97

1
JOHN 2.12-14 AS DISTRIBUTIO,
CONDUPLICATIO, AND EXPOLITIO:
A Rhetorical Understanding

Duane F. Watson
Tri-Church Parish United Methodist Churches
North Western, New York 13419, USA

12a I am writing (ypd4Ko) to you (upiv), little children (-CcKvia~

12b that (bm) your sins are forgiven on account of his name.
13a I am writing (ypáQ><ù) to you (~lpiv), fathers (7Ta’tÉpeç),
13b that (on) you know him who is from the beginning.
13c I am writing (ypd4Ko) to you (UJ.1lV), young men (veavioKOt),
13d that (6n) you have overcome the evil one.
14a I wrote (typawa) to you (UJ.1lV), children (nal8ia),
14b that (6-ci) you know the Father.
14c I wrote (tyPaBIJa) to you (UJ.1lV), fathers (naiepe~),
14d that (6-ct) you know him who is from the beginning.
14e I wrote (typaBjla) to you (UJ.1lV), young men (veavicKot),
14f that (6-it) you are strong,
14g and the word of God abides in you,
14h and you have overcome the evil one.1

This rhetorical unit, 1 Jn 2.12-14, is composed of six sentences. Each

contains the verb ypdoetv followed by the pronoun uutv, a noun in
the vocative, and a subordinate clause introduced by the conjunction
on. These six sentences are grouped into two sets of three. The first
set employs the present tense of ypdoetv (ypa~) and the second set
employs the aorist (eypa~a). Both repetition and variation characterize
the subordinate clauses.
Culpepper writes of 1 Jn 2.12-14: ‘For all the apparent simplicity
of these verses, they present difficulties which have troubled scribes
and commentators from the earliest centuries’.’ In fact, these verses
pose at least four difficult questions for the interpreter: 1. Are there
one, two, or three groups represented by teKvla/7Talôla (’little
children’), 7Ta’ttpeç (’fathers’), and veavtoxoi (’young men’)? 2. Why

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

98

does the rhetor give two sets of three parallel statements, the second
of which is largely a repetition of the first? 3. Why does the tense of
ypdoetv shift between the two sets of statements from the present
(ypdow) to the aorist (typmva)? 4. How does this unit function in its
context?
I propose that these questions can be more fully answered by
Greco-Roman rhetoric. In the last two decades, the rhetorical
features of the New Testament have been explored with increasing
frequency and detail.3 As entire books of the New Testament are
analyzed from a rhetorical perspective, the focus can continue to
narrow upon individual pericopes where rhetoric can add yet another
dimension to the interpretative process. Traditional answers to these
four questions and the criticisms of each have been catalogued
recently and thoroughly in the commentaries, and I will not discuss
them in detail here.4 Rather, I will provide only a synopsis of
proposed answers and criticisms to facilitate the discussion of the
answer provided by rhetoric.

The Number of Groups Addressed-

Traditional Answers and Critique
It is generally recognized that reKvia and nat8ia are synonyms
referring to the same group, and this initially assumed that three,
rather than four, terms of address are involved here. The question is,
’Do zEKVia/na~8ia, 7TctrtpE~, and VFCEVICYKOI constitute one, two, or
three distinct groups?’
The one group position holds that these three designations all refer
to the same group, the breakdown into three designations being
attributed to stylistic variation. The order of the supposed groups,
being neither ascending nor descending, argues against this position.
The three group position holds that these three forms of address
designate three groups which differ in physical age and/or spiritual
maturity. The latter option is more usually espoused, understanding
the three designations as metaphors for stages in the spiritual life: the
children are those who recently embraced the faith, the fathers are
those mature in their faith, and the young men are those growing in
the faith. The main criticisms of this position are: (1) the three
addressees are in neither ascending nor descending order; (2) the
qualities of each group should characterize the others as well; (3) the

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

 99

address ’little children’ is used elsewhere in 1 John to refer to the

entire audience.
The two group position, espoused by the majority of modern
scholars, holds that ’CEKViU/nat8ia is inclusive of the Johannine
Community loyal to the author. 7Tan!;p£ç and v£aVl<JKOl are two
subgroups-of the Community, the older and the younger by physical
age and/or spiritual maturity.
This position explains the order of the addressees: a general
address given to all the audience is followed by specific addresses to
two prominent subdivisions within the audience. In the Gospel of

John iExvia/rrat8ia is Jesus’ designation for his disciples, and in

1 John it is the rhetor’s address to the entire audience as those who are
as yet true disciples.’ Also, neither 7Tan:p£ç nor v£aVl<JKOl is used
inclusively of an entire audience in the NT. Thus ’children’, being
the inclusive term, is written first, followed by an address to the
senior division of ’fathers’ and the junior division of ’young men’.
The division into young and old based on spiritual maturity and age
is not foreign to the OT,6 the intertestamental literature,’ or the
NT.88

The Role of Distributio

It should be noted that the rhetor responsible for 1 John has a
penchant for groupings of three: the three claims of the secessionists
in 1.6, 8,10 and again in 2.4, 6, 9, as well as the three things the world
has to offer in 2.16. This penchant is evident in the grouping of
children, fathers, and young men after Ypc~oo (w. 12-13) and again
after qpmva (v. 14) and in the three coordinating clauses after the
final qpmva (v. 14e-h).
I propose that the grouping of three (re)<v(a/na.t8(o, 7Ta’tÉp£ç, and
v£avl<JKol) in 1 Jn 2.12-14 can be explained as an example of the
figure of thought called distributio (diairesis, merismos, digestio).9
’Distribution occurs when certain specified roles are assigned among
’1°
a number of things or persons... It derives its name from the fact
that ’after mentioning a thing as a whole, the parts are afterwards
enumerated’.l1 Cicero describes it as ’he [the rhetor] will divide a
sentence, giving part to a description of one person, part to
another... ’12 ’This figure has richness, for it embraces much in little
and, by assigning to each his duty, severally distinguishes a number
of entities.’13 The division and adding up of parts enhances effect,
increases emphasis, and amplifies the sense.14

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

 100

The Rheto?ica ad Herennium gives three examples of distributio:

1. Whoever of you, men of the jury, loves the good name of the
Senate, must hate this man, for his attacks upon that body have
always been most insolent. Whoever of you wishes the equestrian
order to be most resplendent in the state, must want this person to
have paid the severest penalty, so that he may not be, through his
personal shame, a stain and disgrace to a most honourable order.
You who have parents, must prove by your punishment of this
creature that undutiful men do not find favour with you. You who
have children, must set forth an example to show how great are the
punishments that have been provided in our state for men of this
stamp.
2. The Senate’s function is to assist the state with counsel; the
magistracy’s is to execute, by diligent activity, the Senate’s will; the
people’s to choose and support by its votes the best measures and
the most suitable men.
3. The duty of the prosecutor is to bring the charges; that of the
counsel for the defence to explain them away and rebut them; that
of the witness to say what he knows or has heard; that of the
presiding justice to hold each of these to his duty. Therefore,
Lucius Cassius, if you allow a witness to argue and to attack by
means of conjecture, passing beyond what he knows or has heard,

you will be confusing the rights of a prosecutor with those of a

witness, you will be encouraging the partiality of a dishonest
witness, and you will be ordaining for the defendant that he defend
himself twice.
In the first example the entire audience is first called the jury and
then four different subgroups of the jury are mentioned: (1) those
who love the Senate; (2) those who favor the equestrian order; (3)
those with parents; (4) those who are parents. In accordance with the
Lex Plaustia /M~!~ara of 90/89 BC, senators, knights, and some plebs
served as justices in the criminal courts. 16 In this case, the first two
categories are quite distinct, but the latter two categories overlap
both of the other two.
In the second example the three categories of Senate, magistracy,
and voting populace constitute all the elements of those participating
in government. In the third example, the four categories of the
prosecutor, the counsel for the defence, the witness, and the
presiding justice together constitute all the participants in the
courtroom. In neither case is the inclusive category given.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

 101

When identified as the figure of distributio, 1 Jn 2.12-14 becomes

more intelligible. When compared with the three examples from the
Ad Herennium only the two or the three group position gains
credence. The one group position is ruled out because in dutributio
the subcategories are constituent elements of a larger group, not just
different ways to refer to the larger group. Examples 2 and 3 give a
listing of categories which make up the entirety without first
beginning with an overall category. This supports the three group
position. Example 1 gives a listing of categories which make up the
entirety, but begins with an overall category. Thus supports the two
group position.
To make a determination, we look to Johannine usage. As noted
above, the designations iexvia and ncnoia are inclusive of all the
faithful of the Johannine Community being addressed. Also, neither
nartpcq nor veavtoKOt. is used exclusively of an entire audience in
the NT. Thus the two group position is favored by Johannine and
NT usage. The rhetor has begun the two sections with the inclusive
grouping of children and then distributed it into the two constituent
groups of fathers and young men.17 He has used distributio in the
form in which the inclusive group is listed first and is then
distributed into constituent subgroups.
The figure of distributio is by no means foreign to the usage of
either the OT or NT. Such usage of distributio also supports the two
group position here. OT passages having particular bearing on 2.12-
14 are the Lxx of Egod. 10.9; Josh. 6.21; Isa. 20.4; Ezek. 9.6, where
constituents of the people as a whole are given as young (VEaViCK01)
and old (7TPE<J~Ú’tEPOl, 7TpE<J~u’tal). In the NT, dutributio found in
Acts 2.17-21; 1 Tim. 5.1-2; Tit. 2.1-8; 1 Pet. 5.1-5 distinguishes
between older and younger groups (7TPE<J~U’tÉpoç, 7TpE<J~UTIlÇ,
7TPE<J~Ú’tlÇ, vEOS) within the community. These passages not only
provide biblical precedent for the use of young and old as constituent
categories in di~tributio, but also, in the case of Exod: 10.9; Josh. 6.21;
Isa. 20.4; Acts 2.16-21, for the use of distributio with these particular
categories subsumed under an inclusive category.’8

The Overall Repetition-

Traditional Answers and Critique
The most difficult question to answer is why the rhetor presents two
sets of three parallel statements, the second of which is largely a

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

102

repetition of the first. Several explanations are offered. First, 2.12-13

and 2.14 are different drafts of the same written material or two
versions of the same oral teaching. However, this does not provide a
reason for the rhetor’s retention of both portions. A popular

explanation views the second set of parallel verses as a stylistic

variation of the first for the purpose of emphasis and to lead into the
following discussion.
Tlze Role of Conduplicatio and Expolitio
An explanation of the repetition of the three groups is found in the
figure of speech known as conduplicatio or reduplication. Conduplicatio
is ’the repetition of one or more words for the purpose of
Amplification or Appeal to Pity’.19 Conduplicatio is responsible for
the groupings of three as well as for several internal repetitions.
Conduplicatio occurs in the repetition ofey~~crce rov dn àpx1Ïç in
the two sections devoted to the fathers (w. 13b, 14d), and in the
repetition ofveviK~Kare iov novTlp6v in the two sections devoted to
the young men (w. 13d, 14h). The repetition of key words also
constitutes conduplicatio. These included ypdow (w. 12a, 13ac),
typaBjla (vv. 14ace), rrazEpES (vv. 13a, 14b), eyvMKaTE (vv. 13d,
14bd), and veav(oKOt (vv. 13c, 14e).
Conduplicatio is used to amplify&dquo; because repetition is a form of
amplification.21 In fact the repetition here is akin to amplification by
accumulation of sentences with the same meaning.22 Repetition
creates vividness, especially when using the past tense instead of the
present. 23 To create charm in style, it was advised that ’repetition
answer repetition and like to like’,24 and this is certainly what the
rhetor is doing in 2.12-14.
The repetition of the threefold address in two sets of parallel
statements is not just conduplicatio, but conduplicatio combined with
a fine example of the figure of thought called expolitio or refining.

Expolitio ’consists in dwelling on the same topic and yet seeming to

say something ever new’.25 It maybe accomplished in one of two
ways: by repeating the idea in different form or by altering the idea.
In the former, words, delivery, or treatment are varied. In the latter,
the idea is altered in seven ways: state it simply, subjoin a reason, use
another form with or without a reason, present the contrary, and use

comparison or example.26
Here in 1 John, a variety of expolitio is at work. In the children

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

 103

section, we find expolitio of the type in which the idea is altered by

using another form: ’your sins are forgiven on account of his name’
(v. 12b) is subsequently repeated as ’you know the Father’ (v. 14b). In
the young men section, we find expolitio of the type in which the idea
is altered by repeating it and subjoining a reason: ’you have
overcome the evil one’ (v. 13d) is repeated with two reasons as ’you
are strong, and the word of God abides in you’. This list of three

positive attributes (overcoming the evil, one being strong, and the
word of God abiding within) also constitutes amplification by
accumulation in which all the items of a listing have one referent. 17
On a broader scale, throughout both sets of three parallel
statements, there is virtually no difference in any of the ideas
presented: sins forgiven, knowing Christ, overcoming the evil one,
knowing the Father, knowing Christ, being strong, having the word
of God abiding within, and overcoming the evil one. Thus the whole
section, and not just corresponding parallel statements, is an example
of expolitio in which the treatment is altered serving to amplify the
rhetor’s evaluation of the audience by repetition. 28
There are several other significant figures used in this section,
many of which also are figures of repetition used to amplify by
repetition. The threefold repetition of ypdow upiv and of L~ypaBva
upiv constitutes epanaphora, a figure of speech which ’occurs when
one and the same word forms successive beginnings for phrases

expressing like and different ideas’.29 Epanaphora is akin to reduplica-

tion, being a figure of repetition, 30 and is also known to amplify and
emphasize.31
The repetition of different forms of na-ctp (7Ta’tÉpeç-v. 13a,
7Ta’tÉpa-v. 14b, and na-cEpe<;&horbar;v. 14c) constitutes traductio or trans-
placement. Transplacement is a figure of speech. It is both the
frequent reintroduction of the same word and a word used in various
functions.32 Transplacement also amplifies by repetition.33
The shift from zEKVia (v. 12a) to nauia (v. 14a) is an example of
the figure of speech called synonymy. Synonymy ’does not duplicate
the same word by repeating it, but replaces the word that has been
used by another of the same meaning.’34 It occurs when ’the
beginnings and the conclusions of sentences are made to correspond
by the use of other words with the same meaning’.35 The rhetor is
clearly amplifying his message at this point using a variety of
repetitive figures.36

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

104

The Shift of the Tense of ypd~eiv&horbar;

Traditional Answers and Critique
The third question raised by this passage is, ’How may we explain
the shift from the present ypdow in the first set of parallel verses to
the aorist typa’Va in the second set?’ One explanation is that the
aorist in the second set is an epistolary aorist. The rhetor understands
that from the perspective of the audience reading his epistle the
writing is indeed past. This explanation, however, does not explain
why ypd())6LV is not aorist throughout this section.
Other explanations coalesce around determining the referent of
ypa~c~/eypa~ra; whether 1 John and a previous epistle, or 1 John
only. The former understands 1 John to be the referent ofypd~,
and a previous writing to be the referent of eypc~a. The previous
writing is conjectured to be either the Gospel of John, 2 John, or a
lost letter.
Several factors argue against this position: 1. That a lost letter is
the referent is merely conjecture. 2. ~ypaxvct refers to 1 John in its
other three uses in 1 John (2.21, 26; 5.13). 3. The Gospel of John was
more credible as a referent when it was assumed that the Gospel and
1 John were of common authorship. 4. Many Johannine scholars now
place the writing of 2 John after 1 John. 5. An examination of the
content of both the Gospel of John and 2 John does not yield
convincing evidence that the rhetor is reiterating material from
them.
The majority of scholars conclude that the referent of both ypá<j><ù
and typmjla is 1 John. Elsewhere in the epistle ypdow refers to the
epistle being written (1.4; 2.1, 7, 8) and typa’Va refers to the contents
of 1 John already written (2.21, 26; 5.13). However, different
opinions are offered as to why the rhetor shifts the tense of ypdoetv
here in 2.12-14.
One opinion is that ypdow refers to what is now being or is about
to be written, or to the epistle as a whole, and typa’Va refers to the
portion of 1 John already written. Although there are minor
similarities in content between 2.12-14 and 1.1-2.11, these are not
impressive and can be found in 2.15-5.21 as well. Thus this approach
has little to recommend it.
Another approach is that both Ypd(t)M and typa’Va refer to 1 John
as a whole. The shift of tense from the present to the aorist of

Ypd(t)6t.v is merely a stylistic variation, eypayra being slightly more

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

 105

emphatic. This position finds support in the fact that the tense of
ypd~etv present up to 2.12-14 (1.4; 2.1, 7, 8) and aorist after (2.21,
is
26; 5.13) with no difference in usage being apparent. The shift to the
aorist ofypá<t>elv reinforces the fact that the rhetor is writing what he
probably has written before (1.1-5; 3.11).
The Role of Style
From a rhetorical standpoint, the shift from the present tense to the
perfect of ypdoetv is a recognized stylistic device. A shift of
tense
verb tense is a figure of speech when the present is substituted for the
past or the past for the present. 37 It was advised that the past tense be
used instead of the present or the future because it is more vivid:
’There is something more striking in the suggestion that all is over,
than in the intimation that it is about to happen or is still
happening’.3g A shift in tense lends variety and liveliness.39 As noted
above, the past tense contributes to the vividness of the repetition
which is conduplicatio. It contributes to the rhetor’s emphasis upon
the fact that the audience already possesses the qualities he espouses
in his earlier argumentation (1.5-2.11). It is another facet of the
amplification created with distributio, conduplicatio, and expolitio.

The Relationship to the Context

The relation of 2.12-14 to its context is uncertain. There is the

sudden shift from the third to the second person in this section and
back again to the third person following it. There is the sudden
introduction of polished parallelism. The discussion of love in 2.3-11
(love of the brethren) is suddenly dropped and is resumed in 2.15-17
(love of the world versus the love of the Father). There are no points
of similarity between the vocabulary of 2.12-14 and 2.15-17. This
section is usually considered a summation of earlier points and the
introduction of new ones to be developed subsequently, the basis for
the commandments in 2.15-17, or the positive contrast to the
negative life of the secessionists described in 2.7-11.
Rhetorically, 2.12-14 conforms to what is known of a digressio
within the body of the rhetoric (the probatio). The digressio is ’the
handling of some theme, which must however have some bearing on
the case, in a passage that involves digression from the logical order
of our speech’.10 Digressions are used after the rhetor has established

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

106

his arguments and refuted those of his opponents, and are especially
used in weighty cases.41 There are a variety of types of digressions
performing a variety of functions. They can be used to praise or
blame persons, amplify topics, make an emotional appeal, or enhance
style.42
Having just completed two sections of refutation and counterclaim
(1.5-2.2; 2.3-11), the rhetor provides a digressio in his weighty case
before continuing with further exhortation (2.15-17). Regarding
praise of persons and emotional appeal, this digressio praises the
audience in glowing terms. The rhetor shifts from the impersonal
third person singular to the more personal first person singular. He
addresses the audience with the affectionate term ’children’, and
assumes that all is well with their spiritual life. The style is clearly
enhanced by the variety of figures used and by the parallel structure.
Topics previously introduced are reiterated and shown to be the
experience of the audience (forgiveness&horbar;d~evat; sin&horbar;duaprta,
knowing God- ’YLV(06KElV; Christ as the one from the beginning-
dn apxi)ç; the word&horbar;~oyoc; and abiding&horbar;ueveiv) and some are
introduced for the first time (the name&horbar;ovouoc; conquering-
ViKaV- and the evil one-6 7TOV1ÍPOÇ). The rhetor is affirming that the
topics he has been upholding in refutation (1.5-2.11) are the
possession of the audience.
It must not be thought that by using a digressio the rhetor has
strayed from the main flow of his argument or inserted irrelevant
comments. As Quintilian notes,

Other similar occasions for digressions on points not involved by

the question at issue arise when we amplify or abridge a topic,
make any kind of emotional appeal or introduce any of those topics
which add charm and elegance to oratory... but these would
hardly seem to be digressions as they are so closely attached to
arguments on similar subjects that they form part of the texture of
the speech.43 ,

Thus 2.12-14, while being a digressio, is an intricate portion of the

rhetor’s argument.

Conclusion
From a rhetorical standpoint, the questions surrounding 1 Jn 2.12-14
receive more precise answers. The number of groups addressed is

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

 107

two, children being an inclusive category, and fathers and young men
being constituent categories. This is indicated by the rhetor’s use of
distributio of the type in which the inclusive category is mentioned.
The repetitive nature of the passage is attributable to the use of
conduplicatio and expolitio for amplification and the development of
topics. The shift of the tense of ypdociv from present to aorist lends
vivacity to the style. It is an element of the amplificatory scheme, the
past tense used to portray something present being a noted feature of
conduplicatio. The passage as a whole is a digressio used after
argumentation and refutation, serving to praise the audience, elicit
their goodwill, enhance style, and amplify topics.

NOTES

1. RSV. I am following the versification of the critical editions of the

Greek New Testament, not the English versions which often put v. 14ab with
v. 13 (KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NIV, but not JB, TEV).
2. R. Alan Culpepper,
1John, 2 John, 3 John (KPG; Atlanta: John Knox,
1985), p. 33.
3. A few such larger works include H.D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary
of Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979); idem, ’The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s
Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 21 (1975), pp. 353-79; idem, 2 Corinthians 8
and 9, ed. George M. MacRae (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985);
F.W. Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians (JSNTS, 30;
Sheffield: JSOT, 1988); G. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through
Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, 1984);
V. Robbins, Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); D.F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and
Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBLDS, 104; Decatur, GA:
Scholars Press, 1988); idem, ’A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and its
Implications for the Unity Question’, NovT 30 (1988), pp. 57-88.
4. For full explanation of these issues, see Raymond Brown, The Epistles
of John (AB, 30; Garden City: Doubleday, 1982), pp. 294-301; I.H. Marshall,
The Epistles of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 134-38;
Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John (WBC, 51; Waco: Word, 1984), pp. 69-
72.
5. 2.1, 12, 18, 28; 3.7, 18; 4.4; 5.21. See the discussion of &tau;&epsiv;&kap a;&nu;&iacgr;&alpha;/&pi;&alpha;&igr;&delta;&igr;&alpha; in
Brown, Epistles of John, pp. 213-15; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, pp. 34-35.
6. Gen. 19.4; Exod. 10.9; Josh. 6.21; Isa. 20.4; Ezek. 9.6 LXX. Cf. Job 32.6;
Ps. 37.25.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

108

7. 1QpHab 12.4-5; 1QS 6.13-24; CD 13.11-13; 1QSa 1.6-19.

8. Acts 2.17; 1 Tim. 5.1-2; Tit. 2.1-8; 1 Pet. 5.1-5. See J.H. Elliot,
’Ministry and Church Order in the NT: A Traditio-Historical Analysis (1 Pt
5.1-5 & plls.)’, CBQ 32 (1970), pp. 367-91. Cf. Mt. 11.25; Lk. 10.21; 1 Cor.
3.1; Col. 1.28; 1 Pet. 2.2.
9. For a full discussion of distributio, see Her. 4.35.47; H. Lausberg,
Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literatur-
wissenschaft (2nd edn; 2 vols.; Munich: Hueber, 1973), I, pp. 340-41, &sect;675;
Josef Martin, Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode (Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft, 2.3; Munich: Beck, 1974), pp. 59, 307; E.W. Bullinger,
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated (London: Eyre
& Spottiswoode, 1898; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968),
p. 435; W. B&uuml;hlmann and K. Scherer, Stilfiguren der Bibel (Biblische
Beitr&auml;ge, 10; Freiburg. Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973),
pp. 79-80.
Distributio is found in a list of figures of thought, but without explanation
in Cic. De Or. 3.53.203=Quint. 9.1.30 and Quint. 9.2.2. In Cic. Or. 40.138 it
is defined in a list of figures of thought, but not specifically named. As well as
being a figure of thought, distributio is also discussed as a topic of
demonstrative enthymemes (Ar. Rhet. 2.23.10), and as an element of the
partitio which enumerates the points to be discussed in the probatio (Cic.
Inv. 1.22.32; Her. 1.10.17; cf. Quint. 4.5.1; Lausberg, Handbuch, I, p. 338,
&sect;671; Martin, Rhetorik, p. 94).
10. Her. 4.35.47. This and all other quotations of the ancient handbooks
are from the Loeb Classical Library editions.
11. Bullinger, Figures, p. 435. NT examples include Mk 3.4; Rom. 2.6-10;
Gal. 5.19-21, 22-23. Cf. the definition of B&uuml;hlmann, p. 79: ’Der Merismus
geh&ouml;rt zur Metonymie. Eine Ganzheit wird durch zwei oder mehrere ihrer
wesentlichen, oft polaren Teile... beschrieben.’
12. Cic. Or. 40.138: ut aliud alii tribuens dispertiat. This describes an
unnamed figure of thought, but is obviously distributio.
13. Her. 4.35.47.
14. Bullinger, Figures, p. 435.
15. Her. 4.35.47.
16. Ad Herennium, trans. H. Caplan (LCL; London: Heinemann/
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954), p. 347 n. e. The
senatorial monopoly was restored in 82/81 BC.
17. It might be argued that if distributio is in play here and the audience is
conceived as being composed of &pi;&alpha;&tau;&eacgr;&rho;&epsiv;&sfgr; and &nu;&epsiv;&alpha;&nu;&iacgr;&sigma;&kap a;&ogr;&igr;, then women were
not considered an important part of the audience (cf. Houlden, The
Johannine Epistles [BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1973], pp.70-71).
However, in the NT, a masculine plural noun is often inclusive of both
genders (MGNTG 3.22). See Brown’s discussion of the role of women in the

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

 109

Johannine Community in his Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York/

Ramsey/Toronto: Paulist, 1979), pp. 183-98.
18. In Exod. 10.9, the inclusive category is ’we’, and the subcategories are
young-old, sons-daughters, flocks-herds; in Josh. 9.21 the inclusive category
is ’all the city’, and the subcategories are men-women, young-old, oxen-
sheep-asses ; in Isa. 20.4 the inclusive category is ’Egyptians-Ethiopians’, and
the subcategories are young-old, and in Acts 2.17-21, the inclusive category
is ’all flesh’, and the subcategories are sons-daughters, young men-old men,
and menservants-maidservants.
19. Her. 4.28.38; cf. Quint. 9.3.28-29 for a similar definition. For further
discussion of reduplication, see Lausberg, Handbuch, I, pp. 314-15, &sect;&sect;619-
22 ; Martin, Rhetorik, pp. 301-302; Bullinger, Figures, pp. 251-55; B&uuml;hlmann,
Stilfiguren, pp. 24-27. Cf. Quint. 9.2.4 which describes the need of figures of
thought ’to fix one point in the mind of the audience by repetition’.
20. Her. 4.28.38; Quint. 9.3.28.
21. Cic. Part. Or. 15.54.
22. Quint. 8.4.26-27.
23. Demetr. Eloc. 4.211-14.
24. Cic. Part. Or. 6.21: crebra crebris, paria paribus respondeant.
25. Her. 4.42.54. For further discussion of expolitio, see Lausberg,
Handbuch, 1.413-19, &sect;&sect;830-42; Bullinger, Figures, pp. 399-400. In discussing
various forms of composition, Quintilian states ’Do we not often speak twice,
or even more frequently, on the same subject, sometimes even to the extent
of a number of sentences in succession?’ (10.5.7), and ’much may be gained
from paraphrasing our own words in a number of different ways’ (10.5.9).
These both sound like refining.
26. Her. 4.42.54-44.58.
27. Quint. 8.4.26-27. Cf. Long. Subl. 12.2
28. Cic. Part. Or. 15.54
29. Her. 4.13.19. Cf. Demetr. Eloc. 5.268; Cic. Or. 39.135; De Or.
3.54.206; Quint. 9.3.30 for similar definitions. For further discussion of
epanaphora, see Demetr. Eloc. 3.14; Lausberg, Handbuch, I, pp. 318-20,
&sect;&sect;629-30; Martin, Rhetorik, pp. 296, 303; Bullinger, Figures, pp. 199-205.
30. Cf. Demetr. Eloc. 4.267-68; Quint. 9.3.28-30.
31. Demetr. Eloc. 3.141; Her. 4.13.19; Quint. 9.3.30.
32. For further discussion, see Her. 4.14.20-21; Quint. 9.3.41-42; Lausberg,
Handbuch, I, p. 333, &sect;&sect;658-59; Martin, Rhetorik, p. 306.
33. Cic. Part. Or. 15.54.
34. Her. 4.28.38.
35. Quint. 9.3.45. For further discussion, see Lausberg, Handbuch, I,
pp. 329-32, &sect;&sect;649-56; Martin, Rhetorik, pp. 306-307; Bullinger, Figures,
pp. 324-38.
36. Three other figures bear mentioning. The juxtaposition of &nu;&epsiv;&alpha;&nu;&iacgr;&sigma;&kap a;&ogr;&igr;

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015

110

and &nu;&epsiv;&nu;&igr;&kap a;&e acgr;&kap a;&alpha;&tau;&epsiv; in v. 13cd constitutes paronomasia of the type in which
’words lack so close a resemblance, and yet are not dissimilar’ (Her. 4.22.30).
The designation of the Devil as the Evil One (&oacute; &pi;&ogr;&nu;&e acgr;&rho;&ogr;&sfgr;) is an example of
metonymy, a trope ’which draws from an object closely akin or associated an
expression suggesting the object meant, but not called by its own name’
(Her. 4.32.43. Cf. Cic. De Or. 3.42.167; Or. 27.93; Quint. 8.6.23 for similar
definitions. For further discussion, see Her. 4.32.43; Cic. De Or. 3.42.167-68;
Quint. 8.6.23-28; Lausberg, Handbuch, I, pp. 292-95, &sect;&sect;565-71; Martin,
Rhetorik, pp. 268-69; Bullinger, Figures, pp. 538-608.) It is the type of
metonymy in which the vices of a person are made to stand for the person
who possesses them (Cic. De Or. 3.42.168; cf. 1 Jn 3.12; 5.18-19). There is
also the metaphor of conquest in war inherent in the verb &nu;&iacgr;&kap a;&alpha;&nu;.
37. Quint. 9.3.11.
38. Demetr. Eloc. 4.214.
39. Long. Subl. 23.1.
40. Quint. 4.3.14. For further discussion and references, see Lausberg,
Handbuch, I, pp. 187-88, &sect;&sect;340-42; Martin, Rhetorik, pp. 89-91. Cic. De Or.
3.53.205 and Or. 40.138 list a brief diversion from the subject ) declinatio as a
(
figure of thought. Cic. De Or. 3.53.203=Quint. 9.1.28 and De Or. 3.54.207=
Quint. 9.1.35 list digression as a figure of thought and speech respectively.
Cic. Or. 40.137 lists ’turn from the subject and divert the thought’ as a figure
of thought. Quint. 9.2.55-56 discusses digression and gives a concrete
example.
41. Cic. De Or. 2.311-12.
42. For these and other purposes, see Cic. Inv. 1.51.97; De Or. 2.19.80;
2.77.311-12; 3.53.203=Quint. 9.1.28; Quint. 4.3.12-17.
43. Quint. 4.3.15.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on June 21, 2015