THE RHETORICAL PAULINE THEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE
Floyd Schneider, Theo 997, 2011
ABSTRACT
The Ancients had been using rhetoric long before Aristotle defined rhetoric as a means of persuasion. After theologians had exhausted the study of Form Criticism, the study of rhetoric took its place. This paper will follow the development of this study with the intent of answering the question: what are the guidelines, limitations and usefulness of rhetorical analysis in understanding the author’s intent, looking closely at Paul’s attitude and approach to this hermeneutical and persuasion tool.
INTRODUCTION
Since the apostle Paul commanded Timothy to accurately handle the word of truth, the church has been seeking the best hermeneutical principles to fulfill that command. One of the most recent approaches has been that of “rhetorical analysis.” Also called “rhetorical criticism,” vague definitions and gross misuse have deterred many evangelicals from using this tool. A number of exegetes, however, have attempted to offer useful definitions and appropriate methods for using this tool within the framework of biblical inspiration. This paper will ask the question: why should we bother? The history of rhetorical analysis, relating its use and misuse, a working definition and description of this tool, and some proper uses of this tool will contribute to the answer.
HISTORY
Augustine made one of the first clear attempts to outline a rhetorical approach for interpreting Scripture. He employed this technique by simply listing and labeling figures of speech in the Bible that he believed to be rhetorical. Erasmus rhetorically analyzed 1st and 2nd Corinthians. Melanchthon, one of the key German reformers, used rhetorical criticism to interpret Romans and Galatians. Calvin referenced rhetorical features throughout his commentaries, and gave a rhetorical analysis of Romans.
As the use of rhetorical criticism continued through church history, it focused more and more on style and aesthetics of literature. The use of rhetorical criticism lost steam probably because the stylistic studies of the Old and New Testaments have limited usefulness. Watson added that the study of the Bible had become separated from rhetoric because rhetoric “had come to be understood as mere style or ornament.”
A wind change began in the early 1900’s. Lundbom states that “Cornell in the 1920s was the center of this new interest in classical rhetoric and became the place where rhetorical criticism was born. It was Herbert Wichelns’ highly influential essay, “The Literary Criticism of Oratory” [1925], which defined rhetorical criticism and mapped out its agenda. Wichelns wanted to determine a speech’s persuasive quality, not just it’s style.
The turning point in the use of rhetorical analysis as a discipline beyond style and beauty in the study of Scripture arrived when Muilenburg gave his presidential address of 1968 to the Society for Biblical literature. Researchers had published on this subject previous to Muilenberg’s paper, but his contribution had the most influence.
In his address he asked the question “After Form Criticism What?” The answer he offered to this question was rhetorical criticism. His approach attempted to provide a definition and some direction and impetus for this newly revived subject area. A nucleus of students and other scholars took up his challenge.
Many publications on the use of this tool appeared on the scene, but no single accepted standard method of using this tool arose to predominance. Lundbom stated that “Compared with rhetorical systems practiced in the universities, the Muilenburg program appears somewhat narrow [. . .]. [It is] perceived by many as being little more than an exercise in textual description.” Muilenburg related that his approach had three main interests: literary composition, structural patterns, and literary devices, all dealing with the way a passage was written, but he never explained why he did not apply the term stylistics to these approaches, nor did he clarify why he chose to use the term rhetoric.
And that was the problem with his approach. Aristotle had defined rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.” Wilhelm Wuellner plays down the usefulness of the efforts made by the followers of Meilenburg, because they used the prevailing theories of rhetoric as their foundation and became “victims of the fateful reduction of rhetorics to stylistics, and stylistics in turn to the rhetorical tropes or figures.” Wuellner believed that rhetorical criticism had “become indistinguishable from literary criticism.”
DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION
Describing how a language tool is used is easier than defining it. Kikawada would not even attempt a definition but went straight to describing his method. Muilenburg never defined rhetorical analysis clearly enough to set any standard for future use. Fox, however, delivers an excellent definition. He writes, “Rhetorical criticism may be defined first of all as the examination and evaluation of such discourse for the nature and quality of its suasive force.” Fox believes that the critic has to study not only what the author does, but also how the author relates to his audience in terms of the potential or real persuasive effect. Using the Old Testament prophets as examples, Fox presents some external factors that will also affect the force of the persuasion: “the weight of the prophet’s entire career, the theological and social contexts of prophecy, which predisposed the audience to a certain attentiveness (if not receptiveness) to prophecy as such, and the prophet’s prior accuracy in prediction.” The use of rhetorical analysis eventually degenerated into descriptions of style and beauty of a text, instead of using the tool to flesh out the author’s desired goals (informational, seeking an emotional response, or seeking a change of mind and consequent action).
Once a hermeneutical tool is reduced to describing the ornamental aspect of the text, it ceases to be useful for determining the meaning of the text from the author’s point of view. And when the exegete interprets the passage in light of the reader’s intent, then the entire hermeneutical approach becomes as subjective as beauty. Muilenburg’s agenda revealed itself to be too limited for rhetorical critics with classical and modern interests. And in addition to this problem, Muilenburg never revealed how he felt that the stylistic devices supported purpose and meaning of the passage. Style may reveal something about the meaning, but style is not equivalent to meaning.
Michael Fox pointed out that Ezekiel used rhetoric to deliver his message to his own people in exile. His people loved his messages as entertainment, but refused to obey them. Fox applies the same situation to today when he writes, “If the formal structures that the critic claims to discover are indeed rhetorically effective, he should show not only that they exist but what they do and how they work.” The rhetorical approach to understanding the author’s intent has not produced the results that researchers and commentators have desired. Why Paul did what he did still remains vague after the study of rhetoric analysis has been carried out.
The conclusion is that literary devices are not an end in themselves. They have to go beyond to explore function and meaning. Lundbom summarizes good rhetorical criticism with four main characteristics: 1) It is a method for analyzing existing communication, not a technique manual for future speakers. 2) It is concerned with structure and persuasion, not just style. 3) It goes beyond the list of figures. It wants to know how figures function in discourse. 4) It focuses on the audience, beginning with the original audience.”
Kennedy sums up the objective of rhetorical criticism. He states, “The ultimate goal of rhetorical analysis, briefly put, is the discovery of the author’s intent and how it is transmitted to a text to an audience.” In seeking the intent of the author (as opposed to reader–response theories), we allow the text to inform us of the author’s intent. If we have no other source of information about the author, we have to assume that the text accurately reflects the intent of the author.
Having defined the purpose of rhetorical criticism as attempting to understand how or why the message was effective, Russell raises the question of the appropriateness of using classical rhetorical canons to evaluate an epistle written by a Jewish Christian missionary. After referring to arguments from both sides of the question, he states that Paul had had extensive exposure to rhetorical training. Rhetorical training was well known in the Mediterranean world and Paul’s audiences would probably have expected it from him. In Hawthorne’s dictionary, it states, “In the Art of Rhetoric (mid-4th century B.C.), Aristotle summarized and expanded discussions of rhetoric by such notable predecessors as Gorgias, Protagoras and Plato. Aristotle’s work was the Fountainhead for a stream of Greek and Latin handbooks on rhetoric down to the 1st century A.D.” Paul did use rhetoric to present his arguments, as his defense before Felix clearly demonstrates. Hawthorne’s dictionary again states, “The point of using the classical handbooks in an analysis of Paul’s letters is not to prove his dependence upon them but to be guided by them in a description of Paul’s arguments.”
THE PROCEDURE OF RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
Aristotle laid the foundation for rhetoric by defining three aspects used by proficient orators. The moral character of the speaker (ethos), the emotions aroused in the hearers by the speech (pathos), and the logical arguments in the speech (logos), and the combination of these three aspects determined the effectiveness of the persuasion of the speaker.
Three kinds of rhetoric have been described in the classical tradition: forensic, which defends or accuses someone of past actions, deliberative, which exhorts or dissuades someone regarding future actions, and epideiactic, which praises or blame someone about something in the Present.
The classical rhetorical handbooks describe 6 stages of a rhetorical speech. Betz uses the Latin terms for these parts for his outline of Galatians. David Greenwood’s procedure contained two stages (in English). George Kennedy expanded the procedure to six stages.
1. Determine the rhetorical unit to be studied, which corresponds to the periscope in form criticism.
2. Define the rhetorical situation of the unit. This roughly corresponds to the Sitz im Leben of form criticism.
3. In many rhetorical situations the speaker may face one overriding rhetorical problem that may be particularly visible at the beginning of the discourse.
4. Determine which of the three species of Pretoria the rhetorical unit fit judicial, deliberative, or epideictic.
5. Consider the arrangement of material in the text in terms of its subdivisions, persuasive effect of the parts, the coordination of the parts, devices of style, etc.
6. Review the process of analysis by looking back over the entire unit and reviewing its success in addressing the rhetorical situation and what the implications may be for the speaker or audience.
Numerous journal articles have been written on each one of these stages, indicating that general consensus of the validity of each stage and it’s appropriate use in helping to determine the meaning and force of the text has not been reached (nor will it probably ever be reached). Wueller presents a detailed description of Kennedy’s six stages and follows up his descriptions by testing Kennedy’s model in 1st Corinthians 9.
Perelman and Olbrecht-Tyteca describe a wide variety of rhetorical techniques that they believe Paul used throughout his ministry. Their book describes five rhetorical techniques of argumentation, which they illustrate by applying them to the book of Galatians.
Wuellner is not content with limiting the study of rhetorical criticism to discovering the style of the writings. When he reaches the fifth stage of identifying the rhetorical style of a passage, he takes his search for meaning further. He states, “Given the fact that rhetorical literary compositions are creative acts and that activation of audience or readers aims to gain or maintain and strengthen convictions and values held by the readers, Kennedy rightly emphasizes that in this concluding stage of rhetorical criticism the whole of what is being analyzed must appear as greater than the sum of its parts.” Wuellner wants rhetorical criticism to deliver more than the individual six stages. He wants what the six stages deliver as a whole.
In his enthusiasm to make a more complete use of this exegetical tool, he almost strays away from the product of the six stages. “Thus, rhetorical criticism leads us away from a traditional message– or content–oriented reading of Scripture to a reading which generates and strengthens ever– deepening personal, social, cultural values.”
The function of rhetorical criticism does not affect the content of the message, which is authorial intent. Wuellner corrects his overstatement by inserting the words “not primarily for religious persuasion, nor for religious conviction. Rather, with the help of rhetorical criticism, he should look for and find ever deepening dynamics of personal or social life identification and transformation.”
Rhetorical criticism embraces emotions and feelings as well as Reason. The resulting emotional response of the audience demonstrates the active role that listeners (and readers) play when listening to (or reading) rhetoric speech.
CONCLUSION
Kennedy’s steps provide an excellent guideline for using this tool. Different interpreters will use this tool in different ways to come to different conclusions. This tool, like any other tool, will receive its fair share of abusive use. As evangelicals continue to study and use this tool for exegesis, they will need to remember that the Corinthians, who loved public orations, are not the standard by which we judge the proper use of the tool.
Although Paul was very capable of using rhetoric techniques to sway an audience, in Corinth especially, he rejected the wisdom of rhetoric (1 Corinthians 1:17), because it emptied the preaching of the cross of its meaning. Paul was not criticizing the use of rhetoric as a tool of communication. He was addressing the world’s use of this form of address for the purpose of leading people to a conclusion that had nothing to do with truth. The best speech giver in the universe was worthless if the message did not bring people to the knowledge of God. Paul was not drawing attention to himself when he preached. He was drawing the audience’s attention to Jesus. He did not want the form of rhetoric speech to confuse the people into thinking that he was just another Greek orator attempting to tickle people’s ears.
If rhetorical analysis brings the scholar and the pastor closer to God’s intended meaning of the text, and therefore into a deeper knowledge of God, which can lead to a closer relationship with God, this tool will have served its purpose well.
Annotated Bibliography for Rhetorical Analysis
THEO 997
The following limited annotated bibliography contains material consulted, and focuses on the subject of “The Rhetoric of Pauline Theological Discourse” for the purpose of supporting the research carried out and presented in the paper of the same title.
I. Ancient Rhetorical Theory: Primary Sources
Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric. ReadHowYouWant, 2007.
Classic. Appeared during the time of great scholarly activity in Ancient Greece. Teaches students to persuade an audience, as well as teaching about human nature. The translation is readable and clear.
Augustine. De doctrina christiana, Book 4, PL 34 89-122. Oxford University Press, USA (January 25, 1996).
An excellent, clear new translation of 'De Doctrina Christiana' that may very well become a new standard for translating Latin theological works. Will be useful for theologians, historians, and hermeneutics alike. A critical Latin text with notes accompanies the new translation.
Russell, D. A. Ancient Literary Criticism: the Principle Texts in New Translations.
Oxford: Carendon Press, 1972. On Ideas of Style by Hermogenes.
An analysis of Hermogenes’ teaching on rhetoric. Worth consulting for depth of study.
II. The Role of Rhetoric in the Greco-Roman World
Adams, Edward and Horrell, David G., Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church. Louisville: John Knox Press. 2004.
Good book on all aspects of the culture and religion at Corinth during Paul’s time.
Especially useful sections on social stratification and the rhetorical situation and historical reconstruction. Part Two focuses on methodological reflections.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987.
Thoroughly evangelical point of view. An in-depth understanding of the text while not bogging down in scholarly elements that are confusing. Clearly Charismatic in his interpretation of chapters 12-14. Considers verses 14:34-35 to be a scribal addition instead of part of the text. Regardless of one’s presuppositions, Fee is the ONLY Pentecostal theologian writing excellent, exegetical commentaries today.
Kennedy, George Alexander. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Considerations. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroloina PR, 1984.
Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, was part of the normal educational curriculum in ancient times. Aristotle, in his treatise Rhetorics, systematized the methods of rhetoric, and this system formed the basis for rhetorical handbooks in use in New Testament times. Rhetoric was pervasive throughout the Roman Empire in the first century; even people who had not attended Greek or Roman schools would have been exposed to rhetoric in public speaking or to the conventions of letter-writing.
Kennedy, George A. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 B.C.-A.D. 300. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2008.
These seventeen articles honor the influence of George A. Kennedy's work upon biblical studies. They introduce readers to rhetorical criticism through detailed readings of biblical texts and clarification of methodological issues. Crucial source for the study of rhetoric in the New Testament and this paper.
Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2nd Edition. 2003.
Handles the question what was it like to become and be an ordinary Christian in the first century. The approach is that of "social history" applied to the New Testament, a cooperative movement across several academic disciplines. Meeks also justifies his studies because of the potential rejection by theologians. Deals with the urban environment, the social level of believers, forming and governing of the church, rituals and patterns of belief and life. Moves from external issues of group formation, urban environment, and status level to internal issues such as dealing with church conflicts.
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric. University of Notre Dame, 1991.
Deals with how to argue and make a point effectively. Perelman catalogs several hundred different types of arguments with tons of examples. Rhetoric has often been maligned as something manipulative and dishonest. Perelman's work looks at argument objectively, asking "how does someone convince someone else?" A catalog of a toolkit for anyone trying to persuade others.
III. Greco-Roman Rhetorical Theory and Its Modern Legacy
Classen, Carl Joachim. Rhetorical System of the New Testament. Boston: Brill, 2002.
Detailed introduction to Paul’s epistles and ancient Greek and Roman rhetoric, followed by Paul and the terminology of ancient Greek rhetoric. Uses the book of Titus as an example along with examples from the four Gospels. Part Two discusses and demonstrates Melanchthon’s use of rhetoric.
Fox, Michael V. “The Rhetoric Ezekiel’s vision of the Valley of the Bones, “ HUCA 51. 1980.
Rhetorical criticism should focus on the analysis and evaluation of the suasive force of discourse rather than on its formal literary features or its structure. A rhetorical analysis should include consideration of the rhetor's situation, goals, stance, and strategies. In Ezek. 37:1-14, the prophet seeks to create hope in the recently exiled people, whose despair threatens its existence. He chooses the stance of "objective" spectator. His strategies are, first, the dramatic imagery of the resurrection of the bones, which imagery attacks old frameworks of expectations by boldly affirming the absurd, and second, a sort of reverse enthymeme which argues that the nation can indeed be revived. A third strategy, the manipulation of the senses of the word rûah, employs verbal subterfuge to impart a further idea, that the people's revival will include a restructuring of the national psychology.
Greenwood, David. “Rhetorical Criticism and Formgeschihte: Some Methodological Considerations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 no. 4 (December 1, 1970).
Criticizes Form Criticism as inadequate. Rhetorical Criticism needs to utilize the critical and stylistic resources which are employed by the literary world at large in such journals as Comparative Literature Studies and Comparative Literature (the official journal of the American Comparative Literature Association).
Hansen, G. W. Abraham in Galatians-Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. JSNTSup 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989.
This book is Hansen's revised Toronto dissertation. Hansen divides his work into two major sections. Part 1 (19-93) presents an epistolary and rhetorical analysis of the entire letter. In epistolary genre the letter uses the "rebuke- request" form (rebuke in 1:6, request in 4:12). This makes 4:12-20 a key section in the structure of the letter. In Part 2 (95-154) Hansen presents an exegesis of the Abraham material in 3:1-29 (related to the rebuke section) and 4:21-31 (related to the request section). Perceptive, informative, clearly argued and well documented. Contributes only a little to the understanding of the author’s intent of his writing.
Hawthorne, Gerald F., and Ralph P. Martin (eds). Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Donners Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1993.
An encyclopedia of Paul's letters. All the important issues in Paul's letters are listed encyclopedically in this book. The articles' authors have looked at all the popular, scholarly and important commentaries, and have lined the commentators up on either side of every little minute Pauline controversy. Summarizes the positions and their supporters. For the purpose of this study, this book describes five rhetorical techniques of argumentation, which they illustrate by applying them to the book of Galatians.
Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (2nd ed.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997).
Attempts a structural analysis of Jeremiah. “We need to know . . . the limits of the literary units, and the structure of those units, whether in the prophetic speech or in the larger book of Jeremiah…"two known rhetorical figures, the inclusio and the chiasmus, are important controlling structures in Jeremiah. They control not only the prophetic speeches, but also larger complexes which make up the book of Jeremiah" (p. 16). Maintains that in his preaching, Jeremiah used established rhetorical structures which were well known to his audience. However, he used these in a new way. Arguments interesting, though not conclusive. Assuming his view of the rhetorical structures and the function of these rhetorical structures to be accurate, the author presents the reader with a very convincing and graphic picture of Jeremiah as a prophet of engagement.
Muilenburg, J. “After Form Criticism What?” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969) 1-18.
The answer he offered to this question was rhetorical criticism. His approach attempted to provide a definition direction and impetus for this approach. Large following, but eventually bogged down for a lack of clear definitions.
Watson, Duane F. and Alan J. Hause. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 102-3.
Comprehensive and thorough. Obvious that the authors love their subject matter. Necessary work for serious research.
IV. The Rhetoric of the New Testament
General
Anderson, R. Dean, Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul [rev. ed.]. Leuven: Peeters, 1999.
Dissertation that assesses the relevance of Greco-Roman rhetorical theory to the study of Paul's writings. Contains a brief survey of modern rhetorical criticism in NT studies, a detailed introduction to the major extant sources for ancient rhetorical theory with an assessment of their relevance to Paul's writings, a short discussion of the relationship between epistolography and rhetorical theory, a consideration of Gal 1:1-5:11; Romans 1-11; First Corinthians (including as assessment of existing scholarship and the author's own rhetorical analyses), and concluding remarks about Paul's relationship to rhetorical theory.
Classen, Carl Joachim. Rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. Boston: Brill, 2002.
Aims at determining both the opportunities and the limits of forms of criticism, stressing the importance of supplementing the ancient categories by modern ones. Emphasizes the difference between letters such as Paul's epistles and other kinds of texts, for example the gospels, and the need to select the aspects and criteria of rhetorical criticism accordingly and tries to illustrate how such criticism may be practiced. In addition he answers the question to what extent Paul was familiar with Greek rhetoric by an examination of his vocabulary and analyses at length Melanchthon's early lectures, his handbooks and his commentaries to show some of the roots of this type of criticism, the manner in which its greatest exponent developed it and the qualities ideally required for its successful application.
Kennedy, George Alexander. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: Univ of North Carolina Pr, 1984.
Shows how one may profitably read the New Testament in the light of rhetorical analysis. In the first chapter Kennedy describes rhetoric as it was systematized by Aristotle and subsequent rhetoricians. In the next three chapters Kennedy shows examples of the three species of persuasive speeches. The rest of the book examines various other smaller portions of the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline correspondence.
Kikawada, Isaac M. “Some proposals for the definition of rhetorical criticism.” In Semitics, vol 5, 1977, 67-91. Pretoria: Univ of South Africa, 1977.
Does not define the subject, but presents his method of “retracing the compositional process in the opposite direction” (69). Does not question the authenticity or transmission errors. Seeks author intent, not reader response.
Wuellner, Wilhelm. “Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?” CBQ 49 (1987) 448-463.
Wuellner’s views current trends in rhetorical criticism as too narrow, and must be expanded beyond the study of style and form to the arena of purpose. James Hester and David Hester edited a collection of nine essays that pay tribute to Wuellner under the title Rhetorics and Hermeneutics: Wilhelm Wuellner and His Influence (New York and London: T&T Clark International/Continuum [Emory Studies in Early Christianity], 2004. In these essays Hester is looking to Wuellner for a clearer direction, for a more explicitly muitidisciplinary approach, and for a change 'in the culture of New Testament interpretation during the time of its transition from the 20th to the 2ist century' (p. 124). Wuellner explores rhetorics of power, concerning which he feels a growing unease, and Olbricht and Robbins include convincing reservations about Wuellner's approach. Robbins wrote the essay, 'Where is Wuellner's Anti-Hermeneutical Hermeneutic Taking Us? From Schleiermacher to Thistleton and Beyond.' The four essays of Part I recognize the importance of relating rhetorical studies more closely to
broader issues in hermeneutics. The curiosity of this volume is the apparent failure of several contributors to recognize that much of what they think of as 'new' in the twenty-first century has been the stock in trade of hermeneutics for the last thirty years.
The Pauline Epistles
Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
Draws upon the primary sources in Greco- Roman literature and Judaism. His extensive work in the Greco-Roman art of rhetoric has led him to apply the genre of an 'apologetic letter," which arose in the 4th century B.C., to the Galatian letter. In place of his physical presence and oral defense, Paul relies on the rhetorical style of an apologetic letter to present his case: Paul (the defendant) presents his case to the Galatians (the jury) in the presence of his opponents (the accusers).
Betz, Hans Dieter. “The problem of rhetoric and theology according to the Apostle Paul.” In Apôtre Paul, 16-48. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1986.
Covers the history of research up to that point, Paul’s earlier letters, and then First Corinthians. Under First Corinthians he treats the subjects “Eloquence and Knowledge”, the analysis of the terms ‘speech’, ‘wisdom’, ‘knowledge’, and the ‘Letter of Reconciliation.’
Robbins, Vernon K. “The present and future of rhetorical analysis.” In Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture, 24-52. Sheffield, Eng: Sheffield Academic Pr, 1997.
Offers an interpretive analytics that not only practitioners of rhetorical criticism can engage at numerous points, but those from an array of other disciplines as well (inner, inter-, social, cultural, ideological and sacred).
Russell, Walter B. Rhetorical Analysis of the Book of Galatians, Part 1. Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (July-September 1993).
Excellent positive treatment of rhetorical analysis from an evangelical viewpoint. Necessary for the research done for this paper. Will be kept on file for future reference.
Watson, Duane F. Invention, Arrangement and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (SBLDS 104; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Watson applies his insights from rhetorical criticism to the letters of Jude and 2 Peter.
Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Commentary in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1995.
Examines the social and Greco-Roman rhetorical contexts of the Corinthian correspondence. Witherington defines rhetoric as the "art of persuasion" and believes that "particular literary devices and forms were used in antiquity to persuade a hearer or reader to some position regarding the issue that the speaker or writer was addressing" (xii). Takes advantage of the extensive social science research of New Testament times that has emerged in recent years. Applies rhetorical criticism to New Testament study. He abandons the ‘traditional’ methods of exegesis such as form and redaction criticism and believes that First and Second Corinthians must be studied in their final forms. He rejects the view that 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 are a post-Pauline interpolation and believes they were part of the original letter. Witherington breaks new ground by applying a rhetorical critical analysis to both 1 and 2 Corinthians.
V. Bibliographies
Black, C Clifton. “Keeping up with recent studies, pt 16 : Rhetorical criticism and biblical interpretation.” Expository Times 100, no. 7 (April 1, 1989): 252-258.
Hauser, Alan J., and Duane F. Watson. Rhetorical criticism of the Bible: a comprehensive bibliography with notes on history and method. Biblical interpretation. Leiden: E J Brill, 1994.
Watson, Duane F. “Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles since 1975.” Currents in Research 3 (January 1, 1995): 219-248.
———. “The New Testament and Greco-Roman rhetoric : a bibliography.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 4 (December 1, 1988) 465-472.
______. “The New Testament and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliographical Update.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33, no. 4 (December 1, 1990) 513-524.