374 the expository times

Volume 119 Number 8 Pages 374–379

Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
DOI: 10.1177/0014524608091188
http://EXT.sagepub.com

Reassessing a Rhetorical Approach to Paul’s Letters

Y
By dr michael F. bird
Highland Theological College/UHI Millennium Institute, Dingwall, Scotland

Rhetorical criticism of Paul’s letters has become commonplace, especially in commentaries on Paul’s writings.
However, using the rhetorical handbooks for studying the Pauline writings has come under severe criticism
as to whether or not it is methodologically sound to import and apply rhetorical categories to the Pauline
letters and to the New Testament in general. This study assesses the value and limits of applying rhetorical
criticism to Paul’s letters and argues that the letters should be understood principally through epistolography
and only secondarily in terms of a functional rhetoric.

KEYWORDS
Paul, rhetoric, rhetorical criticism, New Testament interpretation

M
any students and ministers who pick up argument, and why he wrote his letters in the first
a commentary on Paul’s letters in recent place.2
times may find themselves bewildered However, many believe that the usefulness of
when they open the table of contents and find terms ancient rhetoric for analysing Paul’s letters has
like exordium, narratio, refutatio and peroratio. been over-estimated and several scholars have
These Latin terms derive from the ancient rhetorical subsequently questioned the utility of a direct
handbooks (e.g. Aristotle, Quintilian and Cicero). importation of Greco-Roman rhetorical categories
The rhetorical craft taught in these handbooks into Paul’s letters. Philip Kern has devoted a full-
aimed, through meticulous appeals to ethos, pathos length monograph to criticism of the rhetorical
and logic, to persuade or dissuade an audience method. Kern argues that the setting and style of
through a well delivered speech (Aristotle, Rhet rhetoric prescribed in Greco-Roman handbooks does
1:2). These handbooks have been increasingly not match Paul’s epistles. The subject matter, venue,
used in interpretation of the New Testament and audience, and style of discourse in the Pauline letters
especially for Paul’s epistles. As such, the field of does not reflect the contextual setting and means of
rhetorical criticism is all the rage at the moment and, delivery which teachers of rhetoric had in mind.3
put briefly, this methodology consists of the effort to Markus Bockmuehl calls for a ‘cautious and light-
detect and describe in the New Testament rhetorical handed application’ of approaches such as rhetorical
strategies that are paralleled in the rhetorical criticism. That is because applying precise models
handbooks.1 In terms of value, rhetorical criticism of formal Greco-Roman rhetoric to Paul’s letters do
is said to assist in determining the argumentative not stand up to the complexity of Paul’s background
dynamics of Paul’s letters. Rhetorical analysis may and the ad hoc nature of his correspondence with his
give us a more informed way of explaining what churches. Rhetorical criticism is at best an ancillary
Paul meant in an argument, how he developed his
2
G. W. Hansen, ‘Rhetorical Criticism’, in Dictionary of
1
For an overview see C. Clifton Black, ‘Keeping up with Paul and His Letters, eds. Ralph P. Martin and Daniel Reid
Recent Studies (XVI): Rhetorical Criticism and Biblical (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993), 822–826.
Interpretation’, ExpT 100 (1989): 252–258 and Steve Walton, 3
 Philip Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an
‘Rhetorical Criticism: An Introduction’, Themelios 21 (1996): Approach to Paul’s Epistles (SNTSMS 101; Cambridge: CUP,
4–9. 1998).

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA on April 15, 2015

 the expository times 375

tool to be utilized in an eclectic and pragmatic the application of rhetorical categories to the study
approach to studying Paul’s letters.4 Jeffrey T. Reed of Paul’s epistles, and the New Testament more
resists the trend of identifying in Paul’s letters full generally.
blown rhetorical treatises. While Paul’s letters exhibit First, early Christian commentators clearly had
clear argumentative elements, he did not incorporate mixed feeling about rhetoric and the Holy Scriptures.
a system of rhetoric into the epistolary genre. 5 Some Patristic authors were quite hostile towards any
Stanley Porter questions the theoretical justification application of the rhetorical craft to Christianity or to
for applying rhetorical categories to Paul’s letters. the Bible. Jerome wrote: ‘What has Horace to do with
He acknowledges that rhetoric was ‘in the air’ in the Psalms, Virgil with the Gospels, Cicero with the
Paul’s time and that there are likely to be culturally Apostle’ (Ep 22:29). Similarly, Tertullian said: ‘Where
specific ways of expressing a ‘universal rhetoric’ in is there any similarity between the disciple of Greece
particular modes of discourse. In theory, the rhetorical and the disciple of heaven?’ (Apol 46). J. Andrew
practices of orators may have affected ancient letter Overman points out that ‘as early Christian preaching
writers. Yet there is little evidence to support the was more and more influenced by classical rhetoric
notion that letters were written and analysed as and its techniques and conventions, certain Church
rhetorical creations. Porter concludes: ‘There is, Fathers began to feel a tension between rhetoric and
therefore, little if any theoretical justification in the Christian preaching’.7 But this is not the whole story
ancient handbooks for the application of the formal as several Christian authors of the later centuries felt
categories of the species and organization of rhetoric no such tension in using rhetoric in both sermons and
to analysis of the Pauline epistles.’6 in biblical interpretation. John Chrysostom, arguably
In light of these criticisms, one must wonder if one of the greatest Christian orators of the Patristic
reading the Pauline letters through the lens of the era and steeped in Greek language, expounded a mix
ancient rhetorical handbooks is really appropriate. of apologetic and parenetic rhetorical devices in his
Does the rhetorical reading impose a somewhat commentary on Galatians.8 Augustine in his work,
artificial structure on to the letters of Paul, and does On Christian Doctrine likewise appealed to rhetoric
it actually enable interpreters to make better sense in explanation of Paul. Some of the Reformers with
of Paul’s letters? What I want to do in the rest of a classicist background such as Philip Melanchthon
this study is to give the case, pro and con, for the were aware of the rhetorical horizon of Paul’s
rhetorical approach to Paul’s letters. I intend to writings.9 Thus, the idea that rhetoric was inherently
show that, with some hefty qualification, rhetorical unchristian was not universal. Moreover, given the
criticism does provide a legitimate and useful tool for largely oral nature of early Christian discourse (e.g.
studying Paul’s letters. sermons, passing on Jesus tradition, apologetics,
teaching, etc.) and the fact that Christians operated
Rhetorical Criticism and Paul’s Letters in the sphere of Hellenistic culture, the Christian
There are several factors that must be properly adaptation of rhetorical forms was not a second
weighed and evaluated in assessing the legitimacy of century phenomenon, but probably had roots in the
first century.10

4
 Markus Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians (BNTC; 7
J. Andrew Overman, ‘Homily Form (Christian and Early
London: A&C Black, 1997), 39–40. Hellenistic)’, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel
5
Jeffrey T. Reed, ‘Using Ancient Rhetorical Categories to Freedman (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2.281.
Interpret Paul’s Letters: A Question of Genre’, in Rhetoric 8
Janet Fairweather, ‘The Epistle to the Galatians and
and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Classical Rhetoric: Parts 1 & 2’, TynBul (1994): 1–22.
Conference, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht 9
Cf. Timothy J. Wengert, ‘Philip Melanchthon’s 1522
(JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), annotations on Romans and the Lutheran Origins of
322–323. Rhetorical Criticism’, in Biblical Interpretation in the Era
6
 Stanley E. Porter, ‘The Theoretical Justification for of the Reformation, eds. Richard A. Muller and John Lee
Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Thompson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 118–140.
Literature’, in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays 10
Ben Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized
from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, eds. Stanley E. Porter Christians – Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on
and Thomas H. Olbricht (JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John (Nottingham: IVP, 2006),
Academic Press, 1993), 115–116. 45.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA on April 15, 2015

376 the expository times

Second, teachers of rhetoric rarely applied the art those who were well educated like Paul, Luke, the
of rhetoric to letter writing. Cicero himself stated: writer to the Hebrews, and Ignatius of Antioch.16
‘For what does a letter have in common with a Third, more generally, rhetoric was largely an oral
speech in court or in an assembly?’ (Cicero, Fam. art, much like public speaking or homiletics. There
9.21.1). Alternatively, the inclusion of letter writing is then the question of applying the techniques of
in rhetorical instruction manuals was not unknown oral persuasion to written documents. It is probably
as Julius Victor in fourth century ce said that, ‘Many mistaken to suppose that the New Testament epistles
directives which pertain to oral discourse also apply are essentially speeches in literary form and so justify
to letters’ (Ars Rhetorica 27). But even then the the application of rhetoric based on the oracular
relegation of letter writing to an appendix in a book nature of their form.17 While the oral or aural nature
on rhetoric should lead us to question whether letter of written documents needs to be acknowledged it
writing was part of mainstream rhetoric.11 For Paul to can easily be misconstrued. Written communication
consciously write a letter as a feat of rhetoric would is a substitute for personal communication, but their
be something of an oddity in the practice of rhetoric language, style, structure and delivery are not strictly
as it was known and carried out in antiquity. At the identical.18 Accordingly, one might think ancient letter
same time, rhetoric can be found in some letters writing and the study of epistolography would be of
such as those of Fronto, Pliny, Seneca and Jerome,12 more relevance to Paul’s letters than rhetoric, or else
or when authors mimic the speeches of celebrated likening the letters to a ‘word of exhortation’ as per
historical persons, called prosōpopoiia, i.e. writing a a sermon given in written form (e.g. Heb 13:22; Acts
speech in character for a famous historical person or 13:15). Moreover, H. D. Betz advances the view that
mythical character (e.g. Ps-Hippocrates, Letters and, if Galatians is meant as a substitute for an apologetic
dare I suggest, Rom 7:7–25).13 Cicero refers to some speech, then it is a poor one since it would lack the
letters he received from an individual who wrote ‘in accompanying flair and pathos associated with oral
much the same tone as the public speeches he is said delivery.19 On the other hand, Paul probably dictated
to have made at Narbo’ (Fam 10.33.2). Additionally, his letters orally to a scribe or secretary and the letters
Margaret Mitchell has identified deliberative rhetoric were designed to be read aloud to Christian groups
within epistolary frameworks among ancient writings (e.g 1 Thess 5:27; 2 Cor 1:13; Col 4:16). Speeches
including Isocrates Ep 1–3, 6, 8–9, Demosthenes Ep themselves could be committed to memory or written
1, 3, Socratic Epistles 27, 30, and 1 Clement.14 The down. Aristotle did discuss written communication
genre of the apologetic letter and rebuke-request in his handbook (Rhet 3.5). While rhetoric was
letter were themselves a rhetorical feat of writing.15 indeed an oral art everything that we know of
While a letter as rhetoric was an anomaly, rhetoric rhetoric actually comes from written sources, i.e. the
in a letter was not completely unprecedented. The rhetorical handbooks and recorded speeches. So the
prevalence of rhetoric as a feature of Greek education oral versus written medium contrast does not pose
affected all genres of communication and so ancient an insurmountable obstacle to applying rhetoric to
rhetorical theory can contribute to an understanding written documents.20
of the letters written by ancient writers, especially Fourth, the use of rhetoric was linked with
particular settings and occasions: forensic rhetoric
in a courtroom, deliberative rhetoric at assemblies,
11
 Porter, ‘Theoretical Justification’, 114–115.
12
 Reed, ‘Ancient Rhetorical Categories’, 312.
13
David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary 16
Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment,
Environment (Cambridge: James Clark & Co., 1987), 168. 158.
14
 Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: 17
Cf. e.g. Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen
An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984), 216–217.
of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 18
Aune, Literary Environment, 159.
1991), 22. 19
 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s
15
G.W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia,
Rhetorical Contexts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989); PA: Fortress Press, 1979), 24.
Anthony J. Guerra, Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The 20
Cf. Paul J. Achtemeier, ‘Omne Verbum Sonat: The
purpose, genre and audience of Paul’s letter (SNTSMS 81; New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Antiquity’, Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 3–27.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA on April 15, 2015

 the expository times 377

and epideictic rhetoric at festivals – none of which which is indicative of the emotive and probative
are directly applicable to Paul’s letters or the occasion element of his arguments and exhortations. The same
of their reading even in corporate worship. Of course is probably true of other letters such as Philemon, 1
the need for persuasion in matters of religion and Thessalonians, and Galatians. Furthermore, there
politics especially among the cultural elites was seem to be fairly clear overtures of rhetoric in 2
ubiquitous. Many of Paul’s letters are indeed given Corinthians 5:11 where Paul refers to his ministry
in the context of accusation, hostility and opposition as ‘knowing the fear of the Lord, we are persuading
to his apostolic ministry which corresponds in part men’.
to the occasions for deliberative and forensic rhetoric Sixth, Paul’s epistles do not conform quite as
(e.g. Galatians and 2 Corinthians 10–13). Elsewhere, neatly as some think to the structure of speeches
in the tradition of epideictic rhetoric, one detects dictated in the rhetorical handbooks. The wooden
arguments that praise certain virtues like love (e.g. 1 imposition of a rhetorical structure cannot
Cor 13:1–13), or seek to commend the honour and survive contact with the epistolary nature of these
virtue of particular Christian groups as being worthy documents. Concurrently we should acknowledge
for imitation and celebration (e.g. Rom 1:8; 1 Thess that the art of rhetoric was elastic and fluid. For
1:3–9; 2 Thess 1:3–4; Phil 1:7–8; Col 1:4; Philm 5). instance, the eastern Mediterranean had its own
Given the clear apologetic and parenetic function of distinct style of rhetoric as compared to the Latin
large units in Paul’s letters the presence of rhetorical west (e.g. Aristides and Gorgias).23 The Asianic
devices and indicators would hardly be surprising. style of rhetoric was more poetic and pompous
Fifth, Paul appears to have explicitly rejected than its western counterpart and used a variety of
the use of rhetorical persuasion in his evangelistic forms including antithesis, asyndeton, rhyme, and
ministry according to 1 Corinthians 1:17, 2:1–5, paronomasia to name a few. During the first century,
13 and 1 Thessalonians 2:5. What is more, in 2 there were heated debates concerning the merits of
Corinthians 11:6 Paul himself admits that he was Attic and Asianic rhetoric (e.g. Seneca, Contr.
not regarded as an eloquent speaker. However, when 10.5.21). Quintilian writes that Asianic rhetoric was
Paul says that he did not use ‘eloquence or superior regarded by Atticists as being needlessly dramatic
wisdom’ in his proclamation (1 Cor 2:1), what he and excessive in its presentation and ‘being naturally
probably meant is that he did not use ‘flowery’ or given to bombast and ostentation . . . puffed up with
‘ornamented’ rhetoric in his preaching, the type that a passion for a more vainglorious style of eloquence’
was so prized and esteemed by the Corinthians. That (Inst. 11.10.16–17). Several commentators detect
way all attention would focus on the message and in Paul’s letters an affinity with the Asianic style
not the messenger. Bruce Winter contends that what of rhetoric.24 What is more, the rhetorical genre
Paul rejects here is sophistry or the use of oratory was itself relatively flexible and orators could mix
in preaching that draws attention to the rhetorical elements of rhetoric within a speech (Quintilian,
prowess of the messenger rather than drawing Inst. 7.10.11–17). Paul can change and shape the
attention to the content of the message.21 While Paul pattern of his language to fit the situation without
sets proclamation over worldly philosophy, we must having to follow any blueprint slavishly. On top
keep in mind that many orators such as Aristides, of that, I think it needs to be acknowledged that
Alcibiades, and Epictetus regarded themselves as many of Paul’s arguments mirror the function
‘heralds’ (kērux) of the gods, of mysteries, or of of certain rhetorical conventions. For example,
various philosophies.22 The word of the cross and
worldly wisdom were antithetical only in content,
not necessarily in form. Moreover, in the Corinthian
23
 Robert Keay, ‘Pauline Rhetorical Style in Light of the
Attic-Asianic Dispute’, unpublished paper presented at the
correspondence we must note that Paul’s letters were Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas meeting in Aberdeen,
still considered ‘weighty and forceful’ (2 Cor 10:10) July 2006.
24
 E. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner,
1898), 507–508; Thomas Shearer Duncan, ‘The Style and
21
Bruce Winter, ‘Is Paul among the Sophists?’, Reformed Language of Saint Paul in His First Letter to the Corinthians’,
Theological Review 53 (1994): 28–38. Bibliotheca sacra 83 (1926): 143; Janet Fairweather, ‘The
22
Cf. G. Friedrich, ‘kērux’, Theological Dictionary of the Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric: Parts 3’,
New Testament 3.692–694. Tyndale Bulletin (1994): 229–234.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA on April 15, 2015

378 the expository times

Romans 1:16–17 certainly has the feel and function midrash in Rom 4:1–8). Yet many Jewish authors
of a propositio for a large discourse. Galatians like the one responsible for 4 Maccabees exhibit
1:11–2:14 gives the impression of operating much evidence of having had some literary and rhetorical
like a narratio, while Romans 3:21–26 possesses training.29 Philo likewise comments on the positive
the characteristics of an exornatio or elaboration value of rhetorical training (Congr 17–18). We
of the main proposition. I would also detect in should not think that Judaism was entirely inimical
places such as Romans 5:1 and 8:1 a conplexio to Hellenism when it came to education. In Acts,
that seeks to briefly recapitulate the central thesis the Lucan Paul says that he trained under Gamaliel
of the argument that Paul has been advancing up (Acts 22:3). Interestingly enough, E. A. Judge locates
to that point. a statement in the Talmud that reports that half of
Seventh, we must also consider the impact of Gamaliel’s 1,000 pupils were trained in the wisdom
a Hellenistic education upon Paul especially if he of the Greeks.30 I am not trying to preempt a decision
really was born and partly raised in Tarsus of Cilicia. about the historical credibility of Luke’s claim that
Tarsus was a Greek-speaking city and if Paul received Paul trained under Gamaliel or whether Gamaliel’s
even only the basic elements of a Greek education, pupils were in fact trained in Greco-Roman rhetoric.
that alone would have left him exposed to Greek What I will say is that a Jewish education would not
philosophy, literature, and rhetoric to some degree. have insulated Paul from the prevalence of rhetoric
Whitney Shiner writes: ‘The techniques of rhetoric in various theatres of discourse.
found in the handbooks could be learned even if Eighth, there also seem to be a number of parallels
one never attended a rhetorical school. Indeed, between rhetorical devices used in Greco-Roman
Augustine says [De Doctrina Christiana 4.3.4–5] it rhetorical discourse and the argumentative strategy
is easier to learn eloquence by reading and hearing of Paul’s letters. Thomas Tobin identifies a number
eloquent men than by studying rules.’25 Thomas of rhetorical features in Romans including:31
Olbricht concludes that rhetoric ‘so permeated
Hellenistic culture that it seems inconceivable for • Rhetorical Questions: Romans 2:3, 4, 21–23,
Paul to have escaped altogether rhetorical insight 26; 3:1, 3, 5, 6–9, 27, 29, 31; 4:1, 3, 9–10;
or, at minimum, a familiarity with Greek literature 6:1–3, 15–16, 21; 7:1, 7, 13, 24; 8:31–34; 9:14,
so affected’.26 Thus, rhetoric was certainly ‘in the 19–21, 30, 32; 10:7–8, 14–16, 18–19; 11:1, 2,
air’ and it affected the spheres of law, government, 4, 7, 11, 15, 34–35.
religion, commerce, and festivities and potentially • Apostrophes (addresses to an imaginary
any matter where persuasion was required.27 Others opponent): Romans 2:1–11, 17–29; 9:20–29;
object and contend that Paul would have been 11:11–24.
unlikely to receive Hellenistic training as part of his • Dialogues: Romans 3:1–10; 3:27–4.2.
Pharisaic education.28 The problem is that we know • Refutations of Objections: Romans 3:1–9,
very little about Paul’s education apart from the fact 27–31; 4:1–2; 6:1–3, 15–16; 7:7, 13–14;
that he was quite comfortable in Greek language and 9:14–15, 19–20; 11:1, 19.
used Jewish interpretive devices at the same time (e.g. • Speeches in Character: Romans 7:7–25;
10:6–8.
• Comparisons: Romans 2:6–10, 12–16; 6:4–11,
25
Whitney Taylor Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First- 15–23; 7:1–6; 8:5–17; 9:30–33; 11:17–24.
Century Performance of Mark (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, • Example Stories: Romans 4.1–25; 9:6–9, 10–15,
2003), 6.
26
 Thomas H. Olbricht, ‘An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis 16–18.
of 1 Thessalonians’, in Greeks, Romans, and Christians:
Essays in honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, eds. D. L. Balch, 29
Cf. David A. deSilva, 4 Maccabees (SCS; Leiden: Brill,
E. Ferguson, and W. A. Meeks (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress 2005), xxvi–xxix.
Press, 1990), 221. 30
 Edwin A. Judge, ‘Paul’s Boasting in Relation to
27
 Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Dallas, TX: Contemporary Professional Practice’, Australian Biblical
Word, 1990), 112–113. Review 16 (1968): 40.
28
Jeffrey Weima, ‘What Does Aristotle Have to Do 31
 Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts: The
with Paul?: An Evaluation of Rhetorical Criticism’, Calvin Argument of Romans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004),
Theological Journal 32 (1997): 465. 93.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA on April 15, 2015

 the expository times 379

Tobin also detects a number of stock phrases certain rhetorical conventions at key junctures as
in Romans that have parallels with Epictetus’ rhetoric was part of any discourse that included
Discourses: ‘what then?’ (Rom 3:9; 6:15; 11:7); persuasion to some extent.34 Even so, primacy
‘what then shall we say?’ (Rom 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; should be given to the epistolographic nature of
8:31; 9:14, 30); ‘certainly not!’ (Rom 3:4, 6, 31; Paul’s writings with rhetorical categories being
6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; 9:14, 30); and ‘O man!’ (Rom employed only secondarily to supplement their
2:1, 3; 9:20). I think it worth identifying other potential effect as a form of persuasive discourse.
clear rhetorical elements in Paul’s letters such as Paul did not write Galatians with Aristotle’s
paralipsis which is a device where speakers or writers Rhetorica by his side, nor is it likely that he
address a subject that they claim on the surface dictated Romans with a view to imitating Quintilian
does not need to be addressed whereas in reality it or Cicero. Rhetorical parallels are evident; they
does need to be addressed (e.g. 1 Thess 4:9; 5.1).32 impinge upon the structure of his letters and the
There is also synkrisis or comparison between two texture of the argumentation, but they do not
figures or patterns (e.g. Rom 5:12–21). Another control or determine the content and coherence
rhetorical device is synecdoche where a whole of his letters. David Aune says of Galatians (but it
narrative stream or set of ideas is invoked by a single is also true of all of Paul’s letters) that it contains
word or phrase (e.g. ‘when faith came’ Gal 3:23). ‘an eclectic combination of various rhetorical
In Romans 6:1–3, Paul arguably uses a technique techniques and styles of diverse origin which are
called praesumptio which is the anticipation of an nevertheless welded together in a new and distinctive
opponent’s argument. literary creation’.35 A conscious or unconscious
amalgam and adaptation of epistolary structures,
Conclusion Jewish exegetical techniques, traditional Christian
In sum, Paul’s letters exhibit a functional rhetoric, material, biographical self-references, Greco-Roman
although evidently not a formal rhetoric.33 Since rhetorical forms, sermonic exhortation, apocalyptic
Paul’s letters are argumentative, apologetic, and and wisdom motifs, evangelistic zeal, and pastoral
parenetic we should not be surprised if they mirror concern make Paul’s letters what they are. As such,
it is necessary to integrate a study of rhetoric, in its
various forms, into a comprehensive and holistic
32
Weima, ‘What Does Aristotle Have to Do with Paul?’, analysis of Paul’s letters.
463.
33
 See similarly Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians:
Paul’s Letter in First Century Context (Minneapolis, MN: Cf. Fairweather, ‘Classical Rhetoric: Part 3’, 240–243.
34

Fortress Press, 2002), 326, 330; Reed, ‘Ancient Rhetorical David E. Aune, ‘Review of H. D. Betz Galatians’,
35

Categories’, 300, 307, 322. Recherches de science religieuse 7 (1981): 323.

Coming Next Month

Todd Still offers ‘An Overview of Recent Scholarly Literature on Philippians’ in
our ongoing New Testament series; Alec Gilmore considers ‘Minor Prophets with
a Major Message’; and John C. Poirier responds to David Parker in an article
entitled ‘Living Text or Exquisite Corpse?’.

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA on April 15, 2015