CARL JOACHIM CLASSEN

Rhetorical Criticism
of the New Testament
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungetl
zum Neuen Testament
128
Mohr Siebeck
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament
Herausgegeben von
Martin Hengel und Otfried Hofius
128
Carl Joachim Classen
Rhetorical Criticism
of the New Testament
Mohr Siebeck
earl Joachim Classen was born in 1928; he studied Classics at the Universities ofHam-
burg. Gltingen and Oxford: 1952 Dr. phi!.: 1961 Habilitation: 1961..jj6 Dooent in GI
tingen; 1966-69 Professor of Classics 'Iilie TU Berlin. 1969-73 in Wnburg. 1973-93
in Gttingen: since 1993 Professor emeritus.
Die Deutsc1re Bibliothek -
Classen, Carl Joachim:
Rhetorical criticism ofthe New Testament I Carl Joachim Classen.-
Tbingen : Mohr Siebeck. 2000
(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: 128)
ISBN 316-147370-1
I/:> 2000 by J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tbingen. P.O. Box 2040. 0-72010 TUbingen.
This book may not be reproduced., in whole or in part, in any form (beyand that per-
mitted by copyright law) without tbe publisher"s written permission. This applies par-
ticularly to reproductions, translations, microfllms and storage and processing in elec
tronic systems.
Tbe book was typeset by Computersatz Staiger in Pfffingen using Times typeface,
printed by GuldeDruck in TUbingen on nonaging paper from Papierfabrik Niefem and
hound by Buchbinderei Heinr. Koch in Tbingen.
Printed in Germany.
ISSN 0512-1604
Preface
Tbe papers in this collection differ in origin and nature. The first was writ-
ten after I had become aware of the recent debate amongst New Testa-
meDt 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 rhe-
torical 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 neg-
lected) 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 dia-
lectic 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
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
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
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 Gala-
dans. New Testament Studies 21. 1975. 353-379; H. D. Betz (ed.). Galatians: A Cam-
mentary 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 Ge-
meinden in Galatien. Mnchen 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. Gtersloh 1993. The artic1e of 1975 is reprinted in: H. D. Setz,
Paulinische Studien, Tbingen 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 be-
lown.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. Re-
ligious Studies Review 7, 1981. 310--328; W. A. Meeks. Journal of BibIical Lilerature
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. Hbner, Theologische
Literaturzeitung 109, 1984,241-250,
3 See t.g. M. BUnker, Briefformular und rhetorische Disposition im 1. Korinther-
brief, Gttingen 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. belacker. Der Hebrerbrief als Appell. I: Untersuchungen zu uardium, narratia
und postscript.m (Hebr 1-2 und 13, 22-25), Stockholm 1989; W. Wuellner's pupil L.
111e Rhetorieal Strategy of I Peter, Abo 1990; M. M. MitchelI, Paul and the Rhe-
tode of Reconciliation. An Exegeticallnvestigation of the Language and Composition of
1 Corinthians. Tbingen 1991; and especially B. C. Johaoson. To All the Brethren: A
and Rhetorical Approach to I Thessalonians, Stockholm 1987. whose
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 BibHo-
graphy 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 ap-
proach 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 Tr die Neutestamentliche Wissen-
schaft 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.
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, Cha-
pel 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 (Switzer-
land) 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 Wis-
senschafl82. 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 Wrterbuch der Rhetorik 1, TUbingen 1992, 1548-1572 is disappoint-
ing, 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 Realenzyklopdie 15, 1986. 108-137; 137-143 and 144-150 and
G. Sternberger, D.A. Koch, E. MUhlcnberg, U. H. J. Krtner and H. Schrer, Sehriftaus
legung. ibid. 30. 1999,442-457; 457-471; 472-488; 489-495 .nd 495-499.
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 concep-
tion du 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.
11890 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. Gtersloh 1951-'1983. V 21983 (edd.: G. Ebeling and R.
Schfer). 25-371, with a "Disposition": 373-378.
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 ade-
quate and thorough appreciation of texts, their general structure and their
details, one sbould not hesitate to use the most developed and sophisti-
cated 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 accord-
ing 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, Tbingen
1998,211-215.
9 See my paper in Zeitschrift fr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 82, 199 J, 1-33
(see above n. 5) and my artiete Die Rhetorik im ffentlicben Leben unserer Zeit. in: C. J.
Classen a.d H.-I. MUUe.brock (edd.), Die Macht des Wortes, Marbllfg 1992.247-267.
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 lbere
l2
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. Hbner and D.
Flusser.Paulus. in: Theologische Realenzyklopdie 26. 1996, 133-153 and 153-160 (li-
terature: 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. Iul Victoris ars rbetorica, Leipzig 1980.
105-106 (de episrolis).
J4 Cf. V. Weichert (ed.). Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntur TYITOI EITI:1:TOAI-
KOI 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. Grge-
manns, 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 epistologra-
phy 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. Rhe-
torie and Theology, TUbingen 1999.98-125.
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 quali-
ties in general sec H. Lausberg. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, Stuttgart 31990
aDd J. Martin. Antike Rhetorik, Mnchen 1974.362-374: Register s.v. brevislbrevitas.
dilucidus. decorum etc.
16 See in general H. Graf Reventlow, Epochen der Bibelauslegung l-ill, MUnchen
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 Me-
Ianchthon's Annotationes in Johannem in Relation to its Predecessors aod Contempora-
ries, Geneve 1987,265-273; see now also M. (cd.), Hebrew Bible10ld Testamenl.
The History of its Interpretation. 1: From the Beginoings to the Middle Ages (Uoril
1300). Part I: Antiquity, Gttingen 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
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 fr Kircbengeschicbte 79, 1968,417-
419). His correspondence: H. Scheible and W. Thringer (edd.), Melanchthons Brief-
wechsel. 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, Gt-
tingen 1967-1969. Bibliography: H. Scheible. Melanchthon, in: Theologische Real
enzyklopdie 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 Im 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: Elemen-
torum Rhetorices Ubri duo. Diligenler recogniti, Wittenberg 1536); Compendiaria Dia-
lectices, Leipzig 1520; Dialectices libri quatuor. Hagenau 1528 and Erotemata diaJec-
tices. Wittenberg 1547. FOT details see Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereicb er-
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.), Me-
lanchthon 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 Me-
lanchthon 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 Anno-
tationes 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 fr die
Geschichte des Buchwesens 25.1984, 1323-1325 (no. 51-53) and Briefwechsel. Texte
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 letters
26
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. How-
ever, 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. with adhortatio (00. 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 Wrttembergischen 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. Schfer, in: T. 1. Wengert and M. P. Graham (edd.), Pbilip Me-
lanchilioo (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, Vorlufiges Vef7.eichnis der Melanchthon-
Drucke 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'OIAI (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. T-
bingen 1998.
29 Por such nates cf. c. g. In omDes M. Tullli Ciceronis oratianes, quot quidem ex-
tant, 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;
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", "de-
liberative" 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 de-
monstral: "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 Rhe-
torica 12-47; 64-65 and 91-93, esp. 13; Institutiones Rhetoricae, fol. AlIr-v (dialecti-
cum) and Elementorum Rhetorices Iibri duo. fol. A 8v-B Ir and B 3r-B 6r: genus
(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 ex-
planation ofHomer's (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 Mau-
rus, 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 fr
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, Wrzburg 1902,36-41. It deserves to be noticed that ("capable of
teaching") occurs in 1 TIm. 3,2 and 2 Tim. 2, 24.
31 Cf. E. Bi7.er (ed.), Texte (see . 18), 34. In the sense or"superscription on outside
of a letter" is used in antiquity not by rhetoricians. but by others, see e. g. F.
Preisigke and E. Kieling, Wrterbuch 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,
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 eon-
tent and the third merely by a Latin tenn. salutatio (Ugreeting"), again not
eommonly used in ancient handbooks of rhetorie, but familiar from eon-
temporary works on epistolography.32 The seetion from 1, 6 to 2, 21 he re-
gards 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 af-
feetibus). 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 intro-
ductions (IV 1, 14), he interprets Pau!'s next sentence (1,7) appreciatively
as "a toning down ofthe anger" (mitigatio est indignationis), possibly be-
cause 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 ex-
plains 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 argumen-
tation. On 1, 11 he remarks: "He accounts for what he said in the introduc-
tion 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 Desi-
deri 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.
Mller, Brief. in: Historisches Wrterbuch 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 recorn-
mends "milder feelings" (affectltS miriores) for tbc introductions; for his views on feel-
ings 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-
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 reprehensio-
nis); 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 Chri-
stus nihil confert).
35 On 3, 10 Melanchthon remarks 0\l1J..0ytcrp.6; est which he then develops; E. Bi-
zer (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 anteoc-
cuptllio: eie. de or. III205; praesumptio; Quint. inst. or. IX 2, 16) see Elementorum
Rhetorices libri duo (see n.20), fol. K Iv; on poroenesis see what Me
lanchthon says on exlJortatio: De Rhetoriea, p. 34-35 and Elementorum Rhetorices libri
duo, fo!. D Sv.
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 .. , Adno-
tationes 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 commenta-
riis. 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 Testa-
ment.. Toronto 1986; F. Krger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung: Desiderius Eras-
mus von Rotterdarn als Ausleger der Evangelien in seinen Paraphrasen, Tbingen 1986:
M. Hoffmann. Rhetorie and Theology. Tbe Henneneutics ofErasmus. Toronto 1 9 9 4 ~ see
alsoehapterVn.lOl-lll.
38 H. D. Betz. GalatiaDs 337 and GaJater 566-567 (see n.1): Luther. CaJvin, Bul-
linger only; in the Comrnentary on 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 they do not even figure in the
bibliography.
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 Ver-
zeichnis (see n. 20), 12, 1988,3-557 L3306-7642 and J. Benzing and M. Claus, Luther-
bibliographie. Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften Martin Luthers bis zu dessen Tod
12_II, Baden-Baden 1989-J 994: on bis exegesis see G. EbeJing. Evangelische Evange-
lienauslegung. Eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Hennencutik, Darmstadt 21963 and H.
Junghans, Der junge Luther und die Humanisten, Gttingen 1985. - Zwingli; M. Schu-
ler and J. Schulthess (edd.). Huldreich ZwingJi's Werke I-VIII. Zrich 1828-1842. esp.
V and V[ I; E. Egli, G. Finsler, W. Khler et al. (edd.), Huldreich Zwinglis Smtliche
Werke [-XIY, Berlin Zrich 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 ber UlrichZwingli, Zrich 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 Bu-
eeri Opera Latina, Paris 1954-1955 and Martini Bueeri Opera Omnia, Gtersloh 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. Stup-
perich. 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 Realenzyklopdie 7, 1981, 258-270
(bibliography: 269-270), furtber J. Mller, Mortin Buters Hermeneutik, Gtersloh
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-Vl, Tbingen 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 Realenzyklopdie 7,1981.170-
181 (bibliography: 180-181): on the later commentaries H. Ch. Brandy, Die spte
Christologie des Jobannes Brenz, Tbingen 1991; on the rbetorie: eh. Hermann, Bltter
fr Wrttembergische 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, Zrich
since 1972, esp. Abteilung 3: H. G. vom Berg (ed.), I: Exegetische Schriften aus den
Jahren 1525-1527 and 2: Unverffentlichte Werke der Kappeier Zeit. Theologiea, Z-
rich 1983 and 1991, further Abteilung I: F. Bsser (eci), Bibliographie: 1: J. Staedtke,
Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der gedruckten Werke von Heinrich BuUinger. Zrich
1972, also 2: E. Herkenrath. Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der Literatur ber Heinrich
BuIlinger, ZUrich 1977; see further S. Hausammann. Rmerbriefauslegung zwischen
Humanismus und Reformation. Eine Studie ,..d Heinrich Bullingers Rmerbriefausle-
gung von 1525, Zrich 1970 and F. BUsser, BulIinger. Heinrich, in: Theologische Real-
enzyklopdie 7,1981. 375-387 (bibliography: 385-387). - Calvin: G. Baum, E. Cunitz
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 Gttingen 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. G e n ~ v e 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 analyticohermeneuticae in singulos Novi Testamenti libros
speciales (282-416). On St Hayd seeP. Reusch, Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 11,
1880,123.
I. Paul:r Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric 17
of ancient rhetorie and of andent literary theory and criticism
42
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 pos-
sible) the following facts: the writer's education and e"perienees, the
education and experiences of the addressee or addressees (one should re-
member 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 ('cir-
cumstances' 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 correspon-
dence, views and experiences shared or not shared, opposing views - and,
finally, the intention of the writer, whether he wishes to communicate in-
formation 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 Grae-
ce, 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 through-
out 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).
] 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 ': Ct.vSQw:n:01J, an&. LCt. '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 partieiple
47
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, Tbingen 1970 (very
usefu!).
41 'tO' 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."
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 not-
cannot 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;EOat three times; avaE!!a
Em:ro twice,'o c1early for emphasis, and a correcting addition ("whieh is
not another": 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 excite-
ment, 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 appli-
cable 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 na-
ture 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 sld 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."
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 EuayyE.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 v6QCJJ: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 verses
S2
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]
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
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.
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" 2, 4) and 10 words wilh
emotional appeal (2, 4: "liberty" and 2, 5: "truth of Ihe
gospel" TO 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 in-
te<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" "reproachful"
"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).
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 a contrast wbich
pointedly repeated as rebuke
56
cannot easily be overheard. This is the sub-
ject-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.EA.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.
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 Pseudo-
Demelrius 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 VOU8E"t1]"tL1<O, ("admonish-
ing") or ("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. EIIIZfO-
AIMAIOI XAPAKTHPEl: 27: 72 (p. 18: 29-30. see also 47-48 Weichert).
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 5 7 ~ 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 5 7 ~ 2 and Galater 5 8 ~ 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 con-
vincing 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-
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.), Mar Victorini Afri Commentarii in Epistulas PauIi ad Gala-
tu 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 Pauluskommenta-
tor, 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.
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 Stu-
dien, 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 PS.-Lib.
EIIIITOAIMAIOI XAPAKTHPEl: praef; I, see also the examples: 1; 90; 91
(p.14; 15; 21-22; 56-57 Weiche,,).
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 Pseudo-
Demetrius, 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 GrecoRoman Anti-
quity, 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 dicen-
di 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'sjudg-
ment," (est aUltm aUa dispos;,io, quat cum ab ard;ne artificioso recedendum est, oralo-
ns iudicio ad Umpus adcommodarur).
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 c o m ~
parative material has been col1ected and analysed e. g. by W. G. Doty. Letters in Primiti-
ve 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 epist-
les 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 rmischen 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, Grundstze der forensischen Rheto-
rik gezeigt an Gerichtsreden Ciceros. Mnchen 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.
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 Rm 9-11, Tbingen. 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.
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.
3
1t 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 Realenzyklopdie 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 . 12 re-
gards my statement that praxis precedes theory" ("die Praxis ist lter 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.
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 Elttlno-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 com-
mandments he says: xatEi: heQa 8v avaxE-
<j>a-moii1;m (9: "and if there be any other commandment, it is hriefly
comprehended in this saying"). While xE<j>a-moiiv occurs more than
onee in Greek prose since Thueydides and also auyxE<j>a-moliv,
6
avaxe-
<j>a.moiioSm (as weil as rnavaxE<!>a.moiioSaL
'
) and avaXE<j>a-
-a[wO"L, are rare, heing used almost exclusively in works of rhetoric. The
earliest writer to whom we can attrihute avaxE<j>a-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 Phi-
Jippians and to Pbilemon, see e. g. G. Strecker. Literaturgeschichte des Neuen Testa
menrs, Gttingen 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>nAmov and OllyxEq,aAmov.
7 For Eltavaxtq,alama9m cf. Hermog. srat. 3 (p.52. 11 Rabe) and later Ori-
genes, Alexander of Apbrodisias. Syrianus. John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; 7tQocr
avaxe<j)aAaLotia6aL is hapax legomenon in Apollonius of Citium 3 (p.92 Kollesch-
Nickel).
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 For-
tunatianus.
10
Both verb and noun always refer 10 the recapitulation of the
most essential elements of a speech. The equation with Ke<l>aaLov, as
suggested by H. Schlier in the Theologische Wrterbuch,l1 is no less mis-
leading than bis assumption of two meanings a) "to reduce to a Ks<l>a-
aLov,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 TV
3t'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, Rea1encyclopdie 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 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 Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament 1-10. Stuttgart 1933-1979,
3. 1938. 681. with reference to E_ Fraenkel. Griechische Denominativa in ihrer ge-
schichtlichen Entwicklung und Verbreitung. Gttingen 1906. 135 who. however. dis-
cusses 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 1'4'
XQLO'tt9, 'tCx i7 tote; oUQavotc; xai. 'ta F.1t1. -n;C; yfJc; Ev 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.
32 11. Paul and the Tenninology 01 Ancient Greek Rhetoric
passive voiee: 4, 24): anva fO'tLV ("this is said in an al-
legorieal 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.1
3
There is evidence both
for the noun and the verb CtAA'1YOgELV (also for adjectives and other deri-
vates) only in the rhetorical works of Philodemus, Cicero, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus,14 of Pseudo-Longinus, Pseudo-Demetrius, Quintilian,15
TIberius, Trypho
l6
and in authors who concern themselves with the inter-
pretation 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 L'
un;ovOLOOV or L' et"ovo, I L' 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. 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 Wrterbuch (see n.ll) 1. 1933, 260 and W. Bauer,
Griechischdeutsches Wrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der bri-
gen urchristlichen Literatur, SerHn 51963, 77-78, s. v. a)J"T\yoQSoo. I prefer trus edition
to the new oe, 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. Tbingen 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.
11. Paul and the Tenninology 01 Ancient Greek Rhetoric 33
In the letter to the Philippians (1, 7) the noun 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 commer-
cial eontexts ("guaranteeing, guaranty, warranty"),22 and sinee Anaxime-
nes it is also common in works of rhetorical theory for a kind of confirrna-
tion of a statement by means of proofs or additional considerations
23
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 EmoooEL TO euaYYEA.(oU ("in the defenee and confir-
rnation 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 support-
ing supplementary eonfirmation;"" and lassume that he was familiar with
ea(OJolof; as teehnical term of rhetorie for one of the functions of an epi-
logue, 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;, Ev a:n:OE(!;EL :n:VEV!-IaTOC; xat uva.!-IEOJC; ("My speech and
my preaching was not with enticing words of wisdom, but in demonstra-
tion 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. En(",cr".
22 See apart !rom W. Bauer. GriechischDeutsches \Vrterbuch (see n.17). 275 F.
Preisigke and E. Kieling. Wrterbuch 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 by means of an oath. agam different: K. Hajdu (ed.), Ps.
Herodian. De figuris, Berli. 1998, 118 and 122: 25 and 36: 6LaEn("'tn,.
25 Commentators call CmoAoy[a and eai.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 gefrbte Termini": J. Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief. Frei
burg 21976, 49); I would rather say that 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.
7
1993.
34 11. Paul and 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 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-Lon-
ginus?29 The second member of this contrast. again a terminus technicus,
cmoELSLi;;, "sober demonstrating or reliable proving" as opposed to per-
suading, perhaps even bewitching phrasing of human wisdom,30 to my
mind requires a similar!y emphasized noun as first member. For this rea-
son 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 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
2
1994,481 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 Wrterbuch (see n. 17), 1271 s. v, ntOIl0vr,.
FOT other neologisms see n. 82.
" Cf. Plat. Gorg. 453 A (cf. also Gorgias Irg. A 28 Diels Kranz = frg. 9 Rader-
macher); 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.- does not follow till verse 5. av8QOl1tLVTlS is to
be regarded as later addition; il suggests itself to assume Ev :rtsL90L cro$ta!; xaL .6yoov
as paraUel to EV CL1tOSL.!;e:L 'Kat > omted in the
Theologische Wrterbuch (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 Ko-
rinther I-IJI, Neukirchen Vluyn 1991-1999, 1233, even says: "Auch ist
wahrscheinlich eine bewute Anspielung auf einen term. techno der antiken Rhetorik"
("Probably cbt6oeLJ;LC;. toD. is adeliberate allusion to a lechnical term of anciet
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, Gttingen
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, Tbingen
3
1937. 92: "Who will transfonn the body of our existence into insignificance."
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 ("ta"tll S, Cr.I\EA<j>OL ELs tIlIlU"tOV xat
'AJtO)"),,lV L' Ullii,), modem scholars have given different interpreta-
tions. 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 and IlE1:1l0)(T]Il(l,L-
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. Gttingen
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 was a technical
term ofthe Stoics (Posidonius).
33 See H. Lietzmann and W. G. Kmmel, An die Korinther L II, TUbingen 51969, 18;
W. Bauer. GriechischDeutsches Wrterbuch (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 Testa-
ment .... 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, Gttingen 1969. 104 (in-
structive 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'
Paris 1879.604-605.
" Cf. Ps.-Henuog. illv. 4. 3 (p.18!); 4, 4 (p.lS7 Rabe);Alex.jig.lII p. 24 Spengel.
36 Il. Pau{ anti the Tenninology o[ Ancient Greek Rhetoric
the preeeding sentenees, (my) brethren, r have transformed (or reorga-
nized) 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 and rrueu!J.'U9la together
(1 Cor. 14, 3) or and rrUeU!J.1l9LOV (Phi!. 2, 1) or the verbs
rrueuxueiv 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 speeches
42
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 dis-
regard that passage.
41 Cf. e. g. Anaxim. met. praef 1,4; 2, 27 et saepius, also Ps.-
Aristot. div. even knows a xaQQx)..l11:LX0S- (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 Hermog. id. II 10 (p. 393 Rabe).
44 Cf. also Mar. Viel. rhet. 1.5 (p.174, 29-38 Halm). Pb. Melanehthon, Elemen-
torum rbetorices libri duo (Wittenberg 1531, edition here used:) Wlttenberg 1536, fol. D
Sv still puts consolatio and adhorlatio tagether, see cbapter V n. 82.
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
:rcC1QC1K.!]'\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 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 ITQ\ :rca9lv 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. exhor-
falio) in both Greek and Latin philosophy and rhetoric".
415 Commentators clearly have problems in trying to do justice to tbe two verbs to-
gether with llaQ't"UQo9aL 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 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.
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 and
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
Ucr<!>I1f!LV in ilS common rneaning "to abuse" and in the letter to the
Philippians (4, 8) "enjoying a good reputation, being bonae
famae",S3 but plaeing the two words and with special
ernphasis side by side in a most earefully and impressively phrased long
sentenee
S4
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. Lei-
den 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 Frag-
menta (see n. 13), m J 00 frg. 413; Ammonius diff. 213 p. 56, 7-8 Nickau.
50 Cf. H. Diels, Philodemos ber die Gtter, 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
176,22-26 (witb al<lJ(Qo1-oyia). see also II p. 215; 1
p. 215,5-7 (contrast: ",1-0YELV); p.220, 22-26 Sudhaus; Anon. Seg. 105 as
'IQ61tos; ofthe no example is given).
52 Cf. Ps.-Demetr. e10e. 281 (definition of the with the he1p of
and 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. Gttingen 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."
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 atten-
tion, where Paul uses a word, O'UV,Ef.LVELV, which is common as terminus
technicus of ancient rhetoric
56
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 LXaWOUv'!l,
" l.6yov O'UV'tE'tf.L1'Jf.LEVOV 0 Sec<; ev 't'fi olxolJf.LEv'!l )'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 aUV"tOJ.lOt; and 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 Rmer, Gttingen
3
1978. 305: H. Schlier, Der
Rmerbrief. Freiburg 1977,294; U. Wilckens. Der Brief an die Rmer I-rn, Neukir-
chen-V1uyn 1978-1982, 1I 198; P. Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Rmer. Gtlingen
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, Gttingen '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 die-
tionaries, e. g. W. Baumgartner et al .. Hebrisches und aramisches Lexikon zum Alten
40 Tl. Palll anti the Terminotogy 0/ Andent Greek Rheloric
c1early, what the translation tries to reproduce adequately by combining
ouVtEALV and OUVtEIJ,VLV 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 deliberate-
Iy distorts its original sense. One has to ask oneself, therefore, whether
Paul takes Myov to be the object of OUVtAOOV and and uses
(unJike the Septuagint) without object (as in lsaiah 10, 22b) or
whether he conneets Myov with as in verse 10, 23 (of the
Septuagint) and understands the two participles (as in Daniel) as ex-
pression 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 four times and once LE\!-
(or 'EglJ,1jveta and its derivatives have a wide
spectrum of nuances of meaning in Greek.
63
Aristotle, for instance, in bis
"egt deals with the kinds oflanguage wbich depend on think-
ing 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 Wrterbuch 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 (Theo-
dodon).
61 E. Ksemann, An die Rmer, 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 Wrterbuch (see n. \I) 2. 1935.
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.
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. yevl'J
YAWcrcrWV) and finally "interpretation of [divers] longues" (12, 10: EQ-
Ill1vELa YAWcrcrWV) al the end ofthe chapter (12,30) and in the fourteenth
chapter invariably uses "expound" (I.EI1IlI'JVEUELV or LEQIlI'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 inter-
pretation of what those say who are endowed with the gift of speaking in
divers tongues and its transposition into generally understandable lan-
guage,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
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
(LEQIlT]VEUELV).69
occurs only once in Greek literature ti11 about 300 B. C., in
the rhelorical handbook of Anaxirnenes (rMI. 36, 55), but later so fre-
quently 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 LEQJ.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. LEQJl11veUoo, 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
tnuction 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 occurs in the comedies of NeocJes (frg. 26 Kassel-Austin).
1! See e.g. O. Michel (see n.57), 61, E. Ksernann (see n.61). 46 or U. Wilckens
(see n. 57), 114.
42 Tl. Paul ond the Tenninolo8Y of Ancient Greek Rhetoric
earliest example of is recorded in the Hrst letter to the Thes-
salonians (4, 9) and later only once in a rhetorical treatise,72 yet not as ter-
minus 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 emaQELv
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 ad-
mits rightly that this sense is not attested elsewhere; and normally in rhe-
torieal contexts and aQus, sometimes also aQu'tllS mean the
quality of tone or aeeent
7S
or the kind of style.
7
' In addition later hand-
books on rhetorie have seetions :1tEQl aQu'tlJ'toS-
77
where is un-
derstood as the form of an orator's 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 aQu'tlJS xa'ta yvwl-llJv and aQu'tl1S xa'ta axiilla are enumera-
ted, similarly by Hermogenes,79 and it is possible that Paul wants to ex-
cIude 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 Wrterbuch (see
n. 17), 574 following C. F. G. Heinrici: "Eine zu groe Last von Worten auftnnen",
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.

79 Cf. PS.-Aristid. r"et. 135--42 and 43--47; Hennog. id. 11 8 p. 364 Rabe.
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 oflife
81
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 af-
ter 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.nehthonsjudgments 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, ya}lltElv, MOloc;, (once quotation from the
Septuagint), 5LQflaQwQEo9aL. iVLKOS, EVOXOS. LEQOO\J)...Etv,
'Ki..11QOVOIlETv (once quotation from the Septuagint), -I.lia. K'UQOV. i..0YEta,
J.lEo("1<;, 6100"ov, ltaguam<;, "ugEO'<;, ltokhEUJ.la, 1tgal<oo-
QLOV, 1tQEOeilELV. nQOOeEIlLa, 1tQox'UQOv, gabitEtv, ouyx)'TJgOVOj.lOC;. auata"tl-
XOS; (see n.4), rcavQos;, U1tOL'KOS;. XEl.Qo"toveLv; from philosophy: aOXTJIl0mJV1'1.
a\haQx.eta, acpEloQota, eYXQcl'tELa., EVXQanuEa9aL. tXQvo"tTJS;. "auXTJ-
av;. )..0YLXOC;. OCPQTJOLf;, from religion: QQT)"'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:, 01tfVeoElat.; others: SyxEvtQitELv. aYQLilaLOS;, xaU.tiloLoc;: (horti-
culture), WtOXOn-tELV, EX"tQOJj.lQ (medicine), evnmov, 6EIlElLOC;: lt6oc;: (craftsman-
ship), goxoC; (bunting), QaE'ov (sport).
82 Th. Ngeli. Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus. Gttingen 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: Emta"taaoeo9al. E1t1.XOQT\-
y(a, eU1CCtQe&oc;, xa"taxQLOlC;, (but see
Pap.Oxyrh. 1828), KCl"tciQ"tLOl.S;. xolacpi.l;Et.v, VE'KQWOtS, oQ90n:06E'LV,
J'tEUJ1.tOvtl, 1ttQ1ttQEUE06aL, J'tA1'fQoQ>oQla. 1tQOOQltElV. 1tQOatO:tU;.
1j>i.a, O1J'(KOiVOlOU;, O1Jt'l"1n;c;, O1JJ.l<Poo"'lO'C;, oUJ.lljlUXOC;,
O\J(J'tQuQo"v, unEgClKJ.!oC;. U1CEQE'KtLva.
unEQE'Kt'ELVELV. U1VT\AOq,QovEtv, q,QEvanutdv, q,uatwO"lC;:, XOlK61i.
XQ1)CTtokoyia, 1j>ruUEk<poC;,1EUcutOCTtOl.o<;. Genuine bap.x lego-
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., 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 ... which may be traced back to
Hamer, see e. g.lliad 1365 or X 250; later Ev ti.6oat tYELV is most common.
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 Pastoral-
briefe, Berlin 21972, 203. stresses like others [hat "the prescript is much longer than is
usuaI' ("das Prskript umfangreicher ist als gewhnlich"), 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 Brief-
fonnular., 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 conditios.
2 See D. F. Watson and A. J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible. A Compre-
hensive Bibliograpby with Notes on History and MeLhod. Leiden 1994.
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 'tXVl1).
This does not imply that one must have Jearned a theory or studied a hand-
book to be familiar with it; one may imitate the praetiee of others or may
have developed it oneself. But an element of deliberation, of systematisa-
tion and of planning seems to me to be an essential eharaeteristie of rhe-
torie. Rhetorieal reading, then, is reading a text in order to grasp the infor-
mation 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 fic-
tion, 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 recom-
mend to a speaker to use his ownjudgment to assess a situation and an au-
dience 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 in-
dispensab1e factor Quint. inst. VI 5, 1-2 who emphasizes that it eanot be taught.
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, OAO, XQLcno 'I'100 ("Paul, servant of Jesus
Christ": Rom. I, 1) or as IIub, emocnoAo, DU" <'m' av9QOl3tOlV oUlle
L' av9Qcll3tou &AM Lcl 'I'1oo 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 Testa-
ment, 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 addi-
tional 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, Gttingen 51902; G. Wohlenberg. Die Pastoralbriefe (der erste TImotheus-.
der Ti rus- und der zweite TimotbeusbrieO. Leipzig 31923: W. Lock, A Critical and Exe-
getieal Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Edinburgh 1924; A. Schlatter, Die Kirche
der Griechen im Urteil des Paulus. Eine Auslegung seiner Briere an TImotheus und Ti-
tus, Stuttgart 1936; E. F. Scott, Pastoral Epistles (see n. 1): M. Dibelius and H. Conzel-
mann. Die Pastoralbriefe. TUbingen 41966; G. Holtz. Pastoralbriefe (see n. 1); V. Hasler,
Die Briefe an Timorheus und litus (Pastoralbriefe), Zrich 1 9 7 8 ~ J. Jeremias and A.
Strobel, Die Briefe an TImotheus und TIrus. Der Brief aD die Hebrer. G5ttingen
12
1981;
N. Brox. Die Pastoralbriefe. 1 Timotheus. 2 Timotheus. Titus. Regensburg .51989; H.
Merkel, Die Pastoralbriefe. Gttingen 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
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: DaAo, OAO, 6EO, cmooTo-
AO, e 'Il]oo XQLOTO ("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, XQUTtO
("caUed as apostle of Jesus Christ": I Cor. I, 1) Or an001:0AO,
'XQLcno (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 him-
self as OAO, 6EO, a term traditionaUy applied to Moses or the prophets
of the Old Testament.
7
The author continues an001:0AO, e 'Il]oo XQLO-
ehe (see D. 5),5-22: W. Michaelis. Pastoral briefe und Gefaogenschaftsbriefe. ZurEcht-
heitsfrage 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, Pa-
storalbriefe (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 ReaJenzyklopdie 26, 1996. (on theauthorship: commenta-
ries: 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 er-
sten TImotheusbdef, Freiburg 1994, XXI-XXII; XXXIII-XLVI. also XLVII-L. On the
problems in general see N. Brox. Falsche Verfasserangaben_ Zur Erklrung der frh-
christlichen 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 ("'wrtliche Berhrungen _._ mit den
frheren 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 Wrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testa-
ments und der frhchristlichen 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 do-
cument unlike a private letter" ("der Brief empfangt dadurch von vorn herein den Cha-
rakter 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
/11. A RlletoricaI Reading 0/ lire Epistle 10 TttllS 49
roii Ka,a ,.,[cmv EKeK,JV Boii Kat Erctyvooow al1Beia, rij, Ka,'
euoteLaV br' elT[L alooviou ("apostle of Iesus Christ according
to Ihe faith of God's chosen ones and 10 the knowledge ofthe truth in ac-
cordance 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 ux Boii (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/-LJv ("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 cho-
sen people and their underslanding, their recognition of the truth - Ihis be-
ing 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. More-
over, this is the on!y salutation in which alwvLo<; ("etemallife") oc-
curs, and this concept is further explained by two orrather Ihree clauses,9
remarkab!e for their content and their vocabulary: ("trust-
worthy") 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 see al-
ready 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, Pastoral-
briefe (see n.5), 224. W. Lock, Commenlary (see n.5), 82 regards bt' tlwt,, ... neo
XQovwv atwvLoov as an eJtpansion of 2 Tl/tl. Ir 1 ('Kat" E:ltaY'fEA.(.av "tf1s tv
XQLO't"<p '1"00;:;: 'in accordance with the promise of life in Jesus Christ"). On
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 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),
50 1/1. A Rhetorical Reoding DfThe Epistle to 1itU$
mand follows (xm;' em,uyi!v ,0;:; 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). is a very common
word, often qualified by various nouns or adjectives. But as "u,c:i. JtL<J1:W
6XAEX,JV 9eo;:; in the fIrst verse ofthis letter is unique in the epistles, so is
xowi! 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
xut EtQ"V1] emo geo;:; xut XQL<J1:oii 'I1]oo;:; ,0;:;
("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 after geo;:; because 1:0;:;
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, thereby already here giv-
ing special weight to an aspec! to which he draws attention throughout the
whole letter. 111is is not comparable to the addition oho;:; xUQlou 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, 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 psalms
14
), 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 . 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; Kai MO eeoil "a<go, 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 in-
terpreles 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
/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" AEbtovta e:n:u'lLOQ8won), next a more speci-
fie one: "you should appoint elders in eaeh town"
:n:OAIV 1, 5). The first phrase is very unusual and eom-
mands 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 irreproaeh-
able 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 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 aUlor 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 erhlt 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 particu-
lar).
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: ei: ("It is necessary").22
None of the words used is uneommon in pagan writings, but
("quick-tempered"), ("Ioving the good") and
("self-controlled") oceur only here in the New Testament, also the eombi-
nation [XaLo<; / ("righteous / pious"), while ("srubborn")
is found in the seeond letter ofPeter and ("drunken"), 1t):llx'tr!'
("pugnacious"), ("greedy for money"), ("hos-
pitable") 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 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 '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: YU'\laL'KS ("of one wife onli') and avv1Co'tx'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
don" ("Der Gleichklang der letzten Attribute lt die Einwirkung eines rhetorischen
Motivs vermuten"). Does be wish to imply that the author is more concemed with form
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 -W >n:a. tt,v LUXt,V 1tLCTtO
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 leach-
ing, 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
LUX1] - LUcr><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 avtLAE-
fIrst as "cIisobedient" (avu",otaX1: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 E;: ("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 LUCJXUALU in the preeeding sen-
lenee.
The charge is heavy; for that reason the author first insinuates a motive
- uiO)(QO XUgLV ("for dishonest gain"), taking up ulO)(Qo-
("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' .... JtLCTto' )"oyou and t)..EYXel.V see 1. Calvin. Opera 52
(see n. 5). 410-412; G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see . 5). 229-230: W. Lock. Com-
meotary (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, 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,t;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 malose Ausfall
gegen eine 1JT1ehre"), sec also ibid. 90. - otnves ).,ovs 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).
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 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 Ct." t<rrtv ("This testimony is true": 1. 13).
The last word of Ihe long description of the qualities of abishop was
eEy;(ELv ("convicl, correct, rebuke": I, 9) - this is now laken up: The
author is applying the general principle to the particular case, first repeat-
ing several words he used previously, eEYXE, strengthened by the rare
a:n:o"[of1WC;, tVCt UYLCtlvWenv ("rigorously so that they may be sound", cf.
1, 9: IhIlCto"CtICt UYLC1IVOUO"Ct: "sound teaching") and by Ev
("in their faith", cf. 1,9: :7tLClTO, >.oyo,), before he names the target to be
fought against: 'IouIlCtL"ot f190L ("Jewish tales")-again a striking phrase,
as 'IouIlCtL"oC; is ahapax legomenon in the New Testament and f190C; is
rare. To underline that the f190L are put forward with a claim to autbority
he concIudes tbe senlence with the words "commandments of men who
turn away from the truth" (EvWCtLC; av9Q(o:n:wv a:n:oClTQE<\>oidvwv Tijv
1, 14), each of which carries special weight: not
[rom God (as frequentJy in the New Testament), hut av9Qomwv and even
worse av9Qw:n:OlV a:n:oClTQE<\>Of1EvOlV TiJv 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 f1ev ("[indeedJ all"),
in others :n:aVtCt yaQ ("for all"), but the majority simply read
XCt9CtQCt "Ct9CtQOL, ("all things are pure for the pure"), without any
27 On see C. J. Classen. Prophet, in: Lexikon der Alten Welt. Zrich
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
schlgt hier die rhetorische Kunst des gebildeten Verfassers in eine jeder Kontrolle ent-
zo\ene feindselige Polemik um"); polemies may be part of the art of rhetoric,
a 'EkEYXELV is not onIy "terminus tcchnicus ofpasloral earc" ("terminus technicus
fr 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 "Iouaixot /l'08OL is
perhaps a piece of loeal colouring as also ot tx tiic; 1tEQLtO .... (1, 10: "the cireum-
cised"). G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n.5), 235-236 stresses that av8Q""''''v
anoO"tQEcf:.OJLEYU)V ti]v belangs to 'Iouatxotc; as weIl as to

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 - - xaSaQov,
even though lexicographers and commentators assume two different
meanings,3o by the antithesis ol xaSuQot - 01 ("the pure-
the defiled") and by the correctio oMiv )tuSUQov, o.'JJ.&.
u{",'iiv )tat 0 VOS xut O1JVE("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 VOS) and the moral
consciousness; and he iJIustrates the attitudes he is critici7lng first by an
antithesis, not A6ym - EQYU ("words - works"), but SEOS (SEOV ...
Etevm) - EQYU ("'to know God - works"), then by a number of denigrat-
ing adjectives; the very rare EAlJXTO[ ("abominable"), the fairly com-
mon MEISE;:S ("disobedient") and a more elaborate phrase as third mem-
ber (1tQOS 1tv EQYOV ayuSov "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 t AUAEI
1tQE1tEI (not E;:) Tii UYIUWOUOU ("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 t AUAEI
32
(corresponding
to EAEYXE), to be wound up later by TUTU 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 Testa-
mentum Graece, Stuttgart
27
1993, 557. The commentaries do Dot discuss this problem.
30 E. g. W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wrterbuch (see n.7), 766-767, di-
stinguishes "ritually pure" ("kultisch rein": TIt. }, 15 aand c) and "free from sin" ("rein
von Snde": 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
'Ka9aQa., more cautious N, Brox. Pastoralbriefe (see n_ 5), 290 (referring to Luke 11.41;
39; Matth. 23. 26).
31 On sec W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wnerbuch (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".
56 ]ll, A Rhetorical Reading ofthe Epistle 10 'litus
strucluring the whole, next a key expression from the first chapter.
uYlalvouoa LaoxaAla (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 ex-
pressions: Lli{30AOs (as adjective: "slanderous") and oiv!p
eouAOJI-LEVaL ("slaves to drinking") or hapax legomena (in the New
Testament): Ev ("in their behaviour"), LEQ03TQE:7tE1S
("worthy of reverence"), xaAo,,5aoxaAOL ("teaching good things") and
('10 urge to be prudent and temperate"), as is the third on
younger women: <l>i.AavQoL, otxouQyol ("Ioving their hus-
bands", "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 ... have to be regarded, I
think, as aseparate seetion, even though 'tas vEas has to be taken as the
object of and there is no indieation of a new beginning
comparable to woaimns ("Iikewise") as in 2, 3. But since neither an ab-
solute use of is attested elsewhere nor an infinitive eon-
struction following it, the author seems to be moving from one construc-
tion 'tas vEas: "that they urge the young wornen") into
another: Ta. vEas <l>LAavQou. 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 ("ex-
hort"), but also (without the new beginning being marked)
33 Not nu:ru., tAn:l, and ("faith. bop. and lov.") as in 1 Cor. 13. 13. but
("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
:7tLO"tEL (<<sound in taithn) see W. Lock. Commentary (see n. 5), 139-140.
34 On the pair 4>iAa.VQOL - see G. Wohlenberg, PastoraJbriefe (see
n. 5), 242 n. 2, on OLxOUQYOl B. Weiss, Die Briefe (see n. 5). 354-355. also on
('<sJanderous") and W. Bauer, Wrterbuch (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.
/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 en-
courage 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 lau-
1<uA.tav 1:iJv,o;:; uro'tfjQo<; lil-llV SEC;:; 1<00I-lWOlV Ev 3tOl ("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 3tOL. These words are usually
translated "in aIl respects";37 but is it not more likely that the author, bav-
ing added even the slaves to the four other groups of free men and free
women and baving said that the slaves should show 3toav 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 demonstrat-
ing 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": "da
sie Zucht wirken") seerns satisfactory. nor the common explanation which does not ac-
cept 4b-5 as aseparate unit. A compromise seems indicated by M. Dibelius, Pastoral-
briefe (see n.5). 105: "Thus lhe following instruction for the youngcr warnen is em-
bedded in that for the elderly ones; that this is a fonna1 aspect only is shown by the inde-
pendence of the instruction for the young men" ("Die folgende Anweisung fr die jn-
geren Frauen ist also in die an die alten eingebettet - da das Dur Fonn ist, zeigt die Selb-
stndigkeit der Anweisung an die jungen Minner'"). On the rva-clauses see W. Lock,
Commentary (see n. 5), 138.
36 On ... GEO!j: (he says Bta; 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 ... Wnerbuch), Chicago
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
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 eeo ... f:V :rtOLV (2,
10: "of our Saviour God amongst all men") by E:rte<j>uvT] yaQ )(UQLS "to
ew 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 m-
munity, 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 ... adding first ltdOLV aVeQOJltOLS, thus
stressing that it addresses itself to all men, then ltaLeuouoa 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 de-
cisive word in the centre, ("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 (2, 10) and (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 ".OLV o.vSQw-
nol.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 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" ("da der Autor nichts Neues zu prgen, sondern Geprgtes weiterzuge-
ben sich bewut ist"); I am not so sure about that.
41 On :7taleilo'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 means "educate" here. not "chastise", as always in Paul's letten.
l1f. A Rltetorical Reading olilu Ep.islle ro Titlls
59
participle and several adverbs the essential features ofhis injunction as re-
gards our religious and moral conduct in this Iife. He does this in tradi-
tional philosophical terms which he pointedly places immediately before
the main verb: )(at )(at ("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: 3tQocrExofLEVOL
nlv fLa)(aQLav eA.1tta )(at emcj>(lvELaV 'to fLEya).ou eEO
)(at TJfLWV XQL<TCO 'IT]oo ("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 W)(EV Eau'tov {mEQ
TJfLWV: "who gave hirnself for US"44), and a {va-c1ause which recalls pro-
mises 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: )(a).wv EQYWV ("eagerto perform good
deeds"), an expression which stresses that some activity is expected from
those addressed here, activity visible in good works
46
(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
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 XglOTO. 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. Paslo-
ralbnefe (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
)'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 see W. Lock. Com-
mentary (see n.5), 147.
" Besides 2. 7 see 3, I; 3, 8 and 3, 14. G. Wohleoberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n. 5), 251
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 aou :7tQl<!>QOVLtC1J: "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 con-
tinues 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
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, :7tv EQYOV
aya96v) and to show a peaceful and friendly attitude "towards all men"
(:7tgo<; mivta, av9gro:7tou<;), pointing to the two possible areas of ac-
tivity. In the following senten ce (3, 3) he gives the reason: the personal ex-
perience ofthe Christi.ns, emphasized by the use ofthe first person plural
and he .dds further weight to bis words first by an asyndetic enu-
meration of their own (negative) qualities or activities in the pas! (3, 3),
then by contrasting them with the Saviour's graciousness and loving kind-
ness (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 XaAOOV lQYoov is "with special emphasis" ("nacbdrck-
liehst") 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 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
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 asyn-
deta ulto'taaaeo9m, 1tELBaQXELv, nv EQYOV aya9bv erVelL. The
assumption of G. Wohlenberg, Pastoralbriefe (see n.5), 252-253 that the second con-
cepts 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
/11. A Rhctorical Reading ofthe Epistle to 1ilUS 61
someone had the feeling that these sentences were eonstrued in a very par-
ticularmanner, and I would eertainly not want to deny that. Clearly, here it
is not the voeabuJary that is unusual, exeept for <j>lavQolltla ("love for
mankind") and A01.rtQov 1taALyyevealas Kal avaKmvwaeoos 1tveu-
fLa'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>lav-
QI01tla ("kindness and love for mankind"), eQya "tCt Sv oLKaLOaUvn,
1toLljaafLEv T]fLELS / to aBtO 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 atwvLos
("etemal life": 3, 7). as he pointed to our expeetations at the end of his in-
junctions 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 lt, 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? Grtingen 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 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; is found once in Paul:
Rom. 12,2, see W. Lock, Commenlary (see n.5). 154-155.
52 bc.xatoaUVTJ. J..tOS, oc9tELv C'to save"), n'VEuf,ta iiYLOV.
("'grace"). ("heir"). EI.>ti.<; ("hope") and tOlTJ atomo, all oceur quite fre-
quently 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.
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 be-
fore (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 contro-
versies (the terms used possibly referring to specifically Jewish matters
54
)
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 Testa-
ment).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 v8Qw:n:ov
ILS1:o. ILLav xnl llsU1:EQav vou8smav 1taQaL1:oii, stw, on ESEO'tQa1t-
1:at" 1:oLoii'tO, KnL UlLaQ1:clVeL rov nU1:0Ka1:clXQL'tO, ("after a first and a
53 ("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. 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
see B. Weiss. Die Briefe (see n. S), 373.
54 Tbe meaning cf is difficult to determine. see W. Bauer, Griechisch-
Deutsches \Vrterbuch (see n. 7), 670-671: "investigations" cr "controversies", and the
same applies to YEVeaAoytal. (kgenealogies": ibid. 306), see also G. Wohlenberg. Pasta-
ralbrieCe (see D. 5),262-264: YE'VEaAoytm. occurs only here and 1 Tim.. 1.4 in tbe New
"""al ("quarrel,") is rare, EQL' ("di,cord") mere frequent: on all oftbem see
J. Calvin, Opera 52 (,ee D. 5), 433-434.
55 occurs in the pastoralletters only In the New Testament: here and 1
TIm. 4, 8 ('wiee); 2 TIm. 3, 16, here and Heb. 7, 18 only, also "'QL[(JtaUeaL
here .nd 2 TIm. 2. 16 on Iy.
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 re-
peats 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 be-
comes 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 care-
fully 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 begin-
ning 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 (1, 2, cf. I, I) andbis activi-
ty: l:cj>avEQwoEV, and supplemenling with regard to men:
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 is clifficult to explain. see G. Woblenberg, Pastoral briefe (see .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.
64 1/1. A Rlretorical Reading o/l1te Epistle to TrIUS
yaQ, but by repeating aVEyx/:rrtOs; ("blameless") and prepares the con-
trast to tbe adversaries by describing the bishop at the end of 1, 9 as
UVO'l;OS; TI ... "tOUS; aV"ttAEyoV"tas; EAEyxeLV ("able ... to rebuke tbe op-
ponents") which makes it possible for him to continue immediately with
elolv yaQ JtOAAOt ... ("For tbere are many ... ": 1, 10). The characteriza-
tion of tbe opponents ends witb ilLM<Jl<oV"tes; ileL al<J)(Qo XQ/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 aihl") e<J1:lv "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,' ah[av: "for that reason" [I, 13]) his instruction "to re-
buke 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! /iLa<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
"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 JtQEJtEL alludes to Ci I-ll] E'! (1, ll). Tbe
various instructions are eonnected with each otber by the frrst words:
JtQOu,as; (2, 2: "older men"), JtQEoU1: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 OUAOUS; (2, 9: "slaves"). And
again tbrough a eareful ehoice of words the autbor eonnects tbis seetion
bOlh with the earlier one (cf. 2, 9: ltV1:tAEyoV"tas; and 1:0US;
<lV"tLMyov1:as;: 1,9) and witb tbe seetion whieh follows immediately, as.
comparison of Jtoav n[01:'" h(JeLxvuI-lEvouS; Lva ilLilao-
xa),,[av mv 0OO1:fiQoS; i!I-lWV 8EOii X00I-lWOW h JtOLV ("showing
every form of good faitb, in order that they may do eredit to tbe teaehing of
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 w eEO
:7tmv (2, 11: "For it has appeared the graee ofGod
as saving power for all mankind") shows. The writer who begins this see-
tion 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 addu-
ces 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 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 im-
peratives: :7tEQL[(J1:Cl(JO and :7tClQaL1:0 ("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 (in-
ve1lt;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 all-
gemeinverstndlich bleibendem Wortgebrauch"); they are the key to what the author
wishes to say.
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

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),lnhalts-
verzeichnis; 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.
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.
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 euaYYA[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 E 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 sentence
4
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, Rbetori-
cal 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 In-
terpretation 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 Wrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testa
4
ments und der brigen urchristlichen Literatur. Berlin 51963. 221. s. v. (On the
sixth edition. edited 1988, see above chapterII n. 17).
3 Cf. J. J. Keaney (ed.), Harpocration. Lexeis ren Orators. Amsterdam 1991
138 and F.lacoby (ed.). Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) III B. Lei
4
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 inter-
pretes I-li, Stuttgart '1935, II 490.
70 IV. The In.troductory Secr;ons ojtlJe Four Gospels
which has paralleis in the books of Micah, Joel and elsewhere
s
inserts
aQJ(TJ 6YOlJ 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
onwards
6
). But while Hosea thus clarifles the meaning onoyo<; ltlJQlolJ,
the evangelist by alluding to the formula known from the prophet and
continuing with "to EuaYYEALOlJ 'Il1uO XQIO"tO ("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 Wnerbuch (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 Wrterbuch (see n. 2), 1753-1754.
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 some-
what vague impression, the evangelist adds referenees to the Holy Scrip-
ture 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 beginn-
ing 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 in-
serts 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: 'ITlO'oii<; ELpiJV raALAalav ... :
11 See E. Lohmeyer. Das Evangelium des Marlrus. Gttingen
17
1967 (with Ergn
zungsbeft edited by G. Sa, '1967). 9-11; D. LUhnnann. Das Markusevangelium. TU
bingen 1987, 33-34.
12 On the meaning of 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 Wrterbuch (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'ayyd.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).
72 ]V, The Introductory Sections ofthe Four Gospels
"Jesus went to Galilee"), first hirnself portraying him as K1jQuoowv
EliuyyH.tov Bea ("preaching the good tidings of God") and then
quoting him as saying 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, "tO
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; <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!,, 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 Euayye.Lov
("preaehing the good tidings" for Jesus: I, 14), so instead of [3am:LO!'U
!,ETuvoLa, (for Jobn: 1,4) be makesJesus say Kat
Ev 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 ("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
ayttp.
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 -eo cXvegomo1J acj>tivaL
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: am[CJeL
ayltp).
Mark himself uses ("spirit") without YLOV ("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 aKaecig-etp: 1,23-
27) who recognizing him addresses bim as "the Holy of God" (0 YLO<;
-eo 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
74 Iv.. The ltztroductory Sections ofthe Four Gospels
pointedly adds a comment of his own: 1:L EA.EyOV ltVE!.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.
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'"-oS 'l1']ooij XQlO'tOij ,,[oij a"l ,,[oij 'AQaufL ("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. BikoS without article is reminiscent of such
beginnings as tklov Nao"fL ("book ofthe vision ofNahum",
- after i\.fjfLfLa NlvE\J1'F "burden, commission, prophecy about Nineveh")
or i,,-oS Myrov Trol1: ("book ofthe story ofTobit"), in either case with
a genetive stating the content.
19
B'"-oS with thc genetive YEveoEws is
reminiscent of two passages from Genesis where ail1:1'] TJ iko,
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": 1:E eYEvE1:O) and aV1:1'] TJ Iko, 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 AafL
("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 Manhus 1-111, Zrich
[985-1997,12-7: II 2 and III 1-2: see also the bibliography in A. Sand, Das Matthus-
Evangelium, 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 dif-
ferent 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.
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
he adds first the epithel 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 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. 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: eyyevviJ6T) and by the fact that
is now characterized as 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. Aufzhlung, Reihung); they impTess listeners or
readers even if they cannot follow them and cannot understand the details.
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 AOV yeyovf:V Lva :n:A'lQoo6n 1:0 Q'l6tv
u:n:o X1JQI.o1J tlul 1:oii 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, 14
27
). 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_15
3
) 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 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
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, 1
33
). 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: w-ro Be "OV yiYOVEV
36
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 parti-
eular 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 f besides Et yag
(24, 6), cf. Mark 13,7 (et ytvEaBa,) and Luke 21, 9 (oel yag tata
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
tata YE"'1ta, ("till all this will have happened"): Matth. 24, 34, cf. Mark 13, 30; Luk.
21,32.
Matthew 79
the prophet Jeremiah, but citing Zechariah
37
). 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 signi-
ficantly 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 men-
tions 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).
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: lke
20, 41_44
42
). 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, 4
44
). 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_21
46
). 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".
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 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.
82 Iv. The lntroduclory Sectioru olche Fou.r Gospels
Luke
When ODe turns from the gospels of Mark and Matthew to that of Luke
50
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. JtJt"I1QocjloQTJf.!tva Ev 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 LTtYT]O'LV) and correspondingly ofhimself as
aiming at completeness, i. e. "from the beginning" (V0l6v) "with regard
10 alJ events" (3tIJLV), "with cxactness" (U"QLW,), "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 Er-
zhlkunst. Zrich 1993 (which I have not (ound helpful); M. Dierenbach. Die Komposi.
tion des Lukasevangeliums unter Bercksichtigung antiker Rhetorikelemente. Frank-
furt 1993 (usefu)) and G. Wasserberg. Aus Israels Mitte - Heil flir die Welt Eine narra-
tiv-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> (8, I: "aftcrwards") and Tfi (9, 37: "on the next
day") give the impression that Luke is following his principle, though in fact the chrono-
logiea1 referenccs remain falber vague.
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 'HQq,ou
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)5
4
and adds a
genealogical tree of Jesus who, as he remarks, "was believed to be a son of
Joseph" (mv '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:
ZaxaQla, ES 'ALu, xai yuvi) alJ"tii' EK
"twv 6uya"tEQwv 'AaQwv Kai 1:0 autii, 'ELoaE'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_5
55
) 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).
84 IV. The Introductory Sections ofthe Four Gospels
(2, 29-32
56
) and of Anna, the prophetess, adding even the name of her
father and her tribe (2, 36: "Avvarcgo<Pii,t>, euy<l't1)Q EX
cj>u)..ii' 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 Nal (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" (lllal.OL ... EvaV'tLOv,o eEO), "walking in all
the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without blame" (I, 6:
rcOQEUOj.LEVOL EV rcaaat> ,aL<; tVTo)..aL<; xat LllaLIDj.LaaLv ,o IIUQLOU
iij.LEiJ.TC'tOL). Not that the terms righteous and cornrnandments are surpris-
ing - they are, in fact, quite common - nor LIlal.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 ,o
eeo) 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, Zrich
1958,27 and 166 (of2055 word. 971 Hap"" legomena).
Luke 85
Joseph and Mary:59 Zeehariah actually officiates before God (1, 8: EVUV"tL
'to 6EO), 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 UtrtO, referring back to 0 1, 16) and ofhimselfas
standing before the Lord (1. 19: hwrrLov'to 9EO). Later Luke makes
Zechariah in his propheey express the hope (1,75) that the Lord will grant
him "to serve in holiness and righteousness
60
before him" (i. e. in the sight
oftheLord: hwmov ml'to, referring baekto 0 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
9EOii: 1. 35) and to whom the Lord God 6 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: 'to
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 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
6 frequentiy used in the psalms,53 and then
ofGod's promise to enable his people to serve beforehim (1, 75), itis most
Tbe unusual frequency of EvOOj'flOV is noted by W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches
Wrterbuch (see . 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 v L-
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, Tbingen
'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, "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
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 Lord
64
), especially as irnmediately
afterwards Zechariah refers again 10 God's mercy (1, 78: euo<; 8o),
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 '(o 8eo or EvWrctoV KUQ'OU so frequently
here
65
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 ne-
cessarily mean "ta go ahead of'.
65 It is not possible here to discuss at length all passages where Luke uses tbis expres-
sion.
66 Or should ODe say: in a manner arousing the readers' curiosity?
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: [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. Griechischdeut
sches Wrterbuch (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' 9EOii. cf. further 12. 9.
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 &1Jvan](JEL ltaQa
'to 8eo nv 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 geo sni 'IroavvTiv). Most
frequently word(s) of Jesus are being reported and expressions like (xai
EYro) Aty<o (yaQ,IlE) Ul-ILV I oOL, 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 601JA.ll xUQ{ou: "See, I am
the servant of the Lord") which she repeats a little later (1. 48) in a fuller form
brl. 't'llV'tClJTELVlIJOW tilo;: ou).."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.), Septua-
ginra (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).
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 ... :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 ,;oii,o)
and Mary who simply asks "how shall this beT': :7t(, 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 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 naming-
ceremony (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.1
3
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"
I, 19) and again in the next chapter of "preaching joy" (2, 10: claYYE-
xaQ<lv), repeating a noun whlch he used earlier in address-
ingZechariah (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.
90 rv. The Introducrory Sectioru ofthe Four Gospels
meet with E'ayyeAiteLv 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 pre-
fer, 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 Testa-
ment 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.
lohn 91
lohn
'Ev agxii f)v 6 Myo., xat 6 Myo. >tgo. "tov ge6v, xai geo. /)
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: 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..aev) - 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 clnemai..fLEvo. >taga geoii, ovofLa
'IwuvvlJ . o\;"to. f)i..9ev Et. fLag"tUQlav, eva fLag"tUQT]On >teg< "toii
<\>w"to., Lva >tuV"te. ltLO"tWOWOLV L' 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)v
77
- 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. Gttingen 21985 (with Ergn-
zungsheft 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 Passa-
gen'1, Gttingen 1997, 1-17.
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,
llaQ'wQ[a ("witness") and A1jBELa ("truth"), and contrasts like and
eYEvEw, that is being and coming-into-being, and <!>aLvELv, and
xa1:aallavElv ("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,
and 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 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 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 a'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
{) 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: rla xal OtLlOl aU1:ov ou :n;aQEaov), 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.
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: ltW"CEUOUcrLV EL,;"CO VOlkllllu"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 6E.1]lka'toc; OIlQXOC; oMi; 1;" 6e.1]1A1l't0C; avaQOC; a.'J...'
x 6EOii 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!;, 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 v TJIkLV Kal 1;6E1loelflE6a M!;av
au"COu, M!;av we; IkOVOYEvoiiC; ltaga lta"Cgoc;, XelgL'tOe; "al
u.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" (ltgJT.Oe; Ikou: 1. 15).
refening back to the first verse ("in the beginning": 'Ev &gXii But
now he emphasizes the concepts of "grace" (xelgLe;) and "truth"
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 for those humans who expound the
will of divine beings. i. e. prophets, seers, diviners.B
1
Obviously, John is
80 The first hint is given in 1. 4: '[0 4wc; "twv av9Qoo1t(J)V.
81 See W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wrterbuch (see n. 2), 545-546.
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 coming-
into-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 Handkonkordanz
82
),,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, Gtersloh
'1938,314-316.
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: YUQ
6 "tov XOOfLOV, W01:E "tov ulov "tOV fLOVOYEVfj e/)wxEv
Lva 6 1tt01:EUWV ei<; au"tov fLft lmOA.l1WI J,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\Ela
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 (twenty-
two 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 concepts
84
) 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 Wrterbuch (see n. 2),
see also below n. 93.
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<; 1:0 x6(Jllou' (, UXOOUSlV 1l0L ... e;EL 1:0 q,l<; 1:fj<;
and "WhileI am in the world, I am the light ofthe world" (9,5: 1:av EV"t<!J
x6(J1lf!l <1, q,l<; SLI1L 1:0 XO(J110U).85
John gives tbis metaphor special prominence at the beginning of bis
gospel because it is known to the Jews from the Bible
86
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" FIrst he
says: "He (John) came for witness in orderto bearwitness ofthe light" (1,
7: oii"to<; cL<; llaQ1:uQlav, Lva q,001:0<;) and:
"He was not the light, but (sent) in order to bear witness ofthe light" (1, 8:
olll" EXELVO<; 1:0 <j>&<;, u' Lva :1TEQL1:0 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 a'l9LVOV l"tclV1:a (ivSQool"tov), and finaIly:
"The word was madeflesh ... full of grace and tmth" (1, 14: <'> 6yo<;
EYEVE"t:O ... 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 forty-
seven 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 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.Aoslze,Amsterdam 1986,131-173.
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 stress
88
that he does not bear wilness ofhimself (5,
31_32
89
), 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 be-
come 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; 17,17-19
91
). 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 (14,6
92
). 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 (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.
" is applied to a maxim from the Old Testament 4,37, to people 1,47,10
98 IV. The Introductory Seetions ofthe Four Gospels
within one passage and the basic role he assigns to it as the respective con-
texts show prove it also to be one of the key concepls like and
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 and oo.g/;, both very common in lohn and not in the other gos-
pels, while l\6/;a is also clearly given special prominence by Luke.
94
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.lavELv
and other words mearung "understanding". However, as in the other gos-
pels, 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 fundamen-
tal 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 seventyeight times; attg; three limes in Mark aod Matthew, twice in Luke and
twelve times in John, 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).
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 criticism
2
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 Entretiens Fondation Hardt 40.
1994. 307-352; id .. Rhetoric and Literary Criticism: Their Nature and Their
Functions in Antiquity, Mnemosyne 48. 1995.513-535.
100 V. Melanchtl101J:r Rhelorical f11terpretation
of older parts, whether they are being adapted to later periods or re-
interpreted 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, Ha-
lakha 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. Schriflerk1rung. in: G. Herlitzand
B. KirschneT (edd.), Jdisches Lexikon, I-N, Berlin 1927-1930, IV 2. 262-269; L.
Schmidt. Henneneutik. in: TheoJogischeReaIenzyklopdie 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. Gttingen 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. S a : 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.
Introduction
101
that during the imperial period, as for pagan texts, also for the interpreta-
tion 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 rbe-
torie,
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 inter-
pretation, sometimes influenced by the scholastics, and also of literaI exe-
gesis, 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. et aI. (edd.) (see n. 3).373-450, on the
Antiochene sehool St. HidaI, ibid. 543-568 and eh. Scbublin. Untersuchungen zu
Methode und Herkunftderantiochenischen Exegese, Kln 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. et al. (edd.) (see n. 3),701-730. On Origen see B.
Neuschfer, 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. 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, 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.
Peppennller, 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.
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 hu-
manistic 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 mis-
understanding 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, Mnchen
1959. esp. 413-422; 467-472; 514-515; 591-597; 649-655: 789-793.
11 The literature on Melanchthon is t o ~ 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 Realenzyklopdie
22. 1992,387-410 and id., Melanchthon. Eine Biographie. MUnchen 1997, see also id .
Melanchthon und die Reformation. Forschungsbeitrge, Mainz 1996; special studies:
W. Maurer. Der junge Melanchthoo I-I!, Gttingen 1967-1969; H. Siek, Melanchthon
als Ausleger des Alten Testamentes. Tbingen 1959: A. Sperl. Melanchthon zwischen
Humanismus und Refonnation, Mnchen 1959; A. Schirmer. Das Paulusverstndnis
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 Melanchthoos 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 fr die
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 82, 1991, 1-33; see also n. 42.
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 con-
temporary poetry, medieval or contemporary stories, he adds that "this ha-
bit gradually led me to the writers of antiquity" (lzaee me eonsuetudo pau-
latim 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: 5 5 ~ 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.
Thringer (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 Refonna-
tion,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 .... Stroburg 1497, XXI (fol.
XJVv-XIXr: De lectione poetarum et oratorum) and Heinrich Bebel. QlLi auctores le-
gend! sint (printed first Pforzheim 1504 in tbe collection Oratio ad regern Maxi-
milianum ... ) 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, Gttingen 1997, 26-37 (also on Bebers list of auctores taxati et
enorum accusati). - In the preface to his edition of the DiaJogus Mythologicus des
104 V. MelaJlchthon:r Rhelorical Interpretation
In 1512 Melanchthon moves to Tbingen, 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 Tbingen 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").2One has to see this, of
Banholomaeus Coloniensis (i. e. B. Zehender). Tbingen 1514, Melanchthon rc-
commends 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 Universitt Tbingen zwischen 1477 und 1534.
Ihr Studium und ihre sptere Lebensstellung I-li, Diss. phil. Tbingen 1970. Gppingen
1971. 1 175 and W. Maurer (see n. [1),174-77.
17 See H. HermeLink, Die Matrikel der Universitt Tbingen 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,
Tbingen 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), Tbingen 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 f-V and Me]anchthons
Briefwechsel. Texte (see n. 15).135-36 (no. 1).
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. Mller, Brief. in:
Historisches Wrterbuch 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, Gttingen 1969,248-260 and id .. Briefsteller. in: Historisches
Wrterbuch 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 ... , Straburg
'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
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 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
lteren, 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,
1980,27-58; on hirn and others see further G. Mller. 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
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 argu-
mentorum 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 po-
Iities" (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 teach-
ing 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. Prste1, 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 sacrae
(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 pdagogisches
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:
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 six-
teenth 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 Phris Lucubrationes aliquot leetu dignissimae, Kln 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,
Straburg 1546. 451-465. see further F. J. Worstbrack. Agricola. in: Verfasserlexikon 1,
1978,84-93 and W. Khbnann (Hg.), Rudolf Agricola 1444-1485. Protagonist des
nordeuropiscben 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. Tbingen 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 adu-
lescentiae 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 stud 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);
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 hu-
manarum 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 . 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_
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!; eJtLtofLEVOOV unoettaoL;, rceaYflo:'CWv EAeYXOS oil AEttOfLivoov: "Faith is
the foundation of what is being hoped for and a finn proof of what is not seen"'. Me-
lanchthon quotes and interprets this verse later at length in his works on diaJectic: Dia-
lectices 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 un-
dcrstood that we are not in any doubt about it") and L 5r-6r translating lEyxoS withfir-
ma 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
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 Tbingen, as he himself indicates later.'2 But
the spirit that prevails in this work is not that ofthe leeture delivered at T-
bingen 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 theo-
logians 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 dialectie
43
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<. Tbingen 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 Realenzyklopdie 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
112 V. Rheroricallnterpretatioll
oeeasional referenees to aneient Christian authors, GregOIY of Nazianzus,
Origen, John Chrysostom, Boethius, orto more reeent writers such as Jo-
hannes 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.
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, com-
mentary. Having distinguished various forms of oratio ("speech"),4<5 he
discusses first the ad docendum compositio ("writing for teaching purpo-
ses"), next the historical enarrano, identifying as the two essential ele-
ments "particulars" (circumstantille) and "commonplaces" (loci commu-
nes: p. 33); and to these he adds ''figures of intensification and of varia-
tion" (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 re-
cognizable, he shows with the help of Abraham's sacrifice. A Iittle later he
emphasizes that in allegories one should pay special attention to the indi-
viduals 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 opportuni-
ty 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 allegori-
cal 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 suaso-
riae) for wbich he cODsiders three stages essential (p. 35): to determine the
status ("issue"), to find the arguments it requires and the emotions it al-
lows; 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 le") and a further argument,
46 Cf. 3 1 ~ 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.
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 ex-
plicitly 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.
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
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, 1
51
).
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.
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 Tre-
bizond. Binghamton 1984.
118 V. Melanchthon:r Rhetoricallntelpretation
Nrnberg), 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 Wllpfeling, also one of
Melanchthon 's teachers at Heidelberg. In his "Elegantiarum Medulla"
(Speyer 1493) and laterin his "Elegantiae maiores" (about 1499) be addu-
ces 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 in-
variably 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. Nmberg 1472, often reprinted. also in part (see
k.talog der Wiegendrucke 8, 1978. 177-186 nos. 9529-9541); on the .uthor see G.
Klecha. Albrecht von Eyb. in: 1. 1978, 180-186.
S4 See Rhetorica Poncii. Copia latinitatis et Epistolae Bruti et Cratis. De arte
DOlari.tuS, Straburg 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, Straburg 1518, on the author
see G. Heidloff. Untersuchungen zu Leben und Werk des Humanisten Jakob Locher
Philomusus (1471-1528), Diss. phi!. Freiburg 1971. Mnster 1972 (on the Theologia
31-33 and 223-252); P. Ukena. Locher. in: Neue deutsche Biographie 14. 1985.743-
744 and W. Kh1mann, 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 epistolico: n fol. KK v-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,
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, philo-
sophers 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 re-
ferred 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 sud-
denly 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. XVIDrXrXr 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-
120 V. MeLanclltholl S Rhetoricallnterpretarion
lanchthon's teacher Georg Simleredited Hrabanus Maurus' "Deinstitutio-
ne 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 addi-
tion 10 these and other time-tesled medieval manuals many later compila-
lions 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 doctri-
na 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 Ver-
zeichnis (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 Mittelal-
ters 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 dec-
torum scripturis. et principaliter sacratissimi christianae ecclesiae doctoris Thornae de
Aquino ex parvo SUD quodam tractatul0 recollecrus. Nmberg 1477; the Incunabula
Short Une CataJogue. London 1994, registers sixteen early printings, same with the ad-
dition ''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 Fusig-
nano (on him see D. Roth 87-lO2; on the printings: Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke
10, 1996, 282-286 oos. 11716 [Kln 1476J: 11718; 11720: 11723 [Straburg 1484-
1486], always together with ehe Manipulus curatorum of Guido de Monte Roterio
[Rochen); this is perhaps also trl1e aflbe separate editions Kln 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 Hen-
ricus de Hassi .. printed Leipzig and Kln 1494 (see Bayerische Staatsbi-
bliothek. Inkunahelkatalog 1-IlI, Wiesbaden 1988-1993. llll27 H 81 and H 82 L.
Hain [see above], 11 I. 9 nos. 8398 and 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-
Melanchtlwn ~ Early Handbooks 121
euratorum praedieandi praebens modum" of Johann Ulrieh Surgant, theo-
logian 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. Conclusio-
ne ("A speech, i. e. a sermon, consists of: introduction, reading [sc. of a
text from the Biblel, division, prooE, refutation, epilogue"). While Reueh-
lin 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 preciosumfruc-
tum 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 characte-
ristic 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. Kln 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 Ver-
zeicbnis (see n. 31) 6,1986,446--447 E 4327-4332 and 13. 1988,654-655 M 5150-
5155. Mention h a ~ to be made alsoofthe Rethorica (sie) divina de oratione domini Gui-
lermi 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, Nmberg 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.
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 simi-
Uhus 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 im-
portance. 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 be-
ing considered with all its different branches and the context, the special
conditions ofthe individual concerned, his point of departure and bis parti-
cular 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 tra-
dition; 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) rhe-
toric 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 Le-
fevre d'Etaples in Paris, even more rarely to Christian elements of any
kind, remaining loyal rather to the ancient tradition or its humanistic trans-
formation as represented by George ofTrebizond.
6s
6S Rhetorica ... in septem libros sive tractatus. digesta, KJn 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 Kln perhaps 1525, certainly 1529). On J.
L e ~ v r e d'Etaples see H. Heller, Jacques L e ~ v r e 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, Wrzburg 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.
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 per-
mission from lecture-notes taken by students, is no more than a brief sum-
mary of the essential definitions and precepts. Here the fourth "kind" (ge-
nus) 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 preach-
ing 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 Ii-
terary 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 rhe-
toricae".68
Melanehthon deals next with slatus for which he gives several defini-
tions. 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 Jnstitutio-
nes: 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 In-
stitutiones to TabuJae. see G. MaLor (ed.), Tabulae, De schematibus Petri Mosellani. In
Rhetorie. Philippi Melanehthonis ... , Leipzig 1532 (first: Kln 1526), fol. B 8rC 6r;
Martin Crusius added explanations: Philippi Melanthonis Elementorum Rhetorices
Libri duo. Martini Cms 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 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 iustifi-
calw est antc circunzcisionem: ergo iuslificatio non est ex operibus.
124 V. MelancfJthon s Rhetoricallmerpretarion
cussion is said to be the slatus". 69 Also for several types of arguments Me-
lanchthon 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) argu-
ments 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 ope-
ra 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 "cir-
cumlocution" (periphrasisl on the basis of etymology also belongs here,
e. g. for "gospel" (euallgeliwn) "message of salvation" (salulare lIun-
eil/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: ya'tac; (see E. Bizer [ed.1. Texte [see n.68], 36): Inversio. Respondeo; lmo si
per legem 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; ill
sepeliendo non pissem occupalus) as in 1521 (non sepelissem, s; 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).
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 Co-
rinthians (2,14) in Greek "unspiritual man"). add-
ing: 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 illustra-
tions 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 rhe-
toric 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 dieen-
di ("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 ("rheto-
rical 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. A5r-
F 3r) being devoted mrunly to invention (fo1. A 6v-E 7v) with abrief sec-
tion 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 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. 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, pub-
lished 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.
126 V. Melanchthon S Rheloricollnltrpretati011
ing and '1udging intelligently the writings of others" (fol. A5v: ad pruden-
ter 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 "me-
thod" (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 teach-
ing kind", the tn!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 ad-
mits 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 praecep-
ta inventa esse, non ul eloquentes efficerent. Sed ut viam ae ranonem ostenderent ado-
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. prae-
eepla) 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: tbe style").
" He calls it Ia><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").
Melanchtlwn:S Early Hondbooks 127
them and includes them in his rhetorical manuals as a new genus dernon-
strates 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 be-
gin with clear definitions. And he wams that "in theological disputes spe-
cial attention should be paid to tbe nature of the language of the Bible, be-
cause we use rnany Hebraic figures (of speech) which lead to many errors,
ifthey are not reproduced correctly" (in disputationibus theologicis obser-
vanda est phrasis sacranun liferarum, quia multis utimur Ebraicis figuris,
quae, si non recte reddantur, multi errores sequu/ltur), refemng to Pela-
gius' interpretation of grace.1
B
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. re-
pentence 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 Testa-
ment, 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 be-
long 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 Psal-
mo, 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 . 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.
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 cur-
ses 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 sum-
mary 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 re-
gis, orditur ab imprecatione et gratulatione, nam hostibus Christi male
precatur, gratulatu!' autem piis. Narratio continet pompam, Venit domi-
nus, et dueit secum exereilus Evangelizanlium. Ex his sunt descripli Princi-
pes 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 po-
pulus ac sequitur, qui canit triumphale cannen. Haecfere summa est Psal-
mi. quem si quis hoc modo ad artis praecepta conferet, planius imelliget et
animadvertet, qui loei proprie ad Cillistum accommodandi sint qui tri-
buant 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 ma-
jorilY 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 pro-
blem 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.
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 unque-
stionable and straightforward meaning should be looked for in aeeordance
with the rules of grammar, dialeetie and rbetoric" (fo1. G 4r: /lOS memineri-
mus unam quandam ae ce/1am el simplieem sentenliam ubique quaeren-
dam 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 prae-
eeplis, el promissionibus Dei), But in exceptional cases he leaves room for
allegorical interpretations, mentioning e. g. Paul's interpretation of Mo-
ses' veil (2 Cor. 3,13-17) and recommending Luther's eommentaries on
Deuteronomy and some of the propbets;84 for "they show what is appro-
priate 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 nas-
cuntur allegonae, Sed hane rationem nemo imitari sine excellenti doctri-
Ila 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 referr-
ing 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 Tbingen and for which he publishes several introduetory manu-
als, 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-
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 im-
portant 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 "Erote-
mata 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 pre-
cepts were taught, but notbing was said about their actual application "in
making speeches or injudging tbe writings of others" (fol. A 2r: in dicen-
do, 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 ap-
pear 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 con-
troversies of leamed people" (fol. A 2r: [taque, quamquam alicubi videri
poteril i n e p l u n ~ 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 doc-
lorum 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 Ha-
genau 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.
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 ac-
tively 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 gloria
89
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 be-
nedietio ("blessing": fol. A Sr). He cites Hebrews 11. 1
9
\ as example of a
definitio eausalis ("definition from what causes something 10 be what it
is"), in this case of ("faith"), adding a thorough discussion of
("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 UIKOVO, 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).
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 bibli-
cal 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, dog-
mas 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 ("pre-
miss") 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.
Melanchlhon's Early Handbooks
133
5. 17 ete.). Without referring to partieular passages Melanehthon recom-
mends 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 or-
dine 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. "argu-
mentations 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: Ponti-
fices Levitici habuerunt cenas ceremonias. Ergo oponet Romanos ponti-
fices instituere cenos ritus Nam hic multa sunt dissimilia, Pontifex Leviti-
eus non instituit eeremonias, sed divinitus accipit et verbum er cere-
monias. Roman"s pontifex nO/1 accepil aut divinitus aut ma/1datum de fa-
eiendis ritibus, aut illam varietatem rituum). With a similar intention Me-
lanehthon 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"
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 pole-
mies 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 epi-
grams (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 iudi-
calldls 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 per-
spiciant 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 con-
cemed to demonstrate how they may be used to analyse and interpret bib!i-
cal 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 activi-
ties, 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 in-
terest in the application cf rhetoric to various areas, especially to the interpretation afthe
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" (ad-
hortor studiosos ut omlZes dialecticae partes diligelZter exerceant, bl iudi-
candis 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).
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 de-
tails finds its expression in the development of Quaesliones also. Explana-
tion 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 Nmberg 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: Nrnberg 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
Realenzyklopdie 13, 1984,452-457; F. Stegmller (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 (Straburg
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. Hdl, 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. HdI, Quaestio, Quaestionenliteratur, ibid. 7,1995.349-350. See also
n. 8 and 9.
Exegesis be/ore Melanchthon 137
registering the words with elementary remarks on the declension and con-
jugation, references to the occurrences in the Bible and German equiva-
lents - with such words as evangelium and gralia, lex and pax missing and
fides or peccatum disposed of rather briefly.9' The very popular "Vocabu-
larius 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: Verfasserlexi-
kon 6, 1987,367-371, for the editions see F. elaes, Bibliographisches Verzeichnis der
deutschen Vokabulare und Wrterbcher, gedruckt bis 1600. Hildesheim 1977, 235 (Re-
gister); on J. Eichmann see F. J. Worstbrock, Eichmann, in: Verfasserlexikon 2,1980,
394-397: edition here cODsulted: Nmberg 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, 3 9 4 ~ in the edition I used
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 tit-
les such .s "Liber manualis ae introduetorius in bibliae historias figuras-
que 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"), ehap-
ter 47: Defide magna mulierum ("On the strong belief of wornen"), ehap-
ter 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, Nrnberg 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: Straburg 1516); numerous others were
printed in France and ItaIy, the tast in 1849.
100 See in general F. Stegmller (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 or-
dinaria ac magistralis super epistolas beati pauli apostoli, Esslingen 1473 and Glossa Of-
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 la-
tinae"), 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 be-
ing 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, Nrnberg 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 of Hugo de Sancto Caro (about 1200-1263) the Postilla super evangelium.
Basel 1482 and the postilla super psalterium, Venezia 1496 and Nmberg 1498, also the
Biblia cum postillis Hugonis, Base11498-1502; of Albertus Magnus apart from sermo-
nes notabiIes ". de tempore et de sanctis (eight incunabula, see Gesamtkatalog der Wie-
gendrucke 1, 1925,374-381 nos. 771-778) tbe ... postillain evangelium beati Johannis,
Kln 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, Nmberg 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
nis super epistolas Pauli. Kln 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, Straburg 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. Kln 1478 and the Postilla cum sermonibus
evangeliorum dominicalium, Straburg 1496 ofNicholas ofDinkelsbhl (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 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.
140 V. Melam:hrhon:S- Rhetoricallnterpretation
ueonscientiously 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 interpreta-
tion (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 correspon-
denee 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 ... Adnotatio-
nes ... " 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 Aristote-
Hanism 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 pas-
sages 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.
Exegesis belore Melanchrhon 141
(from the Greek), theologicaJ commentary .nd Examina/iones circa lil-
teram 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 interpreta-
tion, 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 me-
thods 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 cornmentars in 1515 and
1517, the preface being dated in 1515. Later 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 (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. Rmerbriefauslegung zwischen Humanismus und Refonnation, Zrich
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 Realenzyklopdie 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
142 V. Me/onchthol1 S Rlretorical Interpretation
versed in Greek he soon realizes Ihe need for a eareful examination or re-
examinalion 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 re-
gards 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. Adnotaones 231-675. prae/atio: 225-230), reprinted witb corrections: Novum
Testamentum omne. mulla quam antehac diligentius ab Erasmo Roterodamo recogni-
turn. emendatum et translatum. Basel 1519. again 1522; 1527; 1535: Tomus primus
Paraphraseon D. Erasmi Roterodami, in novum testamentum, Basel 1524 and Tomus se-
cundus 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 Testa-
ment 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. lei-
den 1990. For the two versions of the Methodus see A. and H. Holbom (edd.). Desi-
derius Erasmus Roterodamus. Ausgewhlte Werke, Mnchen 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. Krger. Humanistische Evangelienauslegung. Desiderius Erasmus
von Rotterdam als Ausleger der Evangelien in seinen Paraphrasen, Tbingen 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),
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 Scrip-
tures, 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 epi-
logue 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 diss.
112 See Luthers Werke (see n. 27) 9,1893,11-12 and H. lungh.ns, Derjunge LUlher
und die Humanisten, Guingen 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 Bupsalmen 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
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 exe-
gesis 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, 4 3 ~ 1 8 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, Tbingen 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 (Straburg 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, Straburg 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
Wimpfeling 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;
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
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. Beuttemller,
Vorlufiges Verzeichnis der MelanchthonDrucke 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 Wrttembergischen
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: 27. 1960, 1-50. esp. 2-6 and id., Der junge
MelanchthoD (see 0.11), n 103-107. also A. Schirmer. Das Paulusverstndnis (see
n. 11) andl. R. Schneider (seen. 11), 131-146. Fortheloci see E. Bi,er (eel.), Texte (see
n. 68),90 ..
146 V. Melanchthon:r Rlretorical
He adds a Summa, an explanation of the structure of its first eight chap-
ters and of the argumentation, here using the categories of rhetoric. He de-
tennines 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 essen-
tial 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 "good-
will" (benevolentia) and "attention" (attentio). Briefly he summarizes
"the purpose ofthe statement offacts" (consilium narrationis) and enume-
rates 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 other-
wise 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 exhorta-
rio ("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 Ii-
bertatem lollit ("and this point eliminates the freedom of decision"), there-
by revealing his theological concern.
After a sbort summary of the content of7, 14-8, 12 Melancbthon charac-
terizes 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 Paull 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.
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 re-
gards 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 rheto-
rie 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 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 LClOl<a'l<V genus 0536: fol. A 8v-B Ir) 0' Ibe
gtnus didascalicwn (fol. B 3r-B 6r), perhaps because not only LaOXaAlKOV 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
tax'n,,6v with Vtl'tQeJt'tI.XOV and 1taeaLVE"tL:v.oV and discusses it at length: De
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 anOs 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. Praeceptum de studio etexercitio doctrinae (fol. 144v-145r). De
tribus partibus offieii concionatoris (fol. 149r) and Oe tribus contionum generibus
in enarratione dicti Paulini 1. Corinth. XlIII (fol. where Melanchthon
speaks of a species (fol. 162v) besides adhortatio and consolatio (no date
given).
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 as-
signs the whole letter to his new genus I'lla"n"ov
l25
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 re-
marks on the structure: digressio, digressiuncula or excursus ("digres-
sion": 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 sentemJrwn.
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 ("excla-
mation": 10, 1) and shema (O')(ij!!a: "unusual expression": 10, I). Sim-
i1arly, 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 interpreta-
tion 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 re-
marks: 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 "gra-
eious gift") makes hirn stress: Essemus magni profeeto theologi, si pro-
prium 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.), T e ~ t e (see n. 68). 50: "IfPaul had been an uneducated man, he
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 fre-
quently 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 comprehendi-
tur, qtti scopi vice, ad quem omnia studia dirigamus, habenIur). But then
be makes a distinction with regard to theology between the "the old" (vele-
res) - 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 qua-
lifies 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 w o u l ~ 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.
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 le-
ges -; 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 Me-
lanchthon was inspired by Agticola's "Dialectica", it is not so easy to de-
termine 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 oQ8ob6l;o" 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, Straburg befare 1471 (here consulted, 22
incunabula); see further M. L. Colish. Peter Lombard I-lI. Leiden 1994 and L. Hdl.
Petrus Lombardus, in: Theologische Realenzyklopdie 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 tVr-
F 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, Gtersloh 1951-
2
1983,111.
2
1952 (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 oe printed in front ofthe PostiIJae of
Hugo de Sancto Caro. of the Postilla cum sermonibus evangeJiorum dominicalium of
NikoJaus from Dinkelsbhl and of thc Quaestiones Evangeliorum of Johanncs de
Turrecremata. Tbc Summa praedicantium of John of Bromyard is itself arranged
152 V. MelaJJchthon:S Rheto,.ical Interpretation
to such other eompilations by John of Bromyard and Antonio de Ram-
pegolis 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 ef-
forts, 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 transfor-
mari). 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,
Enzyklopdie. Enzyklopdik. 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 Aufstze 1-11. Aalen 1970-
1983,1387-442 (first 1926). butsee W. Maurer, Luther-lahrbuch 1960. 1-50.
1 3 ~ 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 Nmberg 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
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 com-
memaria ("You say that the Scripture is to be read alone without eornmen-
taries"). Melanehthon refuses to aeknowledge these notes and, as he stres-
ses 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 "Annotatio-
nes" . 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 Melan-
ebthon. 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 fre-
quently he resorts to rhetorical eategories to explain Pau!'s words, the par-
tieular points of bis message and special aspeets of bis intentions.
Right at the beginning in the argumentum whieb preeedes the explana-
tion 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 eharae-
terizes 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 Rhmem 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 Rmer 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 ber die Ersten Epistel S. Pauli zu den Corinthiem verteutscht. Nmberg
1524 and 285 M 2471: Annotationes oder Anzeyguog Philippi Melanchtonis ber die
Amiem Epistel S. Pauli zu den Corinthiem veneutscht. NUmberg J 524 (both also
consulted hefe). A. Schirmer (see . 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.
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 Melan-
ehthon registers an antithesis ("antithesis": foi. A IV r) and on 1, 8 he re-
gisters in accordance with rhetorical theory that the "introduction" (exor-
dium: foL B Ir) eonsists oftwo elements which arouse benevolence and at-
tenlion.
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 quibus-
dam 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 vide-
tur. 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 e p i s l a l a ~ praedestinalionem er vocatiortem genlrm 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.
MeIancllthon's Early Oll Paul's Leiters 155
la continetur, absoluta capitulo 3. Iustitiam s( olam) esse fideln. quam pro-
positionern Rhetorico ordine sequent; confirmatione communivit. Orditur
autem confirmationem non simpliciter, sed Rhetorica subiectione qua res-
pondet 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 connee-
lion 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).
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 fusti-
tia virium humanarum probanda factant. fam et hic spectandus est ordo et
ratio sennonis).
No doubl, same observations in these "Annolationes ... "are rather ele-
mentary. 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 Zrich).!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 ali-
quol annos edita est si/vula quaedam eonm,entariorum illRomanos er Co-
rinthios 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 Co-
rinthians was edited under my name whieh I quite clearly da not aclenow-
ledge. 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
2
1983 (edd.: G. Ebeling
aod R. Schfer), 25-371; edition used and cited here: Commentaru in epistolam PauH ad
Romanos hoc anno M.D.XLrecogniti et locupletati. Straburg 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.
Melanchthon's Early COlnmenlaries on PauI's Letter! 157
in 1529 he publishes a "Dispositio orationis in Epistola Pauli ad Roma-
nos", in which he analyses the epistle "explicitly up to the last detail in ac-
cordance 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 conclu-
sions and digressions from the main line of reasoning and naming particu-
larrhetorical devices. Here he begins with an argumentum on the genus di-
dacticum 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 argu-
ments 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. Schfer. see R. Stupperich et al. (edd.), Melanchthons Werke (see
n.133). V '1983 (edd.: G. EbeUng and R. Schfer), 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.
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 mem-
bers. 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 impie-
tatis fruetus postea per eonger'iem reeensentur, qui non glorijieant Veum,
traduntur in reprobu", sensum, ut ruant in varia peeeata,jiunt moeehi, ho-
micidae,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 struc-
ture of the letter as a whole, i. e. the strategy of its argumentation with the
help of the categories of rbetoric (and dialectic). R. Schfer 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 . 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.
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 pre-
cepts 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 Nrv 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
conferam. Ego tamen sie existimo intelligi posse orationem Paulinam. si series et
dispo.viJio omnium partium consideretur. Neque enim omnino nullo ordine. aut nulla
160 V. Melanehthon :s Rhetoricallnterpretation
procedure in his own words: to find a firm and reliable basis for his ex-
egesis.
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 Me-
lanchthon 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
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 fi-
gures of style, and resort to allegorical forms of expression. But they
merely embellish the narrative and do not help to elarify issues of dogma-
tie 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 importance
n
) 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.
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 Rhetori-
ca 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 eon-
firm 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 con-
c1usiveness of each chain of arguments, how he combines them with eaeh
other, Melanehthon resorts to the instruments offered by rhetoric and dia-
leetie.
How does he deal with texts from the Old Testament? Soon after start-
ing 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 Pro-
verbia Sa!ornonis, ad iusti paene eommentarij modum conscripta",151 and
156 In obscuriora aliquot capita Geneseos Phi). Melanc. Annotationes. Hagenau
1523 and Philippi Melanchtonis erklrung oder anzaygung in etliche schweresten
CapiUeI des ersten buchs Moysi. ktimJich au 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 Pro-
verbia 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 wil-
len 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. Straburg
Melanchthon's Commentaries on Orher Textsfrom the Bible 163
also notes on some psalms. In explaining these works Melanchthon con-
centrates 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 Scrip-
ture depends" (761: Praeterquam quod Genesis rerum conditionem indi-
eat, 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 docen-
dae 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 hy-
pocrisis 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: ("by way of synecdoche. i. e. an in-
direct 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;
164 V. Melanc1rthon's Rherorical Interpretation
Proverbia, i. e. on the first verse, SalOlnonfilius David, rex [srahel ("Sa-
muel, 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
endem nwdum hisloriam suam Thucydides incepit. Thucydides Alhenien-
sis 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. Scrip-
tura enint feslatl" Salomoni sapienriam a Deo dona/am esse, et infra capi-
te 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 ac-
count 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 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 btLbtELa 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),
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 phi-
losopher, 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 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
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
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 trans-
lation ofsorne psalms (published in 1528) he assigns thern to their "kind"
(genus), adds oeeasional rernarks on their structure and identifies some fi-
gures of tbought and of speech. But he does not adduce exarnples frorn pa-
gan 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 doctissi-
mae, 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), XI 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.. Wil-
lenberg 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. Mar-
burg 1537 (hcre used: Straburg 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 lu-
culentissima 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
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 Psal-
mis quaera/ur unum aliquod principale argumentum, ut in aliis cannini-
bus 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 quaeri-
mus 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 di-
dactic 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
erklrer, Uoiversittsprogramm Knigsberg 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. Strabllrg 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. Wen-
gert, 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 In-
tellecl, 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.
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 prin-
ciples Melanchthon comments upon the psalms, and he does so in bis last
years, thereby showing that the criteria and the method of rhetorical criti-
cism 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 Tbingen 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 rhe-
torie 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.
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 commenta-
ri.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 rheto-
rical notes are absent.
166 Cf. Oratio Demosthenis xa'tCr. referta egregijs omamentis ac
luminib. verborum et sententiarum ... WiUenberg 1526. preface: Melanchthons Brief-
wechsel. Texte (see n. 15), II 432-433 (no. 471) and Contra Aristogitonem Demosthenis
Orationes duae doctissimae, Hagenau 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 Me-
lancbthons 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 vd1taAOL ).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 appear-
ed only after his death in 1562. He also edits the Oralio Lycurgi t:ontra Leocrntem, deser-
torem patriae ... Cum Praefatione Phil. Melant. Eadem oratio conversa in latinum ser-
monem a Phil. Melanth .. Frankfun 1548 (heTe consulted. first edition oftbe text: Witten-
berg 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
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 scholia
l69
and in the dedicatory letter to the reader he points
out that the judgment on a piece of art should depend on the whole: univer-
sum opus considerandum es/ et sicut in pie/uris spectamus eorporum li-
neamenta 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 contri-
bute a good deal to the understanding of numerous details, both of particu-
lar 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 in-
structive.
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 treat-
ment 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. Re-
gesten (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 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 sehol).
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.
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 to-
gether 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 mori-
bus 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 diligentissi-
me 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. paim nous quibusdam il-
lustrati. una cum Scholiis in fronte adiectis. quibus Ioei obscuriores explicantur.
Dau 1525. bere used: M. TuIl 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 scho-
lia at the eod: fol. Y Vlv (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 Desi-
derium Erasmum Roterodamum et Conradum Goclenium, passim etiam PhiHppi Me-
lanchlhonis schollj. appositis, Kln 1537. see also Opera (see n. 11). XVI 627-680. See
furtherMarci Tulli Ciceroni. Liberde Amicitia ... Kln 1534, .ee Opera XVI 681-684
(very few rhetoncal notes).
172 V. Melanchtho1l5 Rhetoricallnterprerat;on
in Tbingen, 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 ora-
lionem Ciceronis pro Milone, Dispositio ... iam reeens scripta". And most
"Lucubrationes" and "Enarrationes", though based on Melanchthon's lec-
tures 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.'7
4
In the Ihree
editions for which Melanchthon himself is responsible one finds a propo-
si/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 se-
lection 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 con-
scripta. 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 lee-
tures"), 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
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 Liga-
rio),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. 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
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 Me-
lanchthon and by bis contemporaries (see n. 21) one should not overlook
that in commenting upon Cicero's letters he is primarily concerned to in-
form 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 ex-
plains 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 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. Schwbisch 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. Kln 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 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 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 Straburg. 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;
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 interpreta-
tion of the Bible. And as he tries not only to understand biblical texts him-
self, 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 pre-
sent 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 speeehes
l80
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
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 tenta-
tive beginnings - on the basis ofhis remarkable familiarity with Greek and
Roman literature and equipped with a wide range of instruments of rheto-
rie 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 hand-
books 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 oppor-
tunities offered by the theory for the understanding and judging the prae-
Liee 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 orpas-
sages from the Old Testament including the psalms he is content to sum-
marize 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 care-
ful 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 lec-
tures 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 an-
cient 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.
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, be-
cause both his development, his approach in general and many particular
aspects should not, I !hink, be forgotten: He applies the rhelorica! and dia-
lectica! 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. Com-
menting on the argumentation he is more explicit; for he is concemed to
understand the real meaning of the texts and to assist others in under-
standing it. Anyone who has tbe same aim is weil advised, therefore, to
follow his example.
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
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
Greek Words
GreekWords
(see also Latin or English equivalents)
tiYCl"LaO'. 89
tiM",!,0.55
aLQEnx6s 62
52-54: 64
aXQlw<; 82
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
aVCl"Eq,uAulwm,
30-31
avataaaOJlaL 82
tiviy><).'1'o, 52; 64
41
93
lxvtiXOl'U, 53
lx .. [S"ov 18;
avuJtotaxtOS 53
avwSEv 82
62
82
55
YQa<l>a[ 78.-79
Ei 52; 54-55; 64
lh' tlx6vor; I L' dxovlIJV Myew 32
blaOAO, 56
Ii,a"""o, Ill; 147-148
laa"aAIa. 53-57; 64
bIaoKaN.KO. 23: 126
lte!,'lVE"'" 40-41
6LXaLocnJV'l 61
btXaLos I OlOC; 52: 84
84
",alw,59
Ml;n 93; 98
OAo, aEO 48
"O'<I>'1l'iw, liuO'q,'ll'ta 38
42
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 60
69-71: 91-93
aaq,CtAE'u 82
52
EVavtL I havtlOV "tO' 6EO' 84; 85; 87
54: 84
82
a<l>Eol" 11<1>1'1!" 72-73
49: 63
cim,OI''' 72-73
aQo,. ueu., Ueunl. 42
bEAuK'o, 55
ealwau; 33
IAIOV OeaO'E"', 75
LAonEvtae",. 75
yiYOVEV, tyEV"O 78: 92
"(1.)"VWOitW 89: 92
tvOlltLOV "ue[ou 85-87
!vW1tlOV t'o' SE01i 85
ES'1rtOl'a, 93
EltClVa",cpClAClLoo"a, 30
Elt'ClQEW 42
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
182 lndices
EuaEw, 59
Eilq)1'II'(O' 38
58
59
0'100"'0, 49; 61; 63; 65;
91-92; 94-96; 98
91-92
OEolO'XTo, 42
OEO, 55; 77; 91-93
!LO, 92
56
'loua:Cxos: 54
54-55; 64
xaOE;Tj, 82
xoO"" I wneYQamm 71; 79
xnl EWV 70
xaa EQya 59; 62--63; 66
xa06LMaxao, 56
xm:' bmayJiv 49-50
xOTan!'civ", 91-92; 98
xEq,nnLow 30-31
72; 74
xOO'!'O', 92; 95-96; 98
OEO<; 85
aMw 55-56; 64-65; 89
MY'" 88
MyO', 24--25; 55; 62; 70; 91-94; 96; 98
37-38
54; 64; 91-92; 96; 98
J1yn, OEO, 59
1lE"rQ.voew, Ilfiavota 72; 74
I'EToO'J('1l'nTltoo 34-35
f,l.LatVCtl 55
l'Oo<; 54
vOUeS"tTJ'tLXOS; 23; 62
VO', 55
ObtOVO}!La J 57
O'l"ov0l'0<; 52
56
6QyLO'<; 52
"alEilw 58
JlaLYYEVEO'Ia 61
13; 25
"aQoxaMoo. 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
"'1Qooo 78
ltVEILa, ltVE!'o YLO'V 61: 72-74
nou1t'to:n:ov 18; 20-21
"QEn'" 55; 64
85
"QO'CP';T'1, 41; 54; 78
Qfjf1088
93; 96; 98
oxo'tLa 91-92
OUy>iECPOOlO'" 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",. 56-57
O'oo<l>QOvoo,59
52; 57
'tE:xva eeo' 93
uYLalvw 54-56; 64
vIa, (Tot; "'vOQm"O'v) 72-73; 85
u1tovOI.a 32
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
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
efUlTratoriwn genus 112-113
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, 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
rano dicendi 125
rhetoricus 135
sacerdos 131-132
sacra 109; 113-ll4; 117; 122
salutare nuncillln 124
saluratio 12; 47-51; 63
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 C h r i s ~ 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
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
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
S c h m i d ~ 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
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
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
190

12,38: 81
1,55: 89-90
13,10: 72; 74
85
13,11: 74
1,57-80:
84
14,9: 72;74
1,58: 86; 89-90
14,49:
77
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 fr Melanchthons Interpretation
profaner und bibHscher Texte. in: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Gttingen. I. phi!. hist. Kl. 1998. 5. 233-272. Gttingen 1998.