John Chrysostom, rhetoric and galatians

Biblical Interpretation

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 369-400

  Heath, Malcolm ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61149281205     PISSN: 09272569     EISSN: 15685152     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/1568515042418578     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. The work of Margaret M. Mitchell is particularly important (citations in the following notes). For a more general perspective see F. Young, 'The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis', in R. Williams (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 182-99
2. and Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
3. See especially J. Fairweather, 'The Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric', Tyndale Bulletin 45 (1994), pp. 1-38 and 213-44 (2-22);
4. M.M. Mitchell, 'Reading Rhetoric with Patristic Exegetes: John Chrysostom on Galatians', in A.Y. Collins and M.M. Mitchell (ed.), Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy presented to Hans Dieter Betz on his 70th Birthday (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 333-55;
5. and L. Thurén, 'John Chrysostom as a Rhetorical Critic: The Hermeneutics of an Early Father', BibInt 9 (2001), pp. 180-218; these important studies have made it possible for me to be selective in the range of topics cover here.
6. The present paper is part of an extended research project on rhetorical theory, rhetorical commentary and the teaching of rhetoric in late antiquity (for an interim report see M. Heath, 'Rhetoric in Mid-antiquity', in T.P. Wiseman [ed.], Classics in Progress [London: British Academy, 2002], pp. 419-39). The support of a British Academy Research Readership is gratefully acknowledged.
7. E.g. H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich: Mohr Siebeck, 1960), translated as Handbook of Literary Rhetoric (Leiden: Brill, 1998);
8. J. Martin, Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode (Munich: Beck, 1974).
9. R. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer (ed. 2, Leipzig: Teubner, 1885) has a better sense of historical perspective.
10. Since there were continuities as well as discontinuities in rhetorical theory, earlier texts will not always be misleading. But we need to start from the later literature, and be alert to the possibility of anachronism when drawing on earlier material.
11. Sopater RG 5.8.21 f. Walz. This passage may derive from Porphyry: text, and translation in M. Heath, 'Porphyry's Rhetoric: Testimonia and Fragments', Leeds International Classical Studies [http://www.leeds.ac.uk/classics/lics] 1.5, pp. 1-38 (3-5, 23-5)
12. with commentary in M. Heath, 'Porphyry's Rhetoric', CQ 53 (2003), pp. 141-66 (151f.). On the thirteen issues see text to nn. 25-26 below.
13. Hence the classical orators are the standard by which theoiy is to be judged: this principle is clearly stated in sch. Dem 19.101 (227 Dilts), probably derived from the late third-century commentator Menander: Heath, 'Rhetoric in Mid-antiquity', pp. 426-30
14. and more fully in M. Heath, Menander: a Rhetor in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), chapter 6.3, with a source analysis of the scholia in chapter 5. Cf. Longinus' observation (fr.50.5 Patillon-Brisson) that 'Demosthenes does not always adhere to theory but himself often becomes theory - as also Aristides'.
15. See M.M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp. 241-45, 278-91, who however finds a 'rather direct contradiction' (p. 279) in John's belief that Paul was an (in the sense of lacking formal training) but nevertheless an exceptional rhetorician.
16. Thurén, 'John Chtysostom as a Rhetorical Critic', p. 195.
17. The basic prosopographical study is P. Petit, Les Étudiants de Libanius (Paris: Nouvelles Éditions Latines, 1956).
18. Cf. Thurén, 'John Chrysostom as a Rhetorical Critic", pp. 192-95;
19. P.H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul's Epistle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 120-66.
20. For a more detailed, and fully documented, reconstruction of the debate see M. Heath, 'Theon and the History of the Progymnasmata', GRBS 43 (2003), pp. 129-60 (151-58). The main primary sources are Sopater's prolegomena to Aristides (late fourth century), Nicolaus' Progymnasmata (fifth century), and the hypothesis to On the Four (late fifth century?).
21. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians, p. 181: 'Chrysostom did not argue that Galatians is modelled on a Graeco-Roman oration or that it can be analysed with the help of rhetoric' It is important to realise that the first part of this statement (which is true) does not entail the second.
22. E.g. Hermogenes 28.25-29.6 Rabe;
23. Zeno, in Sulpicius Victor RLM 313.13-15 Halm;
24. Sopater RG 5.9.16f., 15.17f., 16.17-20, 17.4-24.
25. The over-simplification becomes clear if one looks beyond the 'handbooks': is widely used in connection with deliberative oratory (e.g. sch. Dem. 14.1 [1] For the instability of the terminology see M.M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991), pp. 50-53; to her references one might add sch. Dem. 1.24 (164b).
26. Mitchell, 'Reading Rhetoric with Patristic Exegesis', p. 349.
27. Fairweather, 'The Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric', pp. 6-10.
28. For an analysis of these texts and a discussion of their date see M. Heath, 'Pseudo-Dionysius Art of Rhetoric 8-11: Figured Speech, Declamation and Criticism', AJP 124 (2003), pp. 81-105.
29. The idea that a text should have a single is associated with philosophical rather than rhetorical exegesis: see M. Heath, Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), pp. 90-101, 124-36.
30. Young, Biblical Exegesis, pp. 21-27 draws attention to some interesting complications that call for further research.
31. E.g. hypothesis to Aristides On the Four, 176.4 Letiz: 'here he makes the transition to the head concerned with the orators';
32. sch. Dem. 7.14 (20): 'he makes the transition to another head';
33. sch. Dem. 14.3 (3) 'he makes the transition next to feasibility itself, as such' ('feasibility' is one of the standard heads of argument in deliberative oratory).
34. The prologue was seen as constructed from a series of smaller units: hence the plural. See M. Heath, 'Invention', in S. Porter (ed.), A Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 89-119 (103-5).
35. Text, translation and commentary in D.A. Russell and N.G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981). I have in mind especially Treatise II; Treatise I (by a different author) has a slightly different methodology.
36. (rather than the more inclusive) was the generally favoured technical term in this period. See M. Heath, Hermogenes On Issues: Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rrhetoric (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 84.
37. Translation and commentary in Heath, Hermogenes in Issues. Heath, 'Invention' uses a worked example to illustrate the processes of rhetorical invention taught in this and other handbooks.
38. Contrast the five-part structure favoured by Hellenistic theorists (Cic. Inv. 1.19; Rhet. ad Her. 1.4; Quint. 3.9.1, 5), who treated proof and refutation separately. Other parts of a speech discussed by the later theorists, such as preliminary confirmation preliminary statement and digression may be seen as specialised tools rather than parts of the standard structure.
39. Speaking second: sch. Dem. 20.1 (1). Omission of prologue, narrative and epilogue: Anon. Seg. 21-36, 114-23, 201f. Omission of narrative in deliberative: [D.H.] 369.20-370.12; sch. Dem. 3.4 (32b), 24.11 (27c).
40. See Heath, 'Invention', 106f.
41. E.g. Sopater RG 5.119.1-8;
42. Athanasius, in PS 176.4-12 Rabe (also late fourth century). In older sources see e.g. Quint. 7.10.11-13.
43. Before the new turn which issue-theory took in the second century (n. 20) this was necessary even in the standard classes. The 'divisions' in Seneca's Contro- versiae derive a structure of arguments by analysing the particular case, rather than applying a scheme appropriate to a category of cases.
44. The survey of modern analyses in Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians, pp. 90-119 makes for instructive comparison.
45. Much of this material is taken up with an exposition of past facts: that makes it narrative in the broad sense, but not necessarily in the narrower sense of a standard part of a speech (a statement, in the terminology probably familiar to John: n. 24). The exposition is here absorbed into the argument. If John had wanted to express this point in technical language, he could have borrowed the idea of a 'head introduced narratively' from sch. Dem. 18.18 (55d), cf. 3.4 (31a-c). That is not a standard term out of a handbook; it illustrates the flexibility of theory, which provides resources to analyse the indefinite variety of things that speakers can do, rather than a fixed set of ingredients. The three commentators preserved in sch. Dem. 18.18 (55b-d) all agree (though using different terminology) that the passage in question is not a narrative / statement; but they also mention that 'some' think it is - a reminder that the application of rhetorical analysis will not necessarily lead to an agreed solution.
46. Mitchell, 'Reading Rhetoric with Patristic Exegetes', p. 351 n. 39 notes that this passage raises a question about her argument that the whole of Galatians is apologia, but suggests (rather obscurely) that John 'sees Paul here not moving on to a different proof, but to a different rhetorical head within the same proof: but since this head is concerned with faith and law, and the next (at 4:21) with the law, they are surely not proving the same thing as the first head.
47. See e.g. sch. Dem. 2.15 (108a), 19.38 (105), 47 (121), 21.103 (352), (401), 24.79 (169). John also (644.51-6) admires the way in which Paul reverses the argument at 2:18 644.53f.) by showing that it is observance (rather than non-observance) of the law that transgresses the law (cf. Theodoret ad loc., PG 82.473.42-6). See also 650.59-651.5 (on 3:7), 651.32-41 (on 3:10), and §7 below.
48. Theodoret agrees (82.496.23f.). He too treats 1:1-5 as a unit (464.21-6), but he sees 1:6-10 as (464.26), with a new section at 1:11 (465.24-7). However, a complete analysis cannot be reconstructed from his commentary.
49. For this paragraph, see M. Heath, 'Notes on Pseudo-Apsines', Mnemosyne 55 (2002), pp. 657-68 (663-66);
50. on the history of the terminology, M. Heath, 'Apsines and Pseudo-Apsines', AJP 119 (1998), pp. 89-111 (106f.). The example is based on Lucian's Tyrannicide (the claimant killed the tyrant's son, and the tyrant committed suicide on finding the body)
51. translated with notes in Heath, Hermogenes in Issues, pp. 175-94.
52. The passages quoted are from Decl. 44.50, 55, 57;
53. See L. Pernot, La rhétorique de l'éloge dans le monde gréco-rom,ain (Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes, 1993), pp. 682-89.
54. The passages quoted are from 1:5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12. I have adapted the translations of the homilies in Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, pp. 440-87. She (following the editor of the Greek text) punctuates these passages as questions; that is possible, but not syntactically necessary.
55. E.g. sch. Dem. 1.1 (1f), 26 (178).
56. See (e.g.) the commentary on Rom. 1:32 (60.423.6-14);
57. 6:1 (60.479.35-45);
58. 6:15 (60.488.32-84);
59. 7:7 (60.499.31-500.8);
60. 11:1-4 (60.577.28-578.11).
61. John sees something similar ('not legislating ... but accommodating himself) in Paul's comment on boasting at Gal. 6:4 (675.38-60).
62. A very common technical term: e.g. sch. Dem. 1.3 (26d), 4.1 (1d), 5.20 (34), 13.1 (1, p. 165.8f.).
63. Theodoret gives a similar, but less elaborate, account of the passage (82.469.56-472.10).
64. The sermon, which has some impressive examples of John's own rhetorical technique and artistry, gives the same account of the Antioch incident, but in the form of a solution to a question (n. 40) rather than consecutive commentary. Its greater expansiveness sometimes throws light on the more compressed exposition in the commentary.
65. Augustine's exchange with Jerome on Gal. 2:11-14 is analysed in E. Plumer, Augustine's Commentary on Galatians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 31-33, 44-53, 91-95.
66. E.g. J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 161-66.
67. For a larger perspective on John's perception of Pauline self-praise see M.M. Mitchell, 'A Patristic Perspective on Pauline New Testament Studies 47 (2001), pp. 354-71.
68. E.g. sch. Dem. 19.4 (25c).
69. Not, in my view, the Sopater who wrote a commentary on Hermogenes (n. 5), though also dating to the late fourth century.
70. The denial is not mentioned: contrast Augustine, who uses it to make Peter's instability plausible. But the homilies on the gospel accounts of the denial show that John does not feel under any pressure to mitigate Peter's fault; on the contrary, the commentary on Matt. 26.69-75 (PG 58.758.32-46) is a skilful piece of rhetorical amplification.
71. (and the correction in 'Porphyry's Rhetoric', p. 158 n. 64).
72. On the argumentative use of the elements of circumstance see also [Hermogenes] Inv. 140.10-147.15.
73. The sermon (382.60-383.48, 384.50-388.34) gives a more extensive and in some points clearer exposition of John's understanding of the situation and the apostles' response to it.
74. E.g. Tiberias Fig. Dem. 1.3-5 Ballaira (59.5-9 Spengel): 'A figure is that which does not express the sense naturally or directly but varies or alters the intent by the form of expression, for purposes of ornamentation or practical need.'
75. For my doubts about the authorship of the works attributed to Apsines see Heath, 'Apsines and Pseudo-Apsines': confusingly, it is possible that the real Apsines was pseudo-Hermogenes.
76. This interpretation is developed at greater length in the commentary ad loc., PG 60.661.14-48; see §7 below.
77. See also sch. Dem. 2.1 (la), 27 (181b, 184), on the figured epilogue of the Second Olynthiac.
78. For parable as figure see John on Matt. 20:1-6 (58.613.15-20): 'For what purpose, then, has he figured the discourse in this way?'
79. See John on Ps. 114:4-6 (PG 55.307.13-52), Rom. 8:19-22 (60.529.29-55).
80. Compare the discussion of this passage in the commentary on 1 Cor. 15:1 (61.323.11-27).
81. Strictly speaking, this insistence is most marked in the material derived from one of the three main sources of the scholia - Menander, if my analysis of the sources of the scholia is correct (see n. 6). But the prominence of Menander's commentary in the tradition probable reflects its resonance with the priorities of teachers in the rhetorical classroom.
82. In the commentary on 1 Cor. 14:40 John concludes a discussion of sexual lust by saying that he should not be criticised for speaking clearly rather than solemnly (61.320.32-5). Cf. Theodoret on Saul relieving himself in 1 Sam. 24:3 (80.580.11-14): the Septuagint's translation is solemn, Aquila's clear.
83. Hermogenes 242.22-243.22, 246.23-247.3. Translation: C.W. Wooten, Hermogenes On Types of Style (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987).
84. Cf. Syrianus 1.38.3-5 Rabe.
85. Tactful indirectness: see also on 1 Cor. 4:10 (61.107.45-108.11).
86. See h. 34; compare Rom. 5:3 (60.469.35-44);
87. 1 Cor. 14:20 (61.309.21-31);
88. Phil. 1:7 (62.186.42-6).
89. E.g. sch. 19.39 (106), 237 (455a), 20.1 (5c);
90. see further Heath, Menander, chapter 6.2.