples or the doctrine of a phi­losopher, or more generally, to views or customs ofthe Greeks or Romans as parallels or as contrasts. But he does not analyse the strueture of the whole or a partieular argumentation. 161

Pliny the EIder once. Quintilian once (1), ]uvenal three times (2), Publilius Syrus four times (4), plus nine dicta which cannot be attributcd to any author.

161 Cf. Argumentum in Ieremiam prophetam. Wittenberg 1542 (here used: Psalmus LXXXVll ... una cum Commentariolo D. Urbani Rhegii. ... Item Argumentum in Icremiam Prophctam, , .. Autore Phi!. Melanthone, Frankfurt 1548, fot 27v~32r) and In Danielem Prophetam Commentarius, Wittenberg 1543 (no text and confused pagination) and Leip7ig 1543 (with Latin text, here used), see also Der Prophet Daniel ausgelegt durch D. Philipp. Melanth. Aus dem Latin verdeudscht durch !ustum Jonam, Wittenberg 1546 (here consulted), see further Opera (see n. 11), XlII 823- 980. Alreody in the argumentum he attacks Epicurus (fol. b 2v) and also later, cspecially on tbe eleventh chapter (199: 327; 331; 333; 338; 353; 354; 358); on the founh chopter of which he diseusses the loci praedpui (as ofthe first three) he refers to the Stoicumfatum (56), to some historical exempla (60; 61, similarly later: 92-93; 130: 171; 295-296) and to dicta of Pompcy and the Athenian Tunotheus (59; other dicta: 61: Euripides' Oedipus; 244: Seneca; 297: Julian [following Ammianus]; 306: anonymous); on the flfth chapter Melanehthon mentions Xenophon three times (86), on the sixth once (93), OD the sevcnth he refers to some general historical events such as the declioe and faH of the Roman empire (111-112) or the suecesses of the Muslims. Saraeens and Tures (J 13-122), on the eighth chapter he mentions Strabo, tbe Elder Pliny and Oppian (128-129; 130) as weil as Circe (Homer: 131) and the ludi scenici ofthe Greeks (131), on thc tenth only Lucion (216), Pyrrho (219), Euripides and Thucydides (223); !here are numerous references and quotations in the bistorical remarks on the vaticinilun de LXX hebdomadibus in chapter nine and on the prophecies in chapter eleven: Greek historians aod geographers such as Herodotus (171; 175); Metasthenes (iostead of Megasthenes: 174; 175; 177); Polybius (181; 259-260; 271; 279); Diodorus (254); Livy (261): Strubo (251; 257: 270; 279: 280); Philo (174; 175; 176; 203); Josephus (169; 199; 256-257); Pausani .. (246; 252; 256-257; 271; 272); Plolem.eus (168) and Eusebius (279); also GTa~ca~ historiae in general (173); lbe orator Demades (243), several poets: Homer (302; 307; 351: Cyclops); Hesiod (278, quotation wi!hout name); Tbeocritus (273); philosoph; (160); Plato (321-322; 325; 330) and Xenophon (357); !he Suda (302-303), furthennore numerous events from Greek and Roman history and phenomena from Greek and Roman culture, especially religious practices.- Melanchthon worles on a

Page 174: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

166 V. Melanchthon:r Rlretoricallnrerprelolion

On the psalms Melanehtbon IeetuTes, as indicated, a1ready in 1518 to teaeh the students Hebrew, and in 1519 he writes apreface to Lutber's "Operationes in Psalrnos".162 In the lnterpretatio which follows bis trans­lation ofsorne psalms (published in 1528) he assigns thern to their "kind" (genus), adds oeeasional rernarks on their structure and identifies some fi­gures of tbought and of speech. But he does not adduce exarnples frorn pa­gan autbors here; they do, however, appear in sorne of bis lateT annotations on psalmS.16J BefoTe we turn to tbe question what Melanchthon's corn-

commentary on Daniel as early as 1529 and sends a libelbun ... in quo Danielem enarravir to king Ferdinand, see Opera (see n. 11).1 1051-]056 and Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Regesten (see n. 13), I 332 (no. 769). but does not publish it at the time.

tG2 Foe the preface see D. Martin Luthers Werke (see n.27) 5. 1892, 24-25 and Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15), I 110-113 (00.47), for the lectures see ibid. 1115-117 (no. 50) and 130-131 (no. 58).

l&l In Psalmos Aliquot Davidicos. PhHippi Melanchthonis Enarrationes doctissi­mae, Hagenau 1528, see Verzeichnis (see n. 31) 13. 1988,412 M 3468 (here used); for the lnterpretatio see fol. d JVr-e IVv.lt should be emphasized that Melanchtbon did not turn to the psalms as late as 1551 as the Opera suggest in which only the Commentarii scripti partim anno 1555. partim 1553 el 1554 are reprinled (see n.11), XIß 1017-1472; sec in addition to thc edition of 1528 the translations of single psalms. e. g. in: In leana Oivi Georgii Carmcn G. Aemilii ... Item Psalmus LXXXIlJI ... Authore Phil. Mel.. Wil­lenberg J536 and in: Operum Philippi Me1ancthonisTomi (see n. 29). V 340-343 (I; 2; 4; 81; 84; 110; 111; 112 [twiee]; 127; 56; 119; 124; 133). In 1523 he writes apreface for lohannes Bugenhagen. In librum Psalmorum interpretatio. Basel 1524, fol. Iv, see also Me1anchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15), n 100-101 (no. 299),1529 apreface for Eobanus Hessus' translation of same psalms with Luther's scholia. see Opera (see n. 11), XX 793-794 and Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Regesten (see n.13), I 348 (no. 808) and D. Martin LUlbers Werke (see n.27) 31,1,1913,43-48 and 49-64 (without Melanchthon's letter). see also the later prefaee for Luther's Enarratio Psalmi secundi. Willenberg 1546, see Opera (see n. 11), VI 87-92 and Me1anchthons Briefwechsel. Re· gesten (see n. 13), IV 349-350 (no. 4205) and the letter 10 Eobanus Hessus about his translation: Psalterium universum cannine elegiaco redditum atque explicatum. Mar­burg 1537 (hcre used: Straßburg 1545, Ihe leller: 18-20), see also Opera (see n.ll), III 393-395 and Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Regesten (see n. 13). n 326 (no. 1923). To what extent MelanchthoD helped with the work on psalm nineteen can no langer be delermined, see D. Martin Luthers Werke (see n.27) 31, 1. 1913,578-579 (on the editions) and 580-586 (tex.t). The explanations ofpsalms 111 aod 112 in: Insignis el lu­culentissima sacrae scripturae methodus in Mose ostens&, a Philippo Melanthone: cum Anno 1541. Locos suos Theologicos retexeret. !tem. Psalmorum CXI ... et CXII ... pia, erudita el utilis enarratio. Vitebergae Data ct nune primumaedita, Erfurt 1546 (enarratio on psalm CXI: fol. B fVr-D Vr and Commentarius on psalm CXD: fcl. D Vr-H Vr. with rhetocical remarks on the struerure. the arguments and some figures and some examp]es from pagan antiquity), published by C. Bruscbius (see n. 159) are written in Wittenberg in 1541. but probably nol by Me1anchthon. - C. H. Cornill, Melanchthon als Psalmen·

Page 175: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon s Commentaries on Orher Texts from rhe Bible 167

menlaries on pagan authors teach us about his rhetoncal criticism, one or two ofhis more general observations may be cited from his later notes 00

the psalms: Cogitemus Psalmos sapienticun, et vocem Vei esse, et Veum fontem eloquentiae, sapienter, recte et ordine loqui. /deo in singulis Psal­mis quaera/ur unum aliquod principale argumentum, ut in aliis cannini­bus erudite scriptis, et consideretur, quomodo membra cohaereant, ita magis perspicui et dulciares enmt, et res ipsa astendet non esse temere coacervata membra. Sicut igitur in alUs eruditis scriptis, ita et hic quaeri­mus propositiollem, seriem partium, et accomodamus Psalmos, alios ad alia genera causarum, videlicet, ut iuxta puerilia praecepta diligentius consideretis, quis sitfinis, quid velit efficere scriptum, an doceat, aut petat aliquid (Opera [see n. 11]), XIII 1224-1225: "Let us bearin mind that the psalms are the wisdom and the voice of God, and that God is the source of eloquence, of speaking in a wise, correct and orderly manner. Therefore, some single basic issue should be soughl in each of the psalms as in other poems written with learning, and it should be examined how its parts are connected with each other; thus they will be more transparent (easier 10

understand) and more pleasant, and the subject-matter itself will show that the parts are not heaped together at random. Thus as in other learned writings, similarly here. too, we look for the main issue, the orderly arrangement ofthe parts, and adapt the psalms, some to this, others to that type of speech, obviously so that you examioe more carefully according to the e\ementary rules [ofrhetoric] what the purpose is, what the text wants to achieve, whether it teaches something or tries to obtain something·').

Melanchthon then c\assifies the psalms, some as belonging to the di­dactic kind (psa1ms 2; 110; 45; 72, also 133 and 83), others as consolations or expressions of gratitude, yet others as requests, some of which, he says, may be regarded as belonging to the advisory kind (genus suasorium); 164

erklärer, Uoiversitätsprogramm Königsberg 1897, 1-18 assumes 10 that Melancbthon follows Martin Bucer in his c1assification of tbe psalms; but in Ws S. PsaJmorum Ubri quinque ad ebraicam veritatem versi, et familiari explanatione elucidati, per Arteium Felinum Theologum. Straßbllrg 1529, Bucer cancentrates on explaining his translation ward by word and has far fewer rhetarical remarks tban Melancbthan. no more than Thomas Wolf (see n. 114). On Melanchthon's interest in the psalms see now T. J. Wen­gert, in: T. J. Wengert andM. P. Grabarn (edd.). Philip Melanchtbon (see n. 11), 118-121 and on his Jater interpretations of the psalms also C. J. Classen. Melanchthon's Use cf Rbetorical Categories in Criticism of the BibJe. in: L. Ayres (ed.), The Passionate In­tellecl, Essays ... Presented to Professor I. G. Kidd, New Brunswick 1995.297-322, .sp.317-320.

164 Cf. Opera (see 0.11), X1ll 1225: alii sunl consolationes, et gratiarum actiones.

Page 176: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

168 V. Melanchthon's Rherorical Interpretation

but he adds that "one should know that the types are mixed; for emotions may be inserted into the teacbing or vice versa, and one should not make these c1assifications over-carefully".16l In accordance with these prin­ciples Melanchthon comments upon the psalms, and he does so in bis last years, thereby showing that the criteria and the method of rhetorical criti­cism he developed in his youth, he still adheres to in his mature age.

Melanchthon s Commentaries on Pagan Authors

And what do we learn from Melanchthon's commentaries on pagan authors about bis rhetorical criticism, especially the criteria according to wbich he uses or modifies it; are there differences in its application and if so is it possible to account for them? Melanchthon lectures on several pagan authors a!ready in Tübingen and in his flfst years in Wittenberg, as mentioned above, and he publishes texts of Greek and Roman writers, some of the Greeks in translation, and in some cases with explanations of some kind, in others without; but he never adds notes of rhetorical nature. And he continues to lecture in Wittenberg both on books of the Bible and on pagan writers, and he also prepares editions of a good many texts and translations; but bis explanations vary considerably, and the differences seem to be most instruetive.

In 1526 he publishes the Greek text of Demosthenes' first speech against Aristogiton; for he regards it as important for the training in rhe­torie and intends to leeture on it, as he remarks in his preface. But he does not aeeompany the Greek text with explanations, wbile he gives at least a few notes on the parts of the speech and rhetorical figures in the margin of his Latin translation, simjlar to those in his translation of Demosthenes' first three Olynthiacs published two years earlier, obviously to help the

AlU petunt remiss;onem peccatorum. et alias liberationes. Passunt alttem conso/ationes er petiriones rejerri ad genus sua.mrium. ut Psalm. 51: Miserere etc.("Some psalms are consoJations. and expressions of gratitude. same ask for remission of sins cr other fOlIllS of acquittal. ConsoIations and requests may also be classified as belonging to the advisory kind as psalm 51: .Have mercy' etc."). 00 the consolationes as part of the genus deliberativum (together with adhortonones) see n. 82.

165 Cf. Opera (see n.ll), XIII 1225: Sciendurn es' au/ern misceri genera: nam doctrino.e fnte.xuntur ajJeclus. er affectibus doctrina. er non nimis anxie faciendae .runt hae disrributio'les.

Page 177: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon:r Commcntaries on Pagan Aurhors 169

students in their own reacling. 166 It is probably for the same reason that a few years later he accompanies his edition of Hesiod's EPT A KAI HMEPAI with a wealth of notes on elementary linguistic details, on the subject-matter and On rhetorical phenomena; for as he points out in bis lengthy prolegomena, the poet' s verses should be read and reread and even learned by heart because they may serve as model to be imitated in view of the verborum omatus and the utilia praecepta ("the embellishing words" and "the useful precepts").167 In the same years he publishes commenta­ri.es first on books one and two, later also on three and five of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (with a translation of book five only) and on some books of the Politics. He concentrates on the subject-matter of the Ethics with paraphrases of the content, analyses of the argumentation, parallels and critical remarks, primarily concemed with the centra! ideas; and on the central ideas he concentrates also in his commentaries on the Politics in order to make them more easily accessible to bis students, as he stresses in bis dedicatory letterin which he also complains of their laziness;168 rheto­rical notes are absent.

166 Cf. Oratio Demosthenis xa'tCr. clQuTt'oyeb:ovo~ referta egregijs omamentis ac luminib. verborum et sententiarum ...• WiUenberg 1526. preface: Melanchthons Brief­wechsel. Texte (see n. 15), II 432-433 (no. 471) and Contra Aristogitonem Demosthenis Orationes duae doctissimae, Hagenau 1527~ Demosthenis Olynthiaca prima in Latinam linguam versa.. a Phi!. Met. Hagenau 1524; Demosthenis orationes Olynthiacae tres. a Philippo Mela Iam denuo in Latinam linguam versae. Hagcnau 1524. see also Me­lancbthons Briefwechsel. Text. (see n. 15), Il 153-154 (no. 335). On September 30th 1524 he suggests in a lener to Erasmus that he should trn.nslate the ävd1taAOL ).oy01. of Aeschines and Demosthencs (i. e. against Ctesiphon and on the crown) and in December Erasmus replies Melanchthon could do it much better, see Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Texte (see n.15), II 179-183 .nd 20S--217 (nos. 344 .nd 360): in 1525 he publishes a praefatio in AEschiois et Demosthenis orationes (togethcr with an Oratio dicta in funere Friderici Saxoniae Ducis and other deciamatioDs. Hagenau). but his translation appear­ed only after his death in 1562. He also edits the Oralio Lycurgi t:ontra Leocrntem, deser­torem patriae ... Cum Praefatione Phil. Melant. Eadem oratio conversa in latinum ser­monem a Phil. Melanth .. Frankfun 1548 (heTe consulted. first edition oftbe text: Witten­berg 1545. for the preface see Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Regesten [see n. 13]. IV 260 [no. 3993]); see also Opera (seen. 11), XVII 696-706 (01. 1). 710-718; 718-724; 724-732 (al. II), 734-743; 744-751 (01. 1lI), 762-774 (PhiL 1),777-800 (c. Arisr.); 942-976 (Lycurgus).

167 Cf. HIlOlI.OY TOY AIKPAIOY EPrA KAI HMEPAI. Uno cum praefatione ac lucu1cntissimis enarrationibus. Hagenau 1532. edition here used: Frankfurt 1546. fol. A 7r; B 3r and A 7v, see .Iso Oper. (see n. 1I), XVII 175; 183; 176.

168 Cf. InEthicaAristoteliscommentarius, Wlttenberg 1529; Commentarii in aliquot Libros PoliticosAristotelis. Winenberg 1530; In primum. secundum. tertium et quintum

Page 178: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

170 V. Melallchthon's Rhetoricallnterpretation

They playa considerable part, however, in a number of commentaries on Latin authors. In 1530 Melanchthon publishes an edition of Virgil's poems with scholial69 and in the dedicatory letter to the reader he points out that the judgment on a piece of art should depend on the whole: univer­sum opus considerandum es/ et sicut in pie/uris spectamus eorporum li­neamenta et c%res ito in oratione res et sermo considerari debet ("One should examine the whole, and as we look at the outlines and the colours in pictures, thus in a speech [or a piece of writing] the subject-matter and the kind of speech should be judged"). The scholia, though succinct, deal with all conceivable aspects, factual, grammatical and rhetorica!, and contri­bute a good deal to the understanding of numerous details, both of particu­lar rhetorica! devices and of the structure of the whole. This is also true of the edition of Sallust which Ulrich von Hutten and Melanchthon publish the year before, in 1529. 170 It deserves special attention as it contains Melanchthon's earliest printed notes on speeches by Cicero; and the different ways in wbich he comments upon Cicero's works are most in­structive.

Ethicorum commentarii Phil. Mel., Wittenberg 1532, see Opera (see n. 11), XVI 277-330; 329-416; 417-452. Tbc edition used here is a strange mixture. not registered in the Opera: In Aristatelis aliquot Ubros Politicos Philippi Melanchthonis Commentaria. Wittenberg 1531; it begins with the introductory sections (fol. A Iv-6r), then tbe treat­ment ofthe flIl!l{foI.A6r-C 8r) and second (fol. C 8r-E 6r) books oflhe Elhic, folIows, nexl a dedicatory letter, an introduction ta tbe Politics (fol. E 6v-F 4r) and tbe remarks on the first tbree books of the Politics (fol. F 4r-G 2r: G 2r-Sr and G Sv-I 2r) and it ends with the explanatioDs of the fiftb of the Ethics (fol. I 2r-K 2r) and same tables. For the dedicatory letter see Opera (see n. 11), 11 452-454 and Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Re­gesten (see n. 13), I 363-364 (no. 855).

169 Cf. Virgil ius cwn Philippi Melanchthonis scholiis. Hagenau 1530; see also Opera (see n. 11), XIX 299-306; 351-434 and435-472 (on the basis oflalereditioDs): edition here used: Pub. Verg. Maro Philippi Melanchthonis Scbolijs, ur brevi~simis. ita doctissimis. ubique exactissime adornatus. Base11535; for the introducrary letters see Opera TI 22-23, also Melanchthons Briefwechsel. Regesten (see D.13), I 364 (no. 856). Ta the extensive Prolegomena in bis edition ofTerence of 1516 (see D.26) he adds argumenra. general introductary remarlcs and scholia in 1528 and more scholia Iater (Basel 1540), ,ee Opera (see D.lI), XIX 695-784; edition bere used: Antwerp 1540 (without the additional seholÖß).

110 Cf. C. Crispi Salustii historici clarissimi. in Catilinam Atque Iagurtham opUSCU­

la. per Hulderichum Huttenum Equitem. atque Philippum Melanchthonem Scholijs ut brevissimis. ita doctissimis illustrata. Hagenau 1529; marginal Dates on Corilina and lugurt/Ja: fol. lr-30v and 31r-90r, on Cicereo's speeches againstCatiline: fol. 97r-130v. on Portii Latronis Declamatio in. Catilinam: fot. 130v-148r.

Page 179: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Melanchthon s Commentaries on Pagan AuthoTS 171

In 1524 he publishes an edition ofthe Topica; for he regards this work as an unrivalled souree for useful arguments of all kinds. But sinee it appears to be tao difficult to understand without help, as he says in the preface, he adds Boethius' comroentary, but no noles of his own.17I Such notes to­gether with abrief argumentum on the context are found in his edition of De oratore, first published in 1525, the year in which he also lectures on this work. Tbey briefly explain figures of speech apart from same factual matters and a few paraphrases. t 72 While here rhetorical problems seern to dominate, in the edition of De officiis of the same year the interest in the subject-rnatter prevaiJs. Melanchthon first explains at some leogth what the reading of this work has to offer and what it eontributes to speaking, i. e. to the formation of a speaker,113 then he begins with comments mainly 00 rhetorieal aspects. But as he goes on, the scholia which he characterizes in the tille as substitute for a more copious commentary concentrate more and more on the philosophical problems. Tbis is not surprising; for aJready in the introduction Melanchthon remarks: non alius extat libellus de mori­bus absolutior Officiis Ciceronis ("no other bock exists on conduct which is more perfect than Cicero's on Duties"). Where rhetoric is the subject, rhetorical notes are in the majority, where philosophy is being discussed, most remarks deaI with philosophy.

And Cicero's speeches? Having been encouraged by Agricola's work to read Demosthenes' and Cicero'. speeches and having lectured on Cicero

171 Cf. M. T. Ciceronis Topica. Cum commeotarijs Boe .. Wittenberg 1524: he acids notes a few years later: Topica Ciceronis a Philippo Melanch. atque Boetio diligentissi­me enarrata, Hagenau 1533 (here used)"ee also Opera (see n. 11), XVI 689-766; forthe preface see also Melanchthon. Briefwechsel. Texte (.ee •. 15),11221-222 (no. 364).

172 Cf. M. Ciceronis de oratore diaJogi tees, a PhiJ. Melan. paßim nous quibusdam il­lustrati. una cum Scholiis in fronte adiectis. quibus Ioei obscuriores explicantur. Hage~ Dau 1525. bere used: M. TuIlü Ciceronis de eratore libri tees. a Philippo Melancthone scholijs ac notuJis quibusdam illustrati, Paris 1529, see also Opera (see •. I I), XVI 689-766 (with the additioDs from later editions). See further M. T. Ciceronis ad Marcum Brutum Orator. aPhilippo Melanch. novis Scholijs enarrarus. Hagcoau 1535. with scho­lia at the eod: fol. Y VIr~Z Vlßv (rhetorical and dialecticaI remarks), see Opera (see n. 11). XVI 769-804 (0. the basis ofall editions, the first: 1534).

113 Cf. Officia Ciceronis, cum scholiis Phil. Melan. Quae possint esse vice prolixi commentarij, Hagenau 1525. see Verzeichnis (seen.. 31) 4, 1985.326C 3180,here used: M. Tullii Ciceronis officiorum libri m .. ,. Omnia vigilanti cura recognita. per Desi­derium Erasmum Roterodamum et Conradum Goclenium, passim etiam PhiHppi Me­lanchlhonis schollj. appositis, Köln 1537. see also Opera (see n. 11). XVI 627-680. See furtherMarci Tulli Ciceroni. Liberde Amicitia ...• Köln 1534, .ee Opera XVI 681-684 (very few rhetoncal notes).

Page 180: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

172 V. Melanchtho1l5 Rhetoricallnterprerat;on

in Tübingen, Melanchthon returns to ancient oratory in Wittenberg with lectures on Demosthenes' Philippieae orationes and Cicero's pro Milone in 1524 and other speeches in the following years. But while he prepares several editions and translations ofDemosthenes for these lectures (see n. 166), it is not tilI1533 that he publishes the "Dispositio oratiorus quam pro Archia poeta Cicero habuit" and "M. T. Cicerorus Oratio pro M. Marcello distributis omnibus membris ac locis cum paraphrasi" and in 1535 "In ora­lionem Ciceronis pro Milone, Dispositio ... iam reeens scripta". And most "Lucubrationes" and "Enarrationes", though based on Melanchthon's lec­tures of the years 1529-1533, are not published tilI 1539, some not tiJI 1553 or even 1568 - and all these not by Melanchthon hirnself, but in large collections arranged by others on the basis oflecture-notes.'74 In the Ihree editions for which Melanchthon himself is responsible one finds a propo­si/io and a paraphrasis for pro Archia and pro Marcello, for pro Archia also some rhetorical notes in the margin, for pro Milolle only a dispositio. In each case Melanehthon describes the issue succinct1y and clearly. and analyses the slructure of the whole. the argumentation and the means of expression, and thereby he tries to assist Cicero's readers in understanding and appreciating all aspects of the orator's rhetorical strategy, i. e the se­lection and the order of the parts of the speech, the choice of arguments and the function of the various stylistic devices.

That he aims at the same goal in his lectures is obvious from the different types of notes which his pupils publish, whether they are designated as scholia dietata. privatis disciplllis memoriae causa con­scripta. privatim praelegente excepta or publice praelegente excepta ("dietated notes", "written down for private pupils to remember", "taken down during his private lectures" and "taken down during his public lee­tures"), whether they are brief or more explicit. 11S Not only does Me-

114 See In omnes M. Tullii Ciceronis orationes, quot quidem exrant. doctissimorum virorum ... Lucubrationes. Basel 1539; In amnes M. Tullii Ciceronis. quat quidem extant. doctissimorum virorum enarrationes _ .. I-n, Basel 1553; SL Riccius (cd.), In selectiores M. T. Ciceronis orationes Philippi Melancbthonis. Iohannis Velcurionis aliorurnque doctissimorum virorum ... enarrationes I-lI, Leipzig 1568-1574. Tbe single editions: pro Archia: Hagenau 1533: pro MarceIlo: Wiltenberg 1533 and pro Milo1le: Hagenau 1535.

!7!i According to the information given in the collection cf 1568 (see n. 174) the dispositio and the paraphrasis of pro Archia poeta (printed 1533. see n. 174; 1568: fal. 72-80 and 81-88), an aUa disposirio as weH as an aUa paraphra.ris primae parlis cf pro Marcello (1568: fol. 32-42 and 46--49) and aUa scholia: paraphrasis exordii of pro Murena (\568: fol. 150-152) go back to the year 1529, to 1530 brevia sehoUa on in

Page 181: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Me:lanchtho,,:SO Commenraries on Pagan Aurhors 173

lanchthon try to c1arify the main issue of a speech and its implications by means of a paraphrasis and an argumentum (pro Murena, pro Caelio and pro Caecina; pro Sul/a argumenlum only) or a summarium (pro Liga­rio),176 often he discusses the "introductory section" (exordium) at great length, as he regards it as the most vaJuable key to the understanding ofthe speech and its structure as a whole. 177 In the scholia he also explains de-

Pisoneln (1568: fo1. 442-447), 10 the year 1531 alia dispositio of pro Mareello (1568: fol. 42-46), alia scholia on pro Ca,lio (1568: fol. 265-285), alia scholia on pro Sulla (prinled fIrst 1539: p. 575-584,1568 in plurbnisloeis aucta: fol. 205-250), scholia and alia schoUa on the ninlh Philippie (1568: fol. 471-473 .nd 474-479) .nd sc/lolia on de lege Manilia (1568: fol. 479-482), to the year 1532 disposirio andparaphrasis of pro Marcello (see n. 174; 1568: fo1.1-8 and 9-16), brevia scholia onp", Murena (1568: fol. 152-189) and alia scholia on pro Ligario (1568: fol. 375-393), to the year 1533 alia scholia brevia on pro Roscio Amerino (1568: fol. 189-204), scholia on pro rege Deiotaro (1568: fol. 39~22).fTQ8me1Jtum scholiorum onpro Rabirro Postumo (1568: fol. 422-425). scholia on pro Seslio (1568: fol. 425-442). scholia on the first. second and third Philippie (1568: fol. 447-460; 461-469; 469-471), to tbe year 1535 the dispositio (see n. 174) and alia scllolia on pro Milone (1568: fo1. 286-305 and 324-363) .nd to the year 1537 alia scholia on pro Milon, (1568: fol. 305-324). Presumably the following also originate from the lectures of these years. though they were not prlnted before 1568 (and withOUI date): scholia OD pro Arehia (1568: fol. 88-97, mueh ruller than the marginalia of 1533), aUa disposirio. parophrasis and olia scllolia on pro Mareello (1568: fol. 17-29; 29-31; 49-64) and scholia on pro Caecina (fIrst 1553: I col. 576-579 = 1568: fol. 109-117). On the following speeches new nOles were printed flIst in Ibe coUection of 1539 (see n.174): on pro MureTU1 (489-504 = 1568: fol. 117-150), on pro Caelio (813-820 = 1568: fol. 250-264), on pro Roscio Amerino (95-1 02 = 1568: fol. 98-109) and on pro SuUa (see above), and first in 1553 on pro Coecina (see above) and on pro Ligario (I col. 2045-2050 = 1568: fol. 363-375), fIrsl in 1568 on pro reBe DeiolllTO, on pro Rabirio Postumo. on pro Sesrio, on in Pisonem. on the first. second. third and ninth Philippic and on de lege Manilia.

176 For the paraphraseis I refer to the edition of 1568 (see n. 174). in brackets the year of origin, ifindie.ted there: pro Arehia: fol. 81-88 (1529); pro Mareello: fol. 46-49 (1529: paraphrasis primae panis); fol. 9-16 (1532); fol. 17-31;pro Milone: fol. 309-311 (1537: paraphrasis ,,,,ordU); pro MItreM: fol. 150-152 (1529: paraphrasis exordU), fol. 121-126 (exordii paraphrosis); pro Ca,lio: fol. 265-266 (1531: paraphrasis exordii); pro Caecina: fot. 112-117; for the argumenta see thc edition of 1568: pro Milon,: fol. 286-287 (1535); pro Murena: fol. 117-119; pro Ca,lio: fol. 250-251; pro S"l/a: fol. 205-206; pro Caecina: fo1.109-11I andpro Ligario: fol. 375-376 (1532) and 363-365 (summa). Me1anchthon acids argumenta also to his translations of Greek or.tions, see for Demosthones: Opera (see D. 11), xvn 695-696 .nd 696 (01. I); 707-709 (disposirio) and 709 (01. m; 732-733 and 733-734 (01. III); 801-805 (cor.); Aeschines 881-887 (Cles.) andLycurgus 941-942.

177 Melanchtbon pays special attention to the exordia in his notes on tbc following speeches (cited from tbe edition of 1568, see n. 174): pro MareeUo: fol. 18-19; pro

Page 182: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

174 V. Melanchthon 's RheroricallnterpretaJion

tails of the argumentation, rhetorical figures which are meant Lo support an argument or other aspects of style.

In view of the importance that is attributed to epistles both by Me­lanchthon and by bis contemporaries (see n. 21) one should not overlook that in commenting upon Cicero's letters he is primarily concerned to in­form the reader about the subject-matter. He ouilines the content briefly in an argumentum, determines often the genus and the slatus ("the ldnd" and "the main issue"l, adds remarks on structure and argumentation and ex­plains details, figures of speech or arguments in the schclia. 178 But while in the notes on Cicero's rhetorical works, especially on the Topica (and also later on the partitiones oratoriael, references to the Bible are quite frequent, 179 they are absent from the commentaries on the speeches, on the

Milone: fol. 287-288 (1535) and 306-311 (1537: paraphrasi$ exordii); pro Murena: fol. 150-152 (1529: paraphrasi$ exordii); fol. 153-155 (1532) and fol. 119-126 (with exordii paraphrasis); pro Caelio: fol. 265-266 (paraphrasis exordii) and fol. 251-255 (with tod exordifJ. pro Roscio Anl~rino: fol. 98 (lod exordiz) and Col. 190-191, pro Sulla: fol. 206-208 (with brevi$ ralio rel.undi ,"ordii), pro Caeeina: fol. 111-113 and pro Ligario: fol. 365-366 ..

118 Cf. M. T. Ciceronis episto1ae familiares. Argumentis el scholijs Philippi MeJanch. ita illustratae ut vice prolixi commentarij esse possint. Schwäbisch HaU 1537, here used: M. Tullii Ciceronis famiJiarum epistolarum libri XVI ... Accesserunt doctissima Philippi Melanchthonis in eosdem Argumenta simul et schoHa, quae vice prolixi commentarij esse possinl. Köln 1540. see also Opera (see n. 11), XVll13-560. Details cannot be given herc. but it deserves to be noticed that Melanchtbon in his later editions (as from J 556) adds at least one argumentun~ often more than one to each letter.

179 Cf. Topica Ciceronis (see n.171). Already in the prooemiwn Melanchthon refers lop$alms 1 and 132 (fol. x5v and5v-6r), on § 6 top$alm 94,1 and94, 9 (fol. x 7r), on § 9 102 Cor. 7, 2 (fol. x 7v), on § 13 10 Paul (fol. x 8v), on § 15 toDelll. 25, 5; 24, 14-15 and 1 Cor. 9,24 (fol. y Ir), on § 1610 Gal. 3, 19-24 (foI. y Iv), on § 1710 Rom. 7,10-13 (foI. y 2r), on § 1810 21hess. 3,10 (fol. y2v), on § 38 10 Rom. 13, I (foI. y 6v-7r), on § 43 10 Mallh. 10,24 and Luke 24, 26 (fol. y 7v), on § 46 10 Rom. 6 (fol. y 7v-8r), on § 53 10 Rom. 2,14 and 25-29 (fol. y 8v), on § 59 10 Mal/h. 10,29 andACI$I7, 28 (fol. z Iv), on § 6110 Rom. 3, 20'(fol. z Iv) and on § 6310 provo 16,33 (fol. z 2r), also 10 Christian views and doclrines andinstilutionsoftheChurch on § 6 (fol. x 7r), on § 13 (foI.x 8v), OD § 18 (fol. y 2r), on § 23 (foI. y 4v) and on § 53 (foI. z Ir).- Ofthe commentaries on De orator< the edition M. T. Ciceronis de oratore dialogi tres. a Philippo Melanch. nova ac locupletiore quam antea umquam. locorum insignium enarratioDe illustrati, Hagenau 1535. is the first to have such references and there are onJy two: one on ß 2J5 (argutnenta diluere: fol. 177 v) two examples in which Christioni or Mcisi lex are mentioned. and one on III 202 (fol. 183 r) a reference to Paut. - Tbe commentary on the pa,1itiones oratoriae was printed first in 1560 togethcr with Valentini Erythraci Tabulac partitionum oratoriarum Ciceronis in Straßburg. see Verzeichnis (see D.31) 6,1986,382 E 3908; here used: Opera (sec n. 11), XV1835-888; there are quotations from or refcrences toActs 25. 11;

Page 183: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Summary 175

epistles and on the philosophical writings. As Melanehthon supports rules and preeepts in his own manuals on rhetorie and dialeetie with examples fom the Bible, he uses biblical examples also to illustrate h.ndbooks from antiquity such as Cicero 's rhetorical works. Obviously, these referenees and examples are eonstantly present in his mind, as he concerns himself prlmarily .nd permanently with theologieal issues and with the interpreta­tion of the Bible. And as he tries not only to understand biblical texts him­self, but also to explain their structure, their argumentation and the funetion oftheir figures ofthought and figures of speech to others with the help of the instruments of ancient theory, examples from these texts pre­sent themsel ves in turn to him as illustrations for the rules of rhetorie and dialeetic, .s he formulates thern hirnself. Since it is the theory which helps to explain the praetice and the practice whieh illustrates the theory, it is not surprising that Melanchthon does not explain biblical texts with referenee to Cicero' s speeches or Cicero' s speeches with the help of verses from the Bible, i. e. the praetice with the help of the practiee.

Summary

Rhetorical eritieism was practised by rhetoricians in antiquity, and as indicated also by some Fathers ofthe Church. It was revived by the early humanists who applied it to Cicero's speeehesl80 and many other pagan others and who also began 10 compose their own manuals for rhetorie and dialeetie, introdueing new ideas as e. g. George of Trebizond or a new division between rhetorie and dialeetic as RudolfAgricola. 181 But they did

Rom. 13, ';John 10, 34-35; Gen. 3.4 and Gal. 1. 8 on § 8 (837); Luke', 6 on § 9 (839); rn = I Kings 18.40 on § 11 (841); Rom. 10, 13-14; n Kings = Il Sam. 11, 4; Rom. \3, 10 and lsaiah 49, 23 on § 11 (843); Rom. 7, 23; I Cor. 6. 11; AclS 5, 3-{j; Manh. 9, 22 and Luke 10,27 on §7 (846 and 849), Matth. 7, 6 on § 17 (860). IV = n Kings 6, 28-29 on § 21 (877), Dan. 7, 6 on § 21 (881, see n. 161), 1 Cor. 4, \3 on § 23 (884), also on Christian views .nd institutions on § 7 (836). on § 8 (837), on § 9 (839), on § 11 (840; 841; 843), on § 7 (845; 847; 849-850; 851). Tbe marginal notes in Melanchthon's editions and translations ofthe Oreek orators (see n.166 and 176) are too brieffor such references.

180 See e. g. C. J. Classen. Cicerostudico in der Romania im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. in: G. Radke (cd.), Cicero. Ein Mensch seiner Zeit, Berlin 1968. 198-245; Cicero inter Genoanos redivivus. Hurnani,tic. Lovaniensia 37, 1988,79-114 and 39, 1990, 157-176.

111 On George ofTrebizond see n. 52 and C. J. Classen, Journal ofThe Warburg and

Page 184: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

176 V. Melanchtholl S RhetoricallnterprelaJ;on

not use exarnples from the Bible or refer to biblieal paralleIs or interpret texts from the Bible on the basis of their own theoretieaJ works, even though graduaJly philologieal methods were being applied espeeially to the New Testament. e. g. by Lorenzo Valla and later by Erasmus.

It was Melanehthon who -possiblyprompted by J. Wimpfeling's tenta­tive beginnings - on the basis ofhis remarkable familiarity with Greek and Roman literature and equipped with a wide range of instruments of rheto­rie and dialeetie, with the religious zeal typical ofhis time, but paired with a high degree of responsibility, and with the eourage of a genius ventured to include both biblieal examples and a seetion on preaehing in his hand­books and to interpret the Bible with the help of the traditional eategories of ancient rhetorie and dialeetie. Knowing both the mIes ofthe theory and the diversity ofliterary genres and the different requirements of preaehing and teaehing, of declaiming and ofwriting letters he reeognizes the oppor­tunities offered by the theory for the understanding and judging the prae­Liee and, starting from the texts, applies the mIes and precepts to them, not indiseriminately, but in aceordance with their nature, that is their literary genre and their dogrnatic interest. While in interpreting the gospels orpas­sages from the Old Testament including the psalms he is content to sum­marize the main points in an argumentum and oecasionally to explain a particular argument or phrase, he selects Paul's letters, especially those to the Galatians, the Romans, the Corinthians and the Colossians,182 for care­ful analysis, that is of the structure, the arguments, the ehoice ofwords and stylistic devices in order adequately to appreciate eaeh rnember in the apostle's ehain of reasoning, and thus fuIly to understand the essence ofhis teaching, ofhis dogrnatic position. Sinee this rnethod proves suceessful in his view, he adheres to it throughout his life, though in the eommentaries of his later years he gives more spaee to the diseussion of the dogmatic issues and pays less attention to the rhetoricaI aspeets than in his early lec­tures on which some of the eommentaries are based.

Melanchthon adduces biblical parallels and quotations not only in his handbooks on rhetorie and dialectic, but also in his cornmentaries on an­cient rhetorical writings. But while he constantly refers to pagan literature, poets, philosophers and others in eommenting on biblical texts, mainly with regard to facts, but also for linguistic or rhetorical matters, he seems

Courtauld Institutes 56, 1993. 75-84; on Agncol. see n.32 and 33 and on Ibo Dew

division n. 43. 182 In his Methodus discendi sacras literas (see n. 122). fal. lOv he recommends

especially the letters to the Romans, the Galatians and the Colossians for careful study.

Page 185: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Summary 177

reluctant to use the Bible to illustrate the writings of pagan authors, presumably because he considers it inappropriate 10 exploit the Holy Scripture 10 elucidate ,human' texts.

Melanchthon's work deserves to be studied carefully even today, be­cause both his development, his approach in general and many particular aspects should not, I !hink, be forgotten: He applies the rhelorica! and dia­lectica! theory to the texts of the Bible not only in the traditional form in which he inherits them, but modified and supplemented by additions ofhis own which he regards as helpful. In applying them he does not start from the theories and theircategories, trying to force them on 10 the texts or to fit the texts into them. He starts from the texts, distinguishes the different types and genres carefully and selects whichever aspects of the theories, he !hinks, may reasonably and suitably be applied. In classifying single phenomena or naming rhetorical figures he may sometimes appear to us to be rather brief in so far as he does not a!so explain the function of a rhetorica! device; but one should not forget that to hirn as the author of bandbooks the technical term alone implies the function also. Com­menting on the argumentation he is more explicit; for he is concemed to understand the real meaning of the texts and to assist others in under­standing it. Anyone who has tbe same aim is weil advised, therefore, to follow his example.

Page 186: Classen Rhetorical Criticism
Page 187: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Indices

Subject Index (see also Greek or Latio equivalents)

allegories. allegary. allegori.cal interpretation 100: 101: 113: 115-116: 125: 129; 143; 161

antithesis 22; 55: 161 apologetic letter 24-26 arguments. argumentation (see also

argumentum) 8; 12; 13-14: 16; 22; 27; 31; 65; 112-114; 124-125; 127; 133-134; 138; 146-149: 155; 157; 161-163: 165: 169: 172; 174-177

ammgement 52: 65; 115: 125; 128 authenticity 140 authority 22; 25. 51

commcntary. eommentaries 9; 101; 106-107; 109: 113; 138: 152-153: 161: 167-170: 174; 176

comparisons 131 conclusions 133-134; 157 cODcordances 151 conflicting laws 127

definitions J27; 131-133 dialectic 8; 101-102: 104; 108: 111:

126; 129-135: 145: 147-150; 152; 158; 161-162: 175; 176

emotions 12; 20-21; 113; 168 emphasis 18-19; 49; 51; 53; 56; 60-61:

81; 89; 93; 95-97 epilogue 114 epistles. epistolography 2-4; 6-7; 17;

19; 21; 23-27; 29; 43; 45-65; 67; 104-105; 162; 174; 176

examples 22; 112; 115; 117-118; 121-122: 125; 127-128; 130; 160; 164; 166: 175-176

exegesis 2; 4; 15-6; 22; 46; 99-101; 135-137; 140-150; 152. 160

exhortation 65; 114; 127; 146

faith 22-23; 25; 89; 116: 123; 127; 129 Fathers of the Church 100; 118-119;

135: 137; 150; 175 figures of thougbt andlor of speech 16;

18; 21; 28-29; 113; 115; 125; 161; 166; 168: 171; 174-175: 177

fourfold sense of the Haly Scripture 121; 127-128; 140: 143

freedorn 23 fu1filment 77-79: 81; 88-89: 98

gospels 161-163; 178 grace 66; 127: 153

Haggadah 100 Hal.kh. 100 hapax legomen. 49; 54: 56: 63; 84 handbook (manual) of dialectic 8: 108.

129-135; 152; 175 handbook (manual) of epistolography 6;

27; 30; 48; 105; 117 handbook (manual) ofrhetoric 5-6; 8:

11-14: 26: 29-30; 35-36; 38; 40-42; 44-46;48: 105; 108.111; 117-118; 121-123: 125-127; 129: 152; 162; 175

Hebraic figures 127

Page 188: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

180 Indices

Holy Spirit 72-74; 77; 87-88; 90; 98; 109-110; 113; 141

humanists 102; 106; 109-110; 117; 119; 122; 130

hymn 60; 91

imagery. images 9S-96 inaugural1ecture 108 interpretation 3; 5; 7-8; 14; 22; 28;

100-102; 105-106; 113; 126; 134; 139; 155; 159-160

invention 21: 65: 125

judging 126; 13()-131; 134-135

leey tenns 23; 55; 63

law 22-23; 30; 127; 153 Iife 91-92, 94-95; 98 light 91-92; 94-97 list of narnes 76 Logos 92-94; 97-98

Messiah 70; 73-76; 79--81; 86-87; 98 metaphor 21; 44; 95-96; 124 monks 134

Nu..arites 113 neologisrn 34; 43

pagan authors 128; 137; 160; 164-168; 176-177

parab1es 162 paradox 21 paralleIs 57; 141; 169; 176 paraphrase, paraphrasis 101; 112; 132;

171 passions 19 Pharisees 8()-81; 111 polemies 21; 117; 133-134 Popes 133 preaching, preaching maIlual 81; 117;

119-123; 137; 152; 176 prophecies 78-79; 81; 90; 94; 98 prophets 71; 77-78; 81; 90; 93; 125:

127

psalm{s) 77; 81; 85: 114; 127-128: 143: 145; 166-168; 176

questions 21-22; 93 quotations 39-40; 54: 64; 78-79; 88; 90; 109

Rabbinie tradition 28 rebuke 13; 21-22 remission ofsins 73; 75: 81; 98 repentance 81; 89-90; 114; 127 repetition 18-20: 53-54; 57-58; 64-{j5;

72; 80: 86; 92: 96-97; 158 requests 22; 67 rhetoric passim, see especially 45-46

salva,;on 75; 97-98 saviour SO; 57-58; 66 Sententiarii 111 sennons 117; 119; 126; 135-136 similes 130 son of Abraham 75-76; 79 son ofDavid 75-76; 79-82; 98 speech 7; 19; 23-25 Stoics 32; 37 strueture 5; 7; 13-14; 16; 23-24; 26-27;

52-53; 56-57; 61; 65-{j6; 68; 147; 157-158; 161; 165-166; 170; 172; 174-176

style (including choice of words) 7; 16: 2()-23; 27; 40; 54-56; 58-59; 63; 83; 91; 104-105; 107; 115; 124-125; 140; 147; 149; 161; 165; 172; 176

syllogism(s) 13; 133; 149; 161

throne of David 90 Tora 100 tropes 16; 125 truth 95-98; 133 Tures 114; 117

userulness 135; 169

Vulgare 33; 139-140; 142

witness 92; 96-97 ward(s), spoken word(s) 87-91; 94-95;

97-98; 116

Page 189: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Greek Words

GreekWords (see also Latin or English equivalents)

tiYCl"LaO'. 89 tiM",!,0.55 aLQEnx6s 62 al"7.Qo"'Qö~, 52-54: 64 aXQlßw<; 82 aA'19~. 54: 64 aA,j9EL<l 21; 54; 6:>-41; 92-93: 95-97 aA'19,vo. 92: 96 aAA'1yoQElv 31-32 ci""I''''o. 84 avaxa(vwOt; 61 tivCl"E<I>aJ,.UlOOl'Cl~ aVCl"Eq,uAulwm,

30-31 avataaaOJlaL 82 tiviy><).'1'o, 52; 64 lxVE~I'WV 41 a~Q 93 lxvtiXOl'U, 53 lx .. [S"ov 18; 2~21 avuJtotaxtOS 53 avwSEv 82 avw<l>EA~, 62 tilt'aQX~, 82 c'mELa~. 55

YQaq,~, YQa<l>a[ 78.-79

ÖEi 52; 54-55; 64 lh' tlx6vor; I ÖL' dxovlIJV Myew 32 blaßOAO, 56 Ii,öa"""o, Ill; 147-148 ölöaa"aAIa. Ii,liax~ 53-57; 64 bIÖaoKaN.KO. 23: 126 Ölte!,'lVE"'" 40-41 6LXaLocnJV'l 61 btXaLos I ÖOlOC; 52: 84 ~L'Kal(O~La"ta 84 ö",alw,59 Ml;n 93; 98 ÖOÜAo, aEOÜ 48 ö"O'<I>'1l'iw, liuO'q,'ll'ta 38

tyxO~ 42 'YKeCl'~, 52 eL'Xovo)..OYELV 32 'LQ1\"'l 50 ExO'tQf<l>W 62-63 'Mn'" 54-55: 64-65 EMO> 61; 86; 90 EMuS'eta 21 Ev xutaO'titl.latL 56 h XQOI.V 57-58

181

tiltOIiEll;u; 33-34 CtQXai 'Kai t~o\JalaL 60 lxQX~ 69-71: 91-93 aaq,CtAE'u 82 Cl~Oali'l' 52

EVavtL I havtlOV "tO'Ü 6EO'Ü 84; 85; 87 mo).~ 54: 84

Cl~.O""1' 82 a<l>Eol" 11<1>1'1!" 72-73 o.1jJ."Ii~. 49: 63

ß=[~w, ßcim,OI''' 72-73 ßaQo,. ßueu., ßUeunl. 42 ßbEAuK'o, 55 ßeßalwau; 33 ßIßAIOV OeaO'E"', 75 ßLßAonEvtae",. 75

yiYOVEV, tyEV"O 78: 92 "(1.)"VWOitW 89: 92

tvOlltLOV "ue[ou 85-87 !vW1tlOV t'o'Ü SE01i 85 ES'1rtOl'a, 93 EltClVa",cpClAClLoo"a, 30 Elt'ßClQEW 42 .",yeCl<p~ 12 E1tLoxOn:os: 52; 56; 66 e"un:o"ltw 53 Elt'CPCl[V0l'ClI, ''''<pav"a 58-59; 65 fgyov, !'gya (VO"o,,) 22; 55: 6<Hil <e"'1V,1Cl 40 runyyeAtt'" 19; 89-90 '';ClyyeA'ov 19: 23; 69-72; 74; 89

Page 190: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

182 lndices

EuaEßw, 59 Eilq)1'II'(O' 38

~ci", 58 ~'1Ä"'ni, 59 ~""i. ~"'1i 0'100"'0, 49; 61; 63; 65;

91-92; 94-96; 98

~v 91-92

OEoölöO'XTo, 42 OEO, 55; 77; 91-93

!ÖLO, 92 LE~O"QEmi, 56 'louöa:Cxos: 54

xaOn~o, 54-55; 64 xaOE;Tj, 82 xoO"" I wneYQamm 71; 79 xnl EWV "';~LO, 70 xaÄa EQya 59; 62--63; 66 xaÄ06LMaxaÄo, 56 xm:' bmayJiv 49-50 xOTaÄn!'ßciv", 91-92; 98 xEq,nÄnLow 30-31 x'1~uaO'w 72; 74 xOO'!'O', 92; 95-96; 98 XU~LO', Ö OEO<; 85

ÄaMw 55-56; 64-65; 89 MY'" 88 MyO', 24--25; 55; 62; 70; 91-94; 96; 98

IlnXa~Lal'O, 37-38 I'n~'tIlQlo 54; 64; 91-92; 96; 98 J1€yn, OEO, 59 1lE"rQ.voew, Ilfiavota 72; 74 I'EToO'J('1l'nTltoo 34-35 f,l.LatVCtl 55 l'üOo<; 54

vOUeS"tTJ'tLXOS; 23; 62 VO'Ü, 55

ObtOVO}!La J 57 O'l"ov0l'0<; 52

otxOUQYO~ 56 6QyLÄO'<; 52

"alöEilw 58 JlaÄLYYEVEO'Ia 61 "O~OlVE<W; 13; 25 "aQoxaMoo. "a~ciKÄ'1O'l<; 36; 55-56; 65 "OQOI'VOEOl'al, "nQa!'vOlo 36 naQOL\'Ot; 52 ""OoQX'w 60 "'lOO, 33-34 ",,000 33-34 :1tElOIl0vrl 34 "EQLq,QO'vtw 60 "'OTEil", 62: 72: 93; 95 "lOTL<; 22: 49-50; 54: 57; 63--65: 89;

131 "LOTO, 54; 62; 65 "",jXT'1' 52 "Ä'1Qooo 78 ltVEÜILa, ltVEÜ!'o äYLO'V 61: 72-74 noÄu1t'to:n:ov 18; 20-21 "QEn'" 55; 64 ,,~o"OQEilOI'Ol 85 "QO'CP';T'1, 41; 54; 78

Qfjf1088

O'ciQ~ 93; 96; 98 oxo'tLa 91-92 OUy>iECPOÄOlO'" 30 ouvoOQO'LOI'O, 149 O1JVTEM", 39-40 OUVTEI'VW 39-40 ""O'Ta""6c; 28; 30 O'wnie.OO>niQLO" 50-51: 58-59; 63-65:

90 awcpQove",. awcpQovl~oo 56-57 O'oo<l>QOvoo,59 amcp~wv 52; 57

'tE:xva eeo'Ü 93

uYLalvw 54-56; 64 vIa, (Tot; "'vOQm"O'v) 72-73; 85 u1tovOI.a 32

Page 191: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

LAlin Words 183

tj>alvw 92 tj>aVEeOW 49; 63

tj>v.av6eos 56 tj>v.aveQw"la 61 tj>v.ayaeo. 52 tj>V.OI;EVO' 52 tj>IA6YEl<VOS 56 tj>WS 91-92; 95-96; 98

xaea 89 xae'. SO; 58; 65; 93; 96; 98; 149 xaQ,a!,a 149

XQ'l""On]S 61 XQ'''''oS 70-71; 76; 81; 85

waavva 81 OOtj>E;'",O' 62

LatinWords (see also Greek or English equivalents)

adJrortatio ] 48 affeclus 12 allegoria 155 ex ambiguo ] 24 .mplijic.no 130: 146; 148; 154; 158 anreoccupatio 13; 148 antithesis 154-155 antonomasia 124 apostrophe 149 apposire 1 S5 apre 146; ISS argumenta. argumentum 13; 149; 153;

157-159; 171; 177; 176 argUIMntum a maiore 149 arguria 15S artifitium 149 Olte"tio 146 aucroritas 25 au.gendi er variandi figurae 1 J 3

benedictio 131 benevolentia 146

catachresis 124 chaos Platonicum 164 cirrumstantiae 113 coacervotio 131; 149 commentor 113 comparationes 155 complexurn thema 117

cOlJcoroantiae 110 confirm.rio 146; 149; 155 cangerits 158 con;ectura 12 consilium llarrationis 146 co,uol.rio 36-37; 127; 146; 148 contelftio 148 correcrio 55 cribro 124 crux 126

decJaratio ... per similia 13 definitio cawafis ]30-]31 demorutrat;olles ] 33 demonstrativu.s 117; 133 deprecoliones 127 Deus 135 dial~clicus 126 didacncus 10-11; 146-149; 153; 157 digressio, digressiuncula ]46; 148; 155 dispositio 7; 65; 114-115; 157; 159; 172 (rherorica) dislribu.tio 149; 158 doceo 113; 130 dominus 124 dubitatio 115-116

elenchus rerum 110 elocutio 125; 148 emphasir 149 ~1fanatio, efUlTratoriwn genus 112-113

Page 192: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

184 Indices

enthymemata 155 epilogu.< 13; 148; 154-155 evangelium 124; 137; 151 exclamatio 149 eXClITSUS 148 exempla 114 exiloTlatio 13; 25; 36-37; 127; 136 exordium 12-13: 23-24; 146: 149; 154: 173 extra caussam 134

Jacile argwnentw'l 149 fides 137-138; 154-155: 164 figurae umentiarum 115

genesis 163 genus, genera 11; 166-167 genus deliberativum 11: 23; 114; 117: 123:

127 genus demonstrativum 11; 23; 112; 117:

123 genus dialecticum 117: 123 genus didacticum 11; 111; 117; 123;

148; 162: 167 genus eu.a.rratorium 112-113 genlls grave 115 genus iudiciale 11; 23; 117; 123; 127; 146 gema laudativwn 117 genus medium 115 genus suasorium 114; 127; 167 gloria 131; 137 gloss. 110; 136 gratia 113; 137-138; 146; 153-154; 163 gra1'is et sublimis sentenlfa 155

hominis vires J5J honestus 114 hypocrisis 163

indlgnatio 12 indig"um 116 inscriptio 12; 146 interrogatW 115 ;nvent;o 65 inversio 13; 124; 149 iustijicat;o 145 (Christiana) iustitia 131-132: 154-155

iustitia exjide sine operibus 146

lex 113-1l4: 127: 137; 146: 151; 153-154; 156

loci 145; 147: 150: 157: 165 loci communes 112-113; 128 loeus de toto er partibus 134

metIJodus 133: 154 minulio 115 momlis disputatio 146 mores 105; 109; 145

narratio 24-25; 128: 146-147: 154

obiureario 13; 149 occupatio, occl~palirmcula 148; 155 opinio camatis 163 oratio 113; 146 oralio ecliptica 155 ordo 155-156; 158: 161; 163; 167

paraen-t!ticus loC'[tS 148 paraphrasis ll2; 172-173 pax 137: 155 peccatum 137; 146; 151: 153-154; 163 penphrasis 124 peroraHo 148 piscaJores 124 poenitentia 131 praedestirr.atio 145 praesumptio 13; 115-116 probatio 149 propositio 13; 25: 122: 132: 149: 154-

155; 157-158; 164: 167: 172 psyclrkus homo 131

quaestio 148

ran·o dicendi 125 rhetoricus 135

sacerdos 131-132 sacra 109; 113-ll4; 117; 122 salutare nuncillln 124 saluratio 12; 47-51; 63

Page 193: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

lndex 0/ Proper Names 185

salvator 124 schel1Ulta, schemata rhetorica (shema)

125; 142; 149 sc/w/ia 170-173 series 151-159; 161 sennones 117 se1VUS 131 simile, similia, similitudo 13; 122; 148 simplex thema 117 .Jolutio 149

.slalus 13; 113-114; 123-124; 121; 146; 154; 158

studio litterarwn 109 suasorius 113-114; 111; 126 suhiectio 115; 155 summa 12; 114; 128; 145; \50; 159;

\61; 164 summarium 173

titulus 164

verba humana 115-116 via antiqua/via moderna 103-104 vocatio gentium 145

Index of Proper Names (except Chris~ lesus and Paul)

Abiram 114 Abraham 22; 31; 15-11; 19; 90; 113; 121 Adam 15-16: 115 Agricola, R. 101-108; 111-112; 118; 151;

l11; 115 Aland, B. and Aland, K. 33; 60 Albertus Magnus 120 Albrecht of Eyb 111 Anwmenes 33; 31; 40-41 Andronicus of Rhodes 37 Anna 84 Annas 83 Anshelm, Th. 104 Antonio de RampegoJis 138; 152 Apsines 31 Aristophanes 144 Aristotl. 31; 40; 106; 131; 133; 169 Athenacus 32 Augustin 101: 117; 119-120: 135;

142-143; 155 Augustus 83 Avicenna 133

Bau.r, W. 35: 42; 69 Betz, H. D. 1-8; 10; 23-25 Boetbius 112; 131; 111 Brenz,1. 14 Bucer, M. 14

Bullinger, H. 8; 14, 156

Ca.sarius. J. 122 Calaphas 83 Carn 113 Calvin, J. 8; 14 Celtis, K. 108; 118 Cicero 10; 32: 106; 108; 112; 131-132:

151: 110-115 Colet. J. 141 Conzelmann. H. 35

Dathan 114 Demosthenes 108; 131; 144: 151: 168:

l11-172 David 14-16; 79-81: 85 Diels. H. 69 Dio Chrysostom 38 Diogencs of ApoUonia 40 DionysiusofHaJicamassus 31-32; 34

Eck, J. 111 EHas 114 Eichmann. I. 137 EHzabeth 83-87 Epicurus 37 Ernesti, I. Ch. G. 38 Erasmus 8-9: 14; 105: 140-143; 116

Page 194: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

186 Indices

Fortunatianus 31 Frederic the Wise 109

Gabriel 85-90 George ofTrebizond 112; 117; 122;

175 Gregory cf Nazianzus 112; 144 Gregory the Oreat 119 Guarino. Battiasta 108 Guarino of Verona 108 GuUelmus Brito 136 Guilelmus Parisiensis J 36

Harpocratio 69 Haycl. St. 16 Henrieus de Hassia 136 Heraclitus 32 Hennogenes 42 Herod (king of Iudaea) 82 Herod (tetrarch) 83 Hesiod 106; 169 Homer 99; 106; 110 Hrabanus Maurus li9-120

Ion of Chios 69 1saac 113 Isaiah 7\-72; 76-78; 80

James 21 Jeremiah 79 Ierung, H. 136 Joaonah. wife cf Chuza 84 lohn (the Apostle) 21 101m (the Baptist) 71-74; 76; 78; 83-85;

87-88; 90-93; 96-97 John (the Evangelist) 77-78; 8Q-81; 89;

91-98; 160-161 lohn Bromyard 136; 152 lohn Chry,ostom 112; 117; 159 John ofDamascus 150 Ioseph 76; 80; 83; 85; 87; 90 Joseph of Arimathea 83 Iosephus 32; 38

Kennedy, G. A. 2; 4; 24 Kidd, I. G. 37

Lactantius 118 Lazarus 84 Lerevre d'Etaples. J. 8; \4: 122;

140-141 Leseher, P. 118 Liet7.mann. H. 35 Lightfoot, I. B. 4-5 Locher, J. 118 Lucian 144 Luder, P. 108 Luke 71; 77-78: 80; 82-90; 94; 96; 98 Luther, M. 4--5: 8-9; 14; 112; 129:

143-144; 152: 166 Lysanias 83

Marchesini. G. J 36 Marius Victorinus 25 Mark 69-78; 80-82; 86; 89-90; 94; 96;

98 Man;al 134 Mary 76; 83-90 Mary of Magdala 84 Matthew 9: 71;75-82; 86-90: 94; 96; 98;

145; 160-161 Melanchthon, Ph. 4--5; 8-14: 16; 27;

102-177 Annotationes ... in Epistolas Pauli

152-156; 158; 160-161 Argumentum in Ieremiam Prophetam

165 Artifitium Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos

123; 145; 148-149: 157; 159 Corrunentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad

Romanos 156-158 Compendiaria dialeclices ratio 129-

130 De anibus liberalibus 107 De Rhetorica libri lres 111-\17; 122;

130; 147 DiaJectices librl quatuor l30-134 Dispositio orationis in Epistola Pauli

ad Romanos 157-159 Elementorum rhetorices Hbri duo

125-129; 134 E1;T\Yl10U; Methodica in Epistolam

1tQO, 'Oll, ya.Aata, 124; 157; 159

Page 195: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Index 0/ Proper Names 187

Erotemata dialectices 134-135 Greek grammar 106; 145 In Danielem ... Commentarius 165 Institutiones Rhetoricae 123-125;

147 Loei communes 150-152 Nova Scholia ... in Proverbia 162-164 PAIVOtoIAI EN ITAYAOY AD

ROMANOS 145; 149-150; 157 SchoHa in Epistolam Pauli ad

Colossenses 159-160 Senno ... de corrigendis ... studiis

108-110 Theologica Instilutio in Epistolam

Pauli ad Romanos 123; 145-148; 157

Melber. J. 137 Menander (rhetor) 36 Mennel, ,. 118 Meynet, R. P. R. 16 Micah 80 Momigliano, A. 24 Moses 48; 93 Muilenberg. ,. 7

Neocles 31 Nestle, E. 33 Nicholas of Cusa 140 NicholasofLyra 101; 111 Nicodemus 95

Origen 101; 112 Ovid 116

Pelagius 127 Pericles 115 Peter 20-21; 23; 88-89; 133-134 PeterLombard 150-151 Pfeiffer. R. 99 Philip (Ierarch) 83 Philo 32; 38; 41; 100 Philodemus 32; 38 Pico deUa Mirandola. G. 140 Plato 34; 37; 117 Plettener, T. 152 Pliny 36

Pluwch 32; 38; 144 Politian. A. 112 Polystratus 69 Pontius 118 Pontius Pilate 83; 97 Posidonius 37 Ps.-Archytas 37 PS.-Aristides 38; 42 PS.-Demetrius 23; 26; 32; 38 PS.-Demetrius (De eloe.) 40 Ps.-Dionysius 36 Ps.-Hippodamus 37 PS.-Libanius 23 Ps.-Longinus 32: 34

Quintilian 12; 31-32; 36; 106; 131; 142 Quirinius 83

Reuchlin. J. 103-104: 107: 112: 121-122

Rufus 31

SaUu,t 170 Schlier. H. 31: 39 Schmid~ H. W. 39 Schneider, J. 35 Seneca 37; 1l6; 140 Sextus Empiricus 32 Simeon 83; 87-88 Simler. G. 102; 104; 120 Solomo 164 Spangel, P. 107 Stadian, F. 104 Steinbach. W. 104 Stuhlmacher. P. 39 Susanna 84 Surgant, J. U. 121; 128

Taul.r, J. 1\2 Terence 105; 144 Theodectes 31 Theophilus 82 Thomas Aquinas 120 Thucydides 115; 164 Tiberius (emperor) 83 Tiberius (rhetor) 32

Page 196: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

188

Troilus 31 TlYPho 32

Ulrich von Hutten 170

ValI .. G. 118 Voll .. L. 14; 118: 139-140; 176 Vergerio, P. P. 106 Virgil 13\: 170

Indices

W'lIckens, U. 39 Wimpfeling, J. 118-119; 176

Zechariah (priest) 83-90 Zechari.b (prophet) 79 Zehonder, B. 105 ZwingU, H. 14

Passages from the Bible

Genesis 83; 88; 162-163 Proverbs 162-164 1,1: 164 1,1: 164 2,4: 75 8: 164 5,1: 75 9,1: 116 18,14: 88

$o1lg 01 $o1lgs Exodus 162 4,10: 109-110 23,20: 71

Ecclesiasticus Numb.rs 44-50: 119 16,1-35: 114 48,1: 116

D.ureronomy 129 Hosetl 1,2: 69-70

IH=l KingS Amos 18,41-46: 114 1.2: 70

Tabu Micah 1.1: 75 1,1: 70

4,7: 90 Psalms 9; SO; 163; 166-168; 176 5,1: 80 2: 167 45: 167 Jolfl 67: 128 1.1: 70 72: 167 81,4: 127 Nahum 83: 167 1,1: 75 109 (110): 128; 132; 167 132,2-3: 131 Malachi 133: 167 3.1: 71

Page 197: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

PtusDges from lhe Bible 189

lsaiah 84 8,17: 80 1,17: 127 8,23-9.1: 78 7,14: 77 9,27: 80 9,6: 90 12,3-4: 80 10,22-23: 39-40 12,17-21: 80 40,3: 71 13,13-15: 77 49.1: 21 15,22: 80 53,4: 80 16.19: 133

2O.3G-31: 80 Jeremiah 114; 165 21,4-5: 78 1,5: 21 21,15: 81 23,29: 116 22,41-45: 81

22,46: 81 Daniel 165 26,54: 71-78 5.7: 40 26,56: 78

27,9-10: 78 27,57: 83

Matthew 145; 152; 160 1.1: 75-76 Marle 1,2-16: 76 1,1: 69-71; 140 1.6: 80 1,2: 71 1,16: 76 1,2-8: 76 1,17: 76: 80 1.4: 72;74 1,18: 77 1,4-8: 72 1.20: 77: 80 1.7: 72;74 1,2G-23: 87 1,7-8: 72 1,21: 77 1.8: 74 1,22: 77 1.14: 71-72; 74 1,23: 77 1,15: 71-72; 89 1,24: 77 1,17: 124 2, 1: 80 1,21-45: 73 2, 5: 80 1,3B: 74 2, 6: 80 1,39: 74 2,8: 80 1,45: 74 2,13: 87 2,1-12: 73 2, 15: 78 3,14: 74 2,16: BO 3,30: 74 2,17-18: 78 5,20: 74 2.19-20: 87 6,12: 72:74 2,22: 87 7,36: 74 2,23: 78 8,35: 72 4,15-16: 78 10,29: 72 4,19: 124 10,47-48: 80 6,30: 89 11,9: 81 &-9: 80 12,35-37: 80 8, 13: 89 12, 36: 74

Page 198: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

190 Indic~s

12,38: 81 1,55: 89-90 13,10: 72; 74 1,57~6: 85 13,11: 74 1,57-80: 84 14,9: 72;74 1,58: 86; 89-90 14,49: 77 1,6~: 86 15,43: 83 1,64: 86

1,66: 86 Luke 1,67: 87 1,1: 82; 86 1,68: 85;90 1,1-5: 82-83 1,68-79: 86; 88-89 1,5: 84 1,69: 90 1,5-25: 84: 1,70: 90 1,6: 84 1,71: 90 \,8: 85 1,72: 90 1,8-23: 86 1,75: 85 1, 11-20: 86 1,76: 85-86 1,14: 89 1,77: 90 1,15: 85; 87 1,78: 86;90 1,16: 85-86 1,80: 87 1,16-17; 86 2,1-2; 83 1,17: 85; 87 2,4-5: 83 1,18: 89 2,10; 89 1,19: 85; 89 2,10-12: 88 1,25: 86 2,15: 88 1,26: 83-84 2,17: 88 1,26-27: 83 2,19: 88 1. 26-38: 86 2,25: 88 1,29: 86 2,25-27: 87 1,30: 86 2,29: 88 1,32: 85-86 2,29-32: 84 1,32-33: 90 2,36: 84 1,34: 89 2,50: 88 1,35: 85-87 3,1-2: 83-84 1,36: 83 3,2: 84; 88 1,37: 86; 88 3,16: 87 1,38: 86; 88-89 3,19: 84 1,39-56: 84 3.21: 84 1,41: 87 3,22: 87 1,42-45: 86 3,23: 83-84 1,43: 85 3,24-38: 83 1,44: 89 4,1: 87 1,45: 89 4,14: 87 1,46-55: 86: 88-89 4,16-20: 87 1,47: 87; 89-90 5,5: 88 1,50: 90 6,12: 84 1,54: 90 7,11: 84

Page 199: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Passoges from tlre Bible 191

8,2: 84 3,19-21: 95 8,3: 84 3,21: 97 9,45: 88 3,26: 97 10.20: 84 3,32-33: 97 10,21: 87 3,33: 97 11,3: 87 4,14: 95 12,10: 87 4,23-24: 97 12,11: 60 4,42: 97 12,12: 87 5,24: 95 16,20-31: 84 5,25: 95 18,34: 88 5,26: 94-95 18,38-39: 80 5,29: 95 20,20: 60; 88 5,31-33: 97 20,26: 88 5,31-36: 97 20,41-44: 80 5,32: 97 20,44: 81 5,33-36: 97 22,31: 124 5,34: 97 23,50-51: 83 5,35: 95 24,6: 89 5,36: 97 24,8: 89 5,37: 97 24,11: 89 5,39: 97

5,40: 95 lohn 152; 160-161 6,14: 97 1,1: 91 6,27-58: 95 1,1-18: 92 6,40: 95 1,3: 92; 94: 96 6,54: 95 1,4: 91; 94 6,63: 95 1,4-5: 95 6,68: 95 1,5: 91-92 7,18: 97 1,6-7: 91 7,28: 97 1,6-8: 92 7,42: 80 1,7-8: 95; 97 8,12: 95-96 1,9: 92-93; 95; 97 8,13-18: 97 1,10: 92-93 8,14: 97 1,11: 92-93 8,16: 97 1,12: 93 8,26: 97 1,12-13: 93 8,37: 97 1,13: 93 8,40: 97 1,14: 93; 97 8,44: 97 1,15: 93;97 8,46: 97 1.17: 93; 97 9,5: 96 1,18: 93 10,10: 95 1,19: 97 10,25: 97 1,32-34: 97 10,28: 95 3,15: 95 11,25: 95 3,16: 95 12,13: 81

Page 200: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

192 Indices

12.3S: 9S 3.1-8: 146 12.35-36: 95 3.9: 149; ISS 12.38: 17 3.10: 148 12.46: 9S 3.19: 148; ISS 12.50: 95 3.20: 113; 132: ISS 13.18: 17 3.21: 149: 154 14.6: 95;97 3.24: 113 14.17: 97 3.31: 148 15: 25: 17 4: 146 15.26: 97 4.1: 149; 154 16.7: 97 4.5: 132 16.13: 97 4.7: ISS 17.2: 95 4.9-12: 123 17.3: 95;97 4.10: 116 17.8: 97 4.12: 116 17.12: 77 4.13: ISS 17.17: 97 4.16: 148-149 17.17-19: 97 S,I: 146; 148: ISS 17.19: 97 5.6: 149 18.9: 17 5,12: 148 18.32: 77 5.12-7,14: 146 18.37: 97 5.14: ISS 19.24: 17 5.17: 133 19.28: 77 5.20: 115 19.36: 77 6, I: 115; 148 20.31: 96 6.1-2: 115

6.1-7,7: 146 6.8: ISS

RonL 9: 10; 115; 124: 133: 6.15: 148 143: 145-146: 1S1; 176 7.1: 148

1,1: 47-48 7.6: 148 1.3: 154 7.7: 149 1.8: 154 7.14-8.12: 146 1,16: ISS: 8.1-16: 130 1.18: 148-149: 154 8.5: 148 1.29: 149 8.12: 148 1.30: 149 8.26: 149 1.31: 41 9-11: 147 2.1: 148: ISS 9.1: 148 2.1-16: 146 9.6: 116 2, 14: 155-156 9.28: 39-40 2.16: 148 10.1: 149 2.17: ISS 10.4: 148 2.21: 149 11.1: 148 2.25: 148 11.11: 149 3.1: 148; ISS 11.13: 149

Page 201: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

Passoges /rom t~ BibI. 193

12-16: 147 1.10-12: 20 12.1: 148-149 1.1\: 13;20 12, 2: 155 1.12: 13 12,4: 148 1.12-2,14: 24 13.1: ISS 1.13-16: 20 13.4: 131 1.15: 21 13.9: 30-31 1.16-17: 13 13.11: 148 1,17-24: 20 14.1: 149 1.2&. 21 14.5: 149 2.1-10: 20 14.10: 149 2.4: 21 14.23: 149 2, 5: 21 15.1: 148 2,6: 13 15.15: 148 2.11-14: 20

2,14: 20 1 Cor. 10; 176 2.15-21: 20;25 1.1: 48-49 3.1: 13; 21: 115 2, 4: 33:44 3.1-5: 21 2,14: 125 3.6-14: 22 3.1: 30 3.15: 22 4.6: 35-36 3,15-18: 22 4.13: 38 3.21: 124 9,12: 42 3,23: 22 14,3: 36 3,24: 22

4.1-7: 22 2Cor. 4.8-20: 22 1.1: 48-49 4.22-31: 22 2,5: 42 4,24: 31-32 3,6: 113 5,1-6,10: 22:25 3.13-17: 129 5,8: 32 6,8: 38 5.22: 117

GaL 1; 3; 7; 9: 10-13; 17-26; Eph. 115; 143: ISO; 176

1,1: 17-18; 20; 47-48 1,1: 48-49

1,1-2: 18 1,3: 18 PM 1,4: 18 1,7: 33 1.5: 18 2,1: 36 1.6: 51; 115 4,8: 38 1,6-9: 19;21 1,6-2, 21: 13 1,7: 13 CoL \0; 176 1,7-9: 20 1,1: 48;49 1,8: 19 1,3: 159 1,9: 19 4,11: 116

Page 202: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

194 Indices

1 Th .... 2,4-5: 56;66 2.9: 42 2,5: 57 2, 12: 36 2, 6: 56; 60; 64-65 4,9: 42 2,6-8: 66

2,7: 57;60 2 Th .... 2.8: 57 3,8: 42 2, 9: 57;64

2.9-10: 57;66 I7im. 2,10: 57 1,1: 49 2.10-ll: 60 1.2: 50 2, ll: 58; 65 1.3: 51 2.ll-14: 66

2.12-14: 58 2r"," 2,13: 61 1.1: 49 2,14: 62; 65

2,15: 55; 65-66 ntus 9: 45-67; 111-1I2; 145 3,1: 65 1,1: 48-49; 63-65 3,1-2: 66 1,2: 49; 61; 63 3,1-11: 60 1.3: 49-50; 63-64 3,2: 62 1,4: 50-51; 63-64; 66 3.3: 60; 62: 65-66 1.5: 51 3.4: 6S 1.5-6: 63;66 3.4-7: 60; 65-66 1.6: SI-52 3,7: 61 1.7: 53-54; 64 3,8: 62-63 1,7-9: 52-53; 66 3,8-ll: 66 1.9: 53-56; 60; 64 3.9: 6S 1.10: 64 3,10: 65 1.10-13: 66 3.IO-ll: 63 1.11: 64 3.12-14: 63;66 1.13: 54-56; 60-61; 64-65 3.14: 63 1.13-14: 66 3.15: 63:66 1.14: 54 1,15: 64

H./JTtiw. 113 1.15-16: 64:66 4.12: ll6 2, I: 55-56; 60; 64-66 7: 11: 119: 130 2.2; 56-57; 64; 66

2.2-9: 56 2,3: 56:64 James 2.4: 57 5.7: 121-122

Page 203: Classen Rhetorical Criticism

List of the Original Publications

Chapters ]-111 and V are revised. enlarged and updared (11 and V also b'anslated) versions of the folJowing publications:

I: St. Paul's Epistles aod Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric, in: St. E. Porter et Tb. H. Olbricht (edd.). Rhetorie and tbe New Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, Journal for tbe Study cf the New Testament Supplement Series 90. Sbeffield 1993. 265-291.

II: (German version:) Philologische Bemerkungen zur Sprache des Apostels Paulus. in: WienerStudien 1071108 [l:~AIPO!, FestsehriftH.ns SehwablJ. 199411995.321-335.

III: A RhetoriealReading ofthe Epistle to TItus. in: SI. E. Poner et Tb. H. Olbrieht (edd.). Tbc RhetoricaJ Analysis of Scripture. Essays from the 1995 London Conference. Journal for thc Study ofthe NewTestament. Supplement Series 146, Sheffield 1997.427-444.

V: (German version:) Die Bedeutung der Rhetorik für Melanchthons Interpretation profaner und bibHscher Texte. in: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. phi!.· hist. Kl. 1998. 5. 233-272. Göttingen 1998.