Narratio and Exhortatio in Galatians According to Marius Victorinus Rhetor

Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Alteren Kirche

Volumn 91, Issue 1-2, 2000, Pages 107-135

  Cooper, Stephen A ^a  

^a FRANKLIN AND MARSHALL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 63849090354     PISSN: 00442615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/zntw.2000.91.1-2.107     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. A shorter version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature in November 1998.
2. See a number of recent scholarly contributions: C. Kannengiesser, État des travaux et des instruments de travail sur la réception de la Bible à l’époque patristique, in: La documentation patristique. Bilan et prospective, ed. J.-C. Fredouille/R.-M. Roberge, Paris 1995, 71–82; G. Pelland, Que faut-il attendre de l’histoire de l’exégèse ancienne? Gr. 69 (1988) 617–628; R. A. Muller/J. L. Thompson, The Significance of Precriticai Exegesis: Retrospect and Prospect, in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, ed. iidem, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1996, 335–345. Cf. also M. Silva’s Introduction to Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1996, 15–39.
3. Most recently, R. Dean Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, Kampen, 1996. See his conclusions, critical of Betz, 249–257. For a complete rejection of the application of Greco-Roman rhetorical categories to the Pauline epistles see, R. Meynet, Quelle rhétorique dans l’Épître aux Galates? Le cas de Ga 4,12–20, Rhetorica 12 (1994) 427–450. A useful survey is provided by S. E. Porter, Paul of Tarsus and His Letters, in: id. (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B. C.–A. D. 400, Leiden 1997, 533–585. For more extensive bibliography, see D. F. Watson/A. J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible, Leiden 1994. The recent work of P. Kern (Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle, Cambridge, 1998) came to my attention when the present article was substantially completed, but I will draw attention to places where his own conclusions are relevant to mine. This book would seem to merit serious study by anyone interested in the subject announced by the title; I have not attempted to engage his arguments fully here. But the one reference in his index to Victorinus does bring forth my protest. Kern (p. 251) professes to be invoking the authority of F. F. Bruce (Marius Victorinus and His Works, EvQ 18 [1946] 132–143) when he writes: “Consider further that Marius Victorinus was considered the best rhetorician of the day but was also ‘wholly incapable of giving clear expression to his thoughts’ ”. These last words, however, do not belong to Bruce or represent his judgment of the Paulcommentaries, but are rather Bruce’s quotation of C. Gore’s conclusion (Art. Victorinus, DCB 4 [1887] 1129–1138), a conclusion Bruce engaged in order to reject! It does not appear to me that Kern’s judgment about Victorinus’ commentaries on Paul are informed by a reading of that work. In his chapter on early Christian interpretation of Paul, Kern neither refers to Victorinus’ commentaries nor to those of any of the fathers, despite the fact that he does attend to patristic remarks on Paul in non-exegetical treatises.
4. Paulus und die antike Rhetorik, ZNW 82 (1991) 1–33, here: 2.
5. The Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric, TynB 45 (1994) 1–38.213–243, here: 2.
6. F. Young, The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis, in: The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge 1989, 182–199.
7. The only Latin Christian who exhibits all three elements of this synthesis prior to Victorinus is Firmicus Maternus, fl. 340 (see P. Henry, Plotin et l’Occident, Louvain 1934, 25–43).
8. P. Hadot, Marius Victorinus: Recherches sur sa vie et ses œuvres, Paris 1971, 287.
9. Ed. C. Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores, Leipzig, 1863, 155–304. I am not aware of any comprehensive study of this work. Besides the treatment of the method of commentary in this work by G. Raspanti, Mario Vittorino esegeta di S. Paolo, Palermo 1996, see K. Bergner, Der Sapientia-Begriff im Kommentar des Marius Victorinus zu Ciceros Jugendwerk De Inventione, Frankfurt am Main 1994.
10. Hadot, Marius Victorinus (see η. 9), 201–210. For a recent discussion of the libri platonicorum, see J. J. O’Donnell, Augustine: Confessions, Oxford 1992, vol. II, 413–418.
11. Ancient Rhetorical Theory (see n. 3), 123–124.
12. Marius Victorinus (see n. 9), 289.
13. He analyzes Gal 3,4 as containing a correctio or μ∊ταβολή, albeit without defining it as such (CSEL 83.2, 127) and identifies 3,5 as an interrogatio or rhetorical question) (128/11). When treating Gal 4,24 he defines allegoria: Cum aliud dicitur, aliud significatur, haec allegoria est (CSEL 83.2, 153/2). See Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory (see n. 3), 151–158, for a discussion of allegory in classical rhetoric.
14. Ad Gal 3,1,27: Irascentis cum miraculo verba sunt, quia sic fuerant depravati, ut se agnoscerent circumventos. prooemio usus est; omnis enim qui fascinatur de bono ad malum transit, sicut et hi de libertate et securitate ad servitium et sollicitudinem transierunt (CSEL 81.3, 29–30). Lest we be surprised that this author could have thought Paul made use of a prooemium after the narratio and not at the beginning, we should attend to what the fourth-century Latin rhetor Julius Victor wrote in his Ars rhetorica (421): plane potest nonnumquam post narrationem prooemium poni (C. Iulii Victoris Ars Rhetorica, ed. R. Giomini and M. S. Celentano, Leipzig 1980, 68/6).
15. PG 61/611. For discussion, see Fairweather, Galatians (see n. 5), 8.
16. Fairweather, Galatians (see n. 5), 3–8. According to this scholar (6), Chrysostom “conceived of the remarkably subtle notion that Galatians is … both apologetic and exhortatory”, i. e., he was familiar with the theory of “figured rhetoric” (from the treatises Π∊ρì έσχηματισμένων attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus [ed. H. Usener, Leipzig 1929, vol. 2]) where a single discourse could fulfill multiple functions. Fairweather associates Paul’s paraenesis with deliberative rhetoric (4).
17. A similar caution is stated by J. A. D. Weima, What Does Aristotle Have to Do with Paul? An Evaluation of Rhetorical Criticism, CTJ 32 (1997) 458–468, here: 465.
18. Paulus (see n. 4), 27–28: “Entsprechen mehrere Einzelheiten den Regeln der Theorie, so ist trotzdem der Schluß nicht erlaubt, daß selbstverständlich auch andere Vorschriften befolgt, z. B. andere von der Theorie nahegelegte Teile vorhanden sein müssen.” He maintains further that biblical exegetes should utilize only those prescriptions of ancient rhetorical theory, “die sich ohne weiteres auf die in der Bibel vorkommenden literarischen Genera anwenden lassen, also vor allem die Regeln zur inventio und zur elocutio, während er sich zur dispositio daran erinnern wird, daß die Theorie zwei Arten [sc. of rhetorical arrangements] unterscheidet: unum ab institutione artis profectum, alterum ad casum temporis adcommodatum (Rhet.Her. III,16), also nicht einmal für alle Reden nur eine Struktur empfohlen wird” (32). The quotation Classen cites here from this pseudo-Ciceronian handbook permits us to understand how Victorinus can read Paul rhetorically without finding a full-blown rhetorical dispositio. Classen’s criticism – as I understand it – applies only to those attempts to maintain that Paul composed Galatians according to the handbooks’ prescriptions for rhetorical arrangement. Such a critique does not touch the scholars who merely use ancient rhetoric, often alongside modern rhetorical theory, as an analytical tool apart from any claims about what guided Paul in his composition.
19. For a useful discussion of dispositio, see the article on arrangement by W. Wuellner with full bibliography and references to the ancient sources, in: Handbook of Classical Rhetoric (see n. 3), 51–87.
20. The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, NTS 21 (1975) 353–379. See also Betz’s commentary in the Hermeneia series, Galatians, Philadelphia 1979. Whatever other praises, precisions, or corrections we may offer of this scholar’s work, a great service has been performed if students of the New Testament become more acquainted with the educational system of the time when the New Testament was composed.
21. Betz, Composition (see n. 25) 375–377; idem, Galatians (see n. 25), 253–259. For a recent discussion of paraenesis, see J. G. Gammie, Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre, Semeia 50 (1990) 41–77. Full bibliography in W. Popkes, Art. Paränese I, TRE 25 (1995) 737–741.
22. See Raspanti, Mario Vittorino esegeta (see n. 11), 93–138, for a detailed discussion of Victorinus’ exegetical technique in the commentaries on Paul.
23. The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of Saint Paul, Oxford 1927, 22.
24. M. Simonetti, Lettera e/o allegoria: Un contributo alla storia dell’ esegesi patristica, Rome 1985, 240. Simonetti’s briefer treatment of the subject (Profilo storio dell’ esegesi patristica, Rome 1981) is now available in English as Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Edinburgh 1994, where he states that Victorinus’ “own interest lies in the literal understanding of the text” (92).
25. Victorinus’ attempts to read the epistles situationally do at times misfire, e. g., when he strains to understand the letter to the Ephesians as a response to judaizing pseudo-apostles (CSEL 83.2, 1/10–13, 7/26–29). Here he has probably been misled by the so-called Marcionite prologues to the Vetus Latina of the Pauline epistles. Their Marcionite origin has (again) been countered, more powerfully than previously, by N. A. Dahl, The Origin of the Earliest Prologues to the Pauline Letters, Semeia 12 (1978) 233–277. Dahl’s arguments have recently been rejected by E. Norelli, La tradizione ecclesiastica negli antichi prologhi latini alle epistole paoline, in: La tradizione: forme e modi (Studia Ephemeridis “Augustinianum” 31), Rome 1990, 301–324.
26. E. g. his treatment of Gal 4,9, where he begins by admitting that egena elementa huius mundi magis quasi paganos tangit, and follows this line of interpretation through for a while before coming back to his situational interpretive grid: cum et omnis oratio et omnis iste tractates propterea sumptus sit, ut reprehendat illos Galatas quod ad Iudaismum conversi sint et de Iudaeis ista omnia intellegenda sint (CSEL 83.2, 145/25–29).
27. Lettera e/o allegoria, 239–240.
28. A point well made by Raspanti, Mario Vittorino esegeta, 130–131.
29. C. Schäublin, Homerum Ex Homero, MΗ 34 (1977) 221–227.
30. Ad Gal 1,1.5–7 (CSEL 83.2, 96).
31. Victorinus’ reading of 1,6–12 is very close to the way in which J. Smit describes these verses as the exordium of a deliberative speech (The Letter to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech, NTS 35 [1989] 1–26, here: 9–11).
32. Cf. Cicero, De inv. 1,15,20 and Rhet.Her. 1,4,7. The possibility of an insinuatio or subtle opening is ruled out by Paul’s very unsubtle statement of the problem in 1,6–7.
33. His comments to 1,6 begin by defining what Paul’s gospel is, thus setting out the basis for the heart of the apostle’s argument: “For the gospel which Paul announces is sure: that Christ is the son of God, the power of God for salvation to all who believe, to the Greeks and to the Jews [Rom 1,16] – and nothing besides! Rather, our entire hope in faith for salvation and the grace of God has to do with Christ, to the effect that we should believe that he is the son of God, that he suffered for our sake and was resurrected, whence we too might arise with the forgiveness of sins. This is the true gospel that Paul announces. Therefore, if anyone adds on another – like Judaism, circumcision, sabbath observance, and other things of this sort – he is sinning, and is a stranger to the truth” (CSEL 83.2, 99/2–12).
34. Discussed in G. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, Chapel Hill/London 1984, 34–35. The term was coined by L. Bitzer, The Rhetorical Situation, Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 1–14. C. Perelman/L. Olbrechts-Tyteca write similarly of the “argumentative situation” which “embraces both the goal the speaker has set for himself and the arguments he may encounter” (The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation, Notre Dame 1969, 94). Further precision of this concept is offered by D. L. Stamps, Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation: The Entextualization of the Situation in the New Testament Epistles, in: Rhetoric and the New Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. S. E. Porter/T. H. Olbricht, Sheffield 1993, 193–210.
35. Victorinus appears to regard 2,17 as a hinge-verse where Paul shifts to address the Galatians and their situation after having quoted his own earlier words to Peter in direct discourse. The first person plural of 2,17 he takes not to refer to Paul and Peter (as in the preceding verses) but rather to Paul and the Galatians. He sees Paul including himself, for the purpose of the admonition, in the position of the Galatians: nunc accepto ipso [sc. Christo], cum ad peccata redeamus, id est iudaizemus, factus est Christus peccati minister (CSEL 83.2, 123/9–10).
36. Deinde admonitio et narratio est satis utilis et commoda ad id quod agere cupit, ut Galatas corrigat (CSEL 83.2, 107/71). My understanding of this passage differs from that of F. Gori, whose translation evidently renders his assumption that the admonitio et narratio here mentioned are identical to the narratio that begins at 1,13: “Infatti, l’ammonizione e la narrazione sono molti utili per lo scopo prefissato: corregere i Galati …” (Mario Vittorino: Commentari alle Epistole di Paolo agli Efesini, ai Galati, ai Filippesi, Turin 1981, 201. My understanding of this passage is based on the deinde, which appears five times earlier in the same discussion (1,13,25; 30; 32; 37; 44), always to signal movement through the Pauline text under discussion (1,13 ff.). The sentence immediately prior to the above quoted Deinde admonitio et narratio gives a summary of the argument of 2,16. Deinde then signals what follows, namely 2,17 ff.
37. That is, beginning with 3,1. He calls 2,21b a plena conclusio circa errores Galatarum et eorum qui ad Christianismum Iudaismus addunt (CSEL 83.2, 125/8), i. e., a deduction that follows from what is said in the admonitory narrative of 2,17–2,21 (cf. Rhet.Her. IV,30,41). At the same time as 2,21b is a conclusion to the narratio, it also anticipates what the point of the following arguments will be, whence Betz considers 2,21 to be final verse of a propositio (Composition and Function [see n. 25], 368). Augustine also finds an argumentative section on justification beginning with 3,2 (Exp. ad Gal 19,1; CSEL 84, 76,9–10).
38. Ad Gal 6,9: Merito monuit: non deficiamus quolibet modo, ne deficientes, quod coepimus, relinquamus, cum bonum facere coeperimus (CSEL 83.2, 168/5–7).
39. Ad Gal 6,15: Monet quid egerit mysterium, quod in Iesu Christo nulla persona sit, nulla discretio, omnes aequaliter, qui Christum sequuntur, aeternam vitam merentur (CSEL 83.2, 171/3–6).
40. Ad Gal 6,17,4–5: Monet igitur in postrema epistola ut hi non ad peccata aliqua convertantur, ne molestias praestant (CSEL 83.2, 172).
41. Ad Gal 6,18: Conclusio fit epistolae. Precatio est et benedictio ut gratia sit (CSEL 83.2, 173/2–3).
42. He uses the term here simply to indicate the conclusion of the epistle. Victorinus’ exegesis of the final section of the letter is skewed due to his understanding of 6,11. He takes quantis litteris (= πηλίκοις γράμμασιν) to refer to the length of the letter and thus does not regard this verse as a signal that Paul has ceased to dictate to a scribe and is now writing with his own hand, cf. Betz, Galatians (see n. 25), 313–314.
43. Thus his outline is very close to that provided by Lightfoot, Galatians (see n. 13), 65–67; a similar outline is also proposed by Burton, Galatians (see n. 52), lxxii–lxxiv.
44. CSEL 83.2, 95/3–7.
45. On his use of this schema, see S. Cooper, Metaphysics and Morals in Marius Victorinus’ Commentary on the Letter to the Ephesians (AmUSt.P. 155), New York/Frankfurt 1995, 115.
46. CSEL 83.2, 95/7–10.
47. CSEL 83.2, 98/4–99/9.
48. See his comments on 2,2: Si enim prodest circumcisio, sabbati observatio rerumque ceterarum, non erit ex gratia Christi salus et in vacuum curritur (CSEL 83.2, 113/28–30). Victorinus wants to exclude the thought that the observance of Jewish practices could be of benefit alongside of Christ; cf. his remarks to 5,2: Aperte ostendit non prodesse Christum, si aliqui in circumcisione spem ponat et in circumcisione carnali (157,2–4).
49. Cicero, De inv. II,4,12–13 (tr. H. M. Hubbell; LCL, Cambridge, MA/London 1946, 177). The pseudo-Ciceronian handbook of the same period relates the subdivision of the finis of deliberative speeches somewhat differently (Rhet.Her. III,2,3). Quintilian, however, rejected the association of particular fines with particular genera as more convenient than true (III,4,16). But Victorinus seems to have followed Cicero on this point; see note 72 below.
50. E.g., in his comments to the opening prayer of 1,3–5: Ergo ipsius beneficio, ipsius gratia, a deo quidem patre, sed passione eius, nos de praesenti seculo maligno liberat; et liberamur per Christum … Quod si per Christum est, ultra nihil quaerendum et vana sunt illa quae Galatae adiungunt, id est Iudaismus, opera legis et sabbati observatio et circumcisio (CSEL 83.2, 99/13–22).
51. CSEL 83.2, 125/15–24.
52. III,4,15 (LCL, 369). Cited in Gammie, Paraenetic Literature (see n. 26), 44.
53. To Eph 4,17 he comments: Sicuti semper docui, exhortatio duplex est: et quid faciendum et quid non faciendum (CSEL 83.2, 67/3–4).
54. It is not as if each genre had loci and praecepta of a totally specific sort, but rather that they are utilized differently in accordance with the fines appropriate to each genre. See Cicero, De inv. II,51,155–156 and Victorinus’ comments thereupon (Halm, 300/24 ff.).
55. E. g., A. Suhl: “Angemessen erkennen kann man die Funktion des autobiographischen Rückblicks nur, wenn man die Verklammerung mit dem vorausgehenden Kontext richtig bestimmt” (Der Galaterbrief – Situation und Argumentation, ANRW 2/25/4 (1987) 3067–3134, here: 3088).
56. In his comments on 1,1 Victorinus compares this opening, where Paul associates with himself “all the brothers”, with the openings of the letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, where the apostle identifies himself as the sole sender. Victorinus thus reads the opening of Galatians as containing a subtle persuasion: “in order to make an impact on the Galatians and let them know they are seriously wrong, Paul has associated with himself all the brothers who were with him as well, such that they themselves would be writing to the Galatians. He is shaming them, based on the fact that everyone disagrees with them” (CSEL 83.2, 96/7–97/10).
57. Rather than referring to his “chief points” (as one might reasonably think to translate principia), I take it here to indicate the beginnings of Paul’s gospel, as he uses this same vocabulary in an unambiguous manner when commenting on 4,13: Quo facilius autem hoc suadeat, repetit principia evangelii sui. Primum commendat labores suos … (CSEL 83.2, 147.9–10).
58. So too now F. Vouga: “Dem Briefpräskript und der ersten Definition der Sachlage folgt unmittelbar die Hauptthese des Briefes, aus der sich alle anderen Aussagen ableiten lassen: Das von Paulus verkündigte Evangelium ist nicht von Menschen abhängig, sondern von einer Offenbarung Gottes” (An die Galater [HNT 10], Tübingen 1998, 6).
59. See the bibliography given by Vouga, Galater (see n. 76), 29.
60. Betz, Galatians (see n. 25), 58–63.
61. New Testament Interpretation (see n. 46), 145.
62. Classen, Paulus (see n. 4), 28.
63. Along this reading the anathema upon himself is no mere rhetorical exaggeration but is altogether in earnest, as J. L. Martyn points out, Galatians (AncB 33a), New York etc. 1997, 114.
64. Paulus (see n. 4), 29.
65. One might accuse Victorinus of being seduced by Paul’s generally self-deprecatory rhetorical stance (1Cor 15,9; 2Cor 12–13), but perhaps he does well to take the apostle at his word that it is not Paul, Apollos, or Cephas that is at issue but Christ (1Cor 1,12–13). Our persistent modern tendency to psychologize may be what leads us to see Paul as preoccupied with defending himself in the face of opponents and thus to a construal of the narratio in Galatians as part of an apologetic speech. I agree with the criticism of the use of psychology in historical reconstructions voiced by M. Hengel/A. M. Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch, Louisville 1997, 342, n. 179.
66. New Testament Interpretation (see n. 46), 145. Kennedy refers to Quintilian 111,8,10–11 on the narratio in deliberative speeches; here “external matters may frequently be introduces”. The external matters are the facts of Paul’s early ministry which, when laid out serially, substantiate his claim to have received his gospel from God and not from human beings.
67. See n. 88.
68. This assertion is found both in the epistolary prescript (1,1) as well as in 1,11–12, which J. Aletti identifies as a first propositio (La dispositio rhétorique dans les épîtres pauliniennes, NTS 38 [1992] 385–401, here: 394).
69. CSEL 83.2, 105/5–7.
70. Rightly seen by G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography : Toward a New Understanding, Atlanta 1985, 124.
71. CSEL 83.2, 105/12–19.
72. The full comment runs as follows: Verum ne nos perturbet, quod in illa narratione, quae in negotiis est, saepe etiam persona describitur (nam describitur Catilina, describitur Sertorius et reliqui), et in illa narratione, quae de personis est, gesta etiam narrantur, non, inquam, nos perturbent, quia mixta sunt: sed animadvertere debemus, quid propter quid dicatur. Saepe enim persona describitur, ut negotium patescat, saepe gesta narratur, ut apertius, qualis sit persona, videatur (Halm, 203/6–12). Victorinus is discussing De inv. I,19,27. Although these remarks occur during the treatment of a tertium genus narrandi … quod extra oratorem est … poetarum vel historiographorum (Halm, 202/10 ff.), the mention of Catiline I take to be an indication that Victorinus intends these strictures to apply to the narratio of the three genera (Cicero’s Catiline orations being deliberative).
73. Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians? NTS 34 (1988) 411–430.
74. CSEL 83.2, 96/21–25.
75. CSEL 83.2, 106/57–107/70.
76. See his comments to 2,2–9 (CSEL 83.2, 112–117).
77. Aristotle, Rhet. I,2,3–4 (1356a; LCL, 16).
78. Betz, Galatians (see n. 25), 114. Ironically Victorinus would agree with Beth on this point – the very point on which the latter has been criticized, e. g., by Smit, The Letter (see n. 42), 7.
79. CSEL 83.2, 122/16–22.
80. See the outline of the letter provided by J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC), London 1993, 21–22.
81. See n. 52.
82. 31959, 239. It it interesting to note how when it comes to Ephesians, Victorinus’ reading of the ethical section is more along these lines. Thus his remarks to Eph 4,26 do not attempt to connect the paraenesis to any particular situation: Subiungit monita quae multa sunt, sumens tamen ab exemplo quod positum est in psalmo quarto, sumens initium praeceptorum. Verum haec dividit ut primum moneat ecclesiae hominem id est Christianum, quae agenda et quae non agenda, deinde moneat quae viris agenda et uxoribus invicem, deinde quae patribus et filiis invicem, deinde quae servis et dominis postque exhortatio est quae facienda generaliter omnibus (CSEL 83.2, 70/1–8).
83. CSEL 83.2, 164/12–14.
84. CSEL 83.2, 164/7–11.
85. Hoc adsubiunctum ut omnino isti intellegant nihil se de carne cogitare debere, quod est in circumcisione et in ceteris ex Iudaica disciplina observationibus, cum inter se docent ista adversa (CSEL 83.2, 165/2–5).
86. Thus B. Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Grand Rapids 1998, 33–35.
87. See the review of D. E. Aune (RStR 7 [1981] 323–328, here: 324). Kennedy (New Testament Interpretation [see n. 46], 145–146) thinks the problem can be solved by identifying Galatians as deliberative, not judicial rhetoric. This solution is maintained now by Witherington, Grace in Galatians (see previous note), 27–28. However, the matter is more complex than this, as I hope to show in the section “Hortationes” below.
88. Translation by H. M. Hubbell (LCL, 14–15).
89. Quintilian himself encompasses them in the three standard genera: Anaximenes iudicalem et contionem generales partes esse voluit, septem autem species: hortandi, dehortandi, laudandi, vituperandi, accusandi, defendendi, exquirendi, quod ξ∊ταστικòν dicit; quarum duae primae deliberativi, duae sequentes demonstrativi, tres ultimae iudicialis generis sunt partes (III,4,9; LCL, 392–394).
90. E.g., Quintilian III,8,6: Ergo pars deliberativa, quae eadem suasoria dicitur de tempore futuro consultans quaerit etiam de praeterito. Officiis constat duobus suadendi ac dissuadendi. Cf. also Cicero, De or. II,81,33 (LCL, 450–451).
91. 21991,278–296. Aune points out the distinction between philosophical and rhetorical uses of protreptic (279).
92. Whence the Vulgate renders παράκλησις and its verbal cognates, e.g., in II Cor 1:3–7, sometimes with exhortatio, sometimes with consolatio, as throughout the New Testament.
93. S. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia 1986, 92. He admits that the distinction he draws between protreptic as “hortatory literature that calls the audience to a new and different way of life” and paraenesis as “advice and exhortation to continue in a certain way of life” is not found consistently in antique authors. This distinction between the two is affirmed by D. M. Schenkeveld (Philosophical Prose, in: Handbook of Classical Rhetoric [see n. 3], 204) and L. G. Perdue (The Social Character of Paraenesis, Semeia 50 [1990] 5–39, here: 23) but opposed by J. G. Gammie, Paraenetic Literature (see n. 26), 52–56, who disallows drawing “[t]oo hard and fast a line” between the two (52). Gammie rejects “the criterion of audience as the decisive determining factor to distinguish between protreptic and paraenesis … in favor of the threefold criteria of: (1) presence or absence of precepts and purpose for which they are adduced; (2) extent of sustained demonstration and organization with a view to persuade; and (3) breadth of topics covered and/or sharpness of focus” (54–55). However, this scholar’s attempt to bring clarity to the concepts strikes me to miscarry at least partially, in that the supposedly rejected old criterion of audience seems to have slipped back in under the new title of “purpose” in his first criterion as listed. To speak about the purpose of an author’s appeal cannot be done apart from a consideration of the writer’s perception of the situation of the audience at that moment when the persuasive goal is established in relation to that situation.
94. His further comments on De inv. I,5 clarify his sense of the consequences of Cicero’s following Aristotle in positing a three-fold rhetorical materia: Sed has materias in publicis causis constituit hisque personas certas tribuit: quare has tres res definit in civili negotio positas cum certae significatione personae. Demonstratio est, inquit, certae personae aut laus aut vituperatio: deliberatio est, inquit, quae posita in publicis causis adsertionis suae sententiae: iudicialis est, inquit, quae in iudicio civili posita duo agit, aut accusat aut petit: contra aut defendit aut negat (Halm, 174–175/44–49).
95. Halm, 174/39–42.
96. One sees how Paul struggles in his letter to the Galatians to retain their perception of him as on their side, e. g. 3,15; 4,11.12–20; 5,11; 6,1.12–14.
97. CSEL 83/2, 228–229; 4,23,2–5.
98. D. F. Watson, A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and its Implication for the Unity Question, NT 30 (1988) 57–88. Watson argues that this epistle is deliberative rhetoric.
99. Monendi igitur modo et corrigendi epistola ista conscripta est (CSEL 83.2, 1/13–14). He mentions exhortation in this letter in his comments to 1,13.15; 2,13.22; 3,17; 4,1–2.15.17.25.26. See my translation, Metaphysics and Morals (see n. 61), ad loc.
100. See W. Wuellner’s discussion of the aptum, Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans, in: The Romans Debate (see n. 121), 128–146, here: 139.
101. Instructive in this regard is a passage from book II of Cicero’s De or. where Antony observes how “the greatest part of a speech must occasionally be directed to arousing the emotions of the audience, by means of exhortation [cohortatio] or of some form of reminder, to either hope or fear or desire or ambition, and often also to calling them back from rashness, anger or hope and from injustice, envy or cruelty” (II,82,337; LCL, 452/3–454/5). Cf. III,30,118 (LCL, 92/93).
102. Paul of Tarsus (see n. 3), 533–585, here: 569.
103. Omnis, quicumque incipit cuiuscumque generis orationem, haec tria in principiis adhibere debet: ut auditores faciat attentos, benevolos, dociles. Ergo hic Cicero facit dociles auditores, cum, quid sit eloquentia, ostendit; attentos, cum dicit se de eloquentia dicturum, re scilicet magna; benevolos, si quidem ostendit futurum ei commodum, qui his artibus fuerit edoctus (Helm, 155/1–7).
104. Tractat autem in principiis quattuor thesis. … Animadvertere tamen debemus in principiis deliberationis propositionem, partes propositionis, exsecutionem partium, postremam vero sententiam, quod diligenter attendenti facile cognitu est (Halm, 155/3–14, 20–22).
105. Here Victorinus is simply expanding on De inv. I.VI (Halm, 176/8–12).
106. See his itemization: Finem habet iudicialis causa aequitatem, deliberativa finem habet utilitatem, ut Aristoteli placet, ut Ciceroni, utilitatem et honestatem, demonstrativa finem habet honestatem (Halm, 300/38–40).
107. Halm, 169/6–8.
108. Pseudo-Demetrius, Epist.Typ. 11 (A. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, Atlanta 1988, 36–37).
109. Watson, A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians (see n. 130), 57.
110. 31918, vol. 2, 494, n. 1) cited this passage as of particular significance in his criticism of G. Heinrici for his over-estimation of the Hellenistic elements in Paul’s letters.
111. Thus R. M. Berchman: “He employs rhetorical forms independently of their prescribed use, but in practicing his own art of rhetoric he adapts these forms to suit his particular persuasive needs” (Galatians [1:1–5]): Paul and Greco-Roman Rhetoric, in: New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism, vol. 3. Judaic and Christian Interpretations of Texts: Contents and Contexts, ed. J. Neusner/E. S. Fuchs, Lanham MD 1987, 1–15, here: 14.