Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press, Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MH TENOITO IN THE DIATRIBE AND PAUL
Abraham J. Malherbe
IRudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe
(FRLANT 13; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910).
2For a more extensive treatment, see Stanley K. Stowers, "A Critical Reassess-
ment of Paul and the Diatribe: The Dialogical Element in Paul's Letter to the
Romans" (Ph.D. Diss., Yale University, 1979).
3Dio Chrysostom 23.6; 26.6, Epictetus 1.6.13; 11.17.22. The edition of Epictetus
used is that of H. Schenkl, Epictetus: Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae (editio maior;
Leipzig: Teubner, 1916). The translations are indebted to W.A. Oldfather, Epictetus:
The Discourses as Reported by Arrian (LCL; 2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard, 1925).
4Epictetus 4.8.2
SDio Chrysostom 14.14; Maximus of Tyre 6.1d.
6 Seneca Epp. 36.4; 60.3.
7Stil, 12 n. 1, 33 n. 4. See Stowers ("Critical Reassessment," 75-122) for a
discussion of the sources for the diatribe.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
232 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
8In Epictetus, it is used in this manner in 1.1.13; 2.35; 5.10; 8.15; 9.32;
11.23; 12.10; 19.7; 26.6; 28.19, 24; 29.9; 2.8.2, 26; 23.23; 3.1.42, 44; 7.4; 23.
4.7.26; 8.26; 11.33, 36. In Paul it appears in Rom 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7,13
11:1, 11; 1 Cor 6:15; Gal 2:17; 3:21. Gal 6:14 and Luke 20.16 are not diatri
will be left out of consideration. It does not appear in the representatives o
diatribe listed above.
9Wilhelm Capelle (Epiktet, Teles und Musonius [Bibliothek der alten Welt; Zurich:
Artemis, 1948] 67-68) and Stowers ("Critical Reassessment," 40-46, 82-90)
discuss Epictetus' peculiar form of the diatribe.
10 See Bultmann, Stil, 11 on the pagan diatribe, Stil, 66-68 on Paul.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ABRAHAM J. MALHERBE 233
"Ibid., 10.
12Ibid., 12. qorial in 2 Cor 10:10 is not diatribal; it introduces an assessment of
Paul by real opponents.
13See Stil, 13-14 on transitions.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
234 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
3:21), XE'yo ovv ("Am I saying, then," Rom 11:1, 11) and
("then," Gal 2:17) are part of the objections. 'l yacp ("W
then?") is used once (Rom 3:3).
Bultmann's statements should thus be modified, at
with respect to the places where the objections call fort
yvOLrTO. There Epictetus does not introduce the interloc
words with a quotation formula but, like Paul, uses other for
which set up the objections. It is not obvious that in these
the interlocutor in Epictetus has more force than it does in
and, as his use of t' iEpovuEv (3.7.2) indicates, he too
formulate the objection in his own words. Paul is very much
Epictetus, with the exception that he always has an introduct
the false conclusions. His introductions always contain c
particles or have causal force, thus connecting the false conc
to what precedes. The impression thus gained, that Paul
securely fits the false conclusion into his argument, is only p
offset by the fact that when there are no introduction
Epictetus, the dialogical element is more pronounced than it
Paul, and that it is designed to move the argument forw
whether it in fact succeeds in doing so or not.
3. Bultmann points out that in the pagan diatribe the ob
tion is frequently simply a rhetorical form the speaker uses t
greater clarity and emphasis to his thought.14 On such occas
the objection may not be worth discussing but may be the a
consequence the hearer draws from the speaker's words. In s
cases the objection is introduced by t ov'v; and slapped dow
/17) yevoLro. According to Bultmann, it is this diatribal use o
objection that is found in Paul.15 The objections do not repr
possible alternative views for Paul, but are absurdities. Some
objections expressing real opposing viewpoints do appear
Rom 11:19; 1 Cor 10:19?; 15:35), but almost always the imagin
opponent draws false consequences from Paul's viewpoint and
in the diatribe, his objection is then forcefully rejected with
yvOLlTO.
With respect to those objections which are followed by A7-
yEfvLTo, Bultmann is in general correct. However, while it is true
that Paul in only two (Rom 3:3; Gal 3:21) of the thirteen passages
14Ibid., 10-11.
15Ibid., 67-68.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ABRAHAM J. MALHERBE 235
6Ibid., 11.
17Ibid., 67-68.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
236 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ABRAHAM J. MALHERBE 237
7:13, KaT'pya/oCao ("work"), and in vv 15, 17, 18, 20; Rom 9:15
ieEcw ("have mercy"), and in vv 16 and 18; Rom 11:1; ,i"
&TrW'raro ("did not reject") and OVK atrcVaaro ("did not reject")
in v 2 and the corresponding vTrehXefO8qv ("am left") in v 3
KaErkTrov ("have left," RSV: "have kept") in v 4, and \eZuua
("remnant") in v 5; Rom 11:11, 7raparqXo&raL ("make jealous"),
also in v 14; 1 Cor 6:16, 6 KoXXt/C evo? ("he who joins"), also in v
18; Gal 3:22, crvyKXEio ("consign"), also in v 23 (RSV: "kept
under restraint"). The suppression of the opposing viewpoint i
thus not quite as short or abrupt as one might be led to believe by
Bultmann, and we should do well to stress his observation that a
coherent statement follows a YEVyvoLTo in Paul.
Bultmann's brief description of the diatribal use of /a
yevoLro leaves the impression that the exclamation marks the end
of the matter under discussion.20 A closer examination of Epicte-
tus will clarify the matter and enable us to judge the correctness of
the distinction Bultmann draws between Paul and "the Greek
preacher."
Unlike Paul, Epictetus does not always provide some sub-
stantiation for his rejection of the objection raised. This is especial-
ly the case when the form of the dialogue is strictly adhered to
(e.g., 1.1.13; 26.6; 2.8.2; 23.23). But when he does support his
rejections he is quite like Paul. The supporting statements are
affirmations introduced by &aXXa (1.28.24; 3.1.42, 44; 4.8.26-27)
and yacp: (1.8.15; 12.10; cf. 4.8.26) but are also questions similarly
introduced (a&Xa: 1.10.7; ya&p: 2.8.26). He also uses the challen-
ging questions and imperatives characteristic of the diatribe
(1.29.9-10).21 He is further similar to Paul in that his supporting
statements may contain quotations of texts thought to have proba-
tive value (e.g., Homer II. 1.526 in 2.8.26) or be answers that are
self-evidently true (e.g., 1.29.9) or be straightforward contrary
assertions (e.g., 1.9.32). He also refers to himself to support his
argument (1.2.36), and on one occasion, having done so, goes on
to quote Plato Apol. 17C as further confirmation (3.23.25).
Epictetus' support of his rejection may also provide the
theme of the discussion that follows, but in this he is nowhere as
20Stil, 11 n. 4, 33.
21Margarethe Billerbeck, Epiktet: Vom Kynismus (Philosophia Antiqua 34; Leiden:
Brill, 1978) 94.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
238 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ABRAHAM J. MALHERBE 239
Socrates.22 But, it is pointed out, not all men share his gifts.
35-36 an objection is introduced and then rejected:
In the few lines that continue to the end of the diatribe the theme
of realizing one's potential is continued.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
240 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:11:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms