rhetorical criticism of hebrews

[CR:BS 5 (1997) 175-207]

RHETORICAL CRITICISM OF HEBREWSAND THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES SINCE 1978

Duane F. WatsonDepartment of Religion and Philosophy,

Malone College, Canton, Ohio 44709

Throughout this century in Europe there has been sporadic interest inthe rhetorical criticism of Hebrews. The work of Keijo Nissil (1979)turned sporadic interest in the rhetoric of Hebrews into sustainedexamination. The rhetorical criticism of the Catholic Epistles is onlyvery recent. Wilhelm Wuellners investigation of the rhetoric of James(1978) began the modern rhetorical study of the Catholic Epistles andgives us the starting date for our discussion. Even so, Wuellner wasahead of his time and other rhetorical analyses of the Catholic Epistlesdid not appear for another decade (e.g. Watson 1988).

Current rhetorical analysis is discovering much about the invention,arrangement, and style of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles. This dis-covery is not limited to description of the rhetoric as was the case inthe infancy of the endeavor, but has turned to determining its functionas well. As rhetorical criticism of these letters matures, our under-standing of their rhetorical and historical contexts, as well as theirsocial, cultural, and ideological fabric is branching out in new direc-tions. With a better understanding of the rhetorical strategies of theseletters and new readings of them comes a greater appreciation of thelight they shed on the struggles of the early church and their value forthe contemporary church.

This article has four main objectives. The first is to identify and assesscurrent issues in the rhetorical criticism of Hebrews and the CatholicEpistles. The second is to summarize important articles and books thatanalyze these letters rhetorically and to assess their contribution to

176 Currents in Research 5 (1997)

persistent questions of interpretation. The third is to provide a sum-mary conclusion of the advances in rhetorical criticism of the NewTestament that are reflected in, and advanced by, these studies. Thefourth is to provide a bibliography of these important studies in hopesof spurring further research that they abundantly suggest (for furtherbibliography, see Watson and Hauser 1994: 202-205). The article isintended as a complementary article to my previous study in thisjournal, Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles Since 1975(Watson 1995).

Current Issues in Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrewsand the Catholic Epistles

The rhetorical criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles is in-volved in several current issues of a broader scope. These issues includethe selection of rhetorical methodology appropriate to New Testamentinterpretation; the relationship of rhetorical and epistolary theory inancient letters; the rhetorical training of the biblical authors; the properassignment of New Testament letters within ancient rhetorical tradi-tions; and the determination of what rhetorical analysis can contributeto the study of the social, cultural, and ideological world from whichthe New Testament arose.

The Selection of Rhetorical MethodologyCurrent practitioners of rhetorical criticism of these letters are usinga variety of methodologies based on Greco-Roman rhetoric, modernrhetoric, a combination of these two, and various combinations of rhet-oric with a host of other methodologies. Among others, these method-ologies include social scientific studies, semiotics, text-linguistics, dis-course analysis, speech-act theory, and literary criticism. The use ofGreco-Roman rhetoric has the advantage of placing these letters in theiroral and written culture, while the use of modern rhetoric helps con-temporary audiences reread these letters in new and more immediateways.

To date, rhetorical criticism of the Catholic Epistles has primarilyused the methodology of George Kennedy (1984). His method reliesupon Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions systematized in rhetoricalhandbooks, illustrated in speeches and letters of the period, and basicto the education of youth. Kennedys methodology has five steps.

WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 177

(1) Determine the boundaries of the rhetorical unit by noting signsof structure and delineation. (2) Define the rhetorical situation whichprompted the author to write and which he or she wanted to motivatethe audience to modify. (3) Determine the rhetorical problem or stasisof the issue at hand and the species of rhetoric in which the work can beclassified, whether judicial (accusation and defense), deliberative (per-suasion and dissuasion), or epideictic (praise and blame). (4) Analyzeall the intricacies of invention, arrangement, and style. Invention isargumentation by ethos, pathos, and logos. Arrangement is the order-ing of the main parts of the speech: the exordium (introduction);narratio (statement of facts); the partitio (enumeration of the proposi-tions to be discussed); the probatio (main body, sometimes called argu-mentatio or confirmatio) which proves the rhetors case (confirmatio)and disproves the case of any opposition (refutatio, sometimes calledconfutatio); and the peroratio (conclusion). Style is molding languageto serve the needs of invention. (5) Evaluate the rhetorical effective-ness of the work in modifying the rhetorical situation through inven-tion, arrangement, and style.

Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions had been partially incorpo-rated by Jewish rhetorical practice before the advent of the Christianera. In Hellenistic culture rhetoric was central to secondary educationand public oratory. Even if a New Testament writer had not beenformally educated, rhetorical practice was everywhere and its formswould have been familiar. Much of Jewish and Greco-Roman rhet-orical practice was shaped by the needs of an oral culture. Most peo-ple were illiterate and could only hear the message. The rhetoricalforms developed to facilitate that hearing were well recognized (e.g.repetition and parallelism).

Kennedys method was a fine beginning for the revival of the art ofrhetorical criticism of the New Testament that was lost at the turn ofthe century. It is ideal for historical investigation of the text. How-ever, it is well understood that the field of New Testament needs tomove beyond it in order fully to utilize all that rhetorical criticism hasto offer interpretation. Kennedys methodology can and should be en-hanced by comparison of the rhetoric of the New Testament with morethan the systematized conventions enumerated in rhetorical handbooks.Comparison should be made with actual speeches and written works ofa highly rhetorical nature. These works illustrate the peculiarities of


rhetoric necessitated by the contingencies of public rhetorical practiceand the rhetorical situations addressed. This alerts the interpreter to fea-tures peculiar to the New Testament and allows literature that sharesthose peculiar rhetorical features to illuminate interpretation.

Many interpreters legitimately find rhetorical criticism of Hebrewsand the Catholic Epistles using Greco-Roman rhetoric too limited (forcritique, see Watson and Hauser 1994: 109-12; Watson 1995: 220-22).They turn to the many forms of modern rhetoric that address thetheoretical, practical, and philosophical problems posed by speech thatGreco-Roman rhetorical theory does not address. Modern rhetoric isnot only the reconceptualization of Greco-Roman rhetoric, such as theNew Rhetoric (e.g. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969), but moveswell beyond it. The use of a variety of modern rhetorics to analyzethe New Testament has proven very insightful for rereading it in waysrelevant for contemporary audiences. As previously mentioned, mod-ern rhetoric is often used in combination with other related method-ologies to create new interdisciplinary studies, and this is also true ofrhetorical studies of the Catholic Epistles (e.g. Neufeld 1994; Thurn1990, 1995a; Wendland 1994). One recent development is socio-rhetorical criticism as defined primarily by Robbins (1996a, 1996b).It is a highly interdisciplinary textual analysis performed on the innertexture, intertexture, social and cultural texture, and ideological textureof the text. In the Catholic Epistles it makes it debut with Wachobsstudy on James (1993) discussed below.

The Relationship between Epistolary and Rhetorical TheoryIn Pauline studies there is considerable debate concerning the extentthat rhetorical theory influenced the epistolary genre in antiquity andthe extent that Paul utilized rhetorical invention, arrangement, and stylein his letters (Watson and Hauser 1994: 120-24; Watson 1995: 222-24). However, there is virtually no debate about rhetoric playing a rolein Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles. It seems to be an assumed prem-ise of the majority of studies. The use of rhetoric in these letters is notperceived as marginalized to style and isolated argumentative strate-gies. Rather, these letters are viewed as speeches in written form of ahighly rhetorical nature meant to be heard by the audiences addressed.

The role of rhetoric in New Testament letters is becoming moreaccepted as a working premise as New Testament studies move awayfrom Adolf Deissmanns false distinction (1927: 233-51). He catego-


rized ancient letters as either literary epistles (rhetorical) or non-liter-ary, documentary letters (non-rhetorical), with New Testament lettersfalling in the latter category. However, the literary letters may be amore appropriate point of comparison for New Testament letters. Bythe first century BCE rhetorical education had incorporated instructionon letters and had exerted a strong influence on epistolary compositionamong the educated (Aune 1987: 160). This influence is easily seen inHebrews and the Catholic Epistles.

The Rhetorical Training of the AuthorsThe rhetorical sophistication of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles hasled to agreement that the authors of these works have done more thanimitate written and spoken communication experienced in public lifewhere rhetorical practice abounded. Rather, these letters are a studiedapplication of rhetorical conventions. Several of these authors may havereceived rhetorical training and consciously used Greco-Roman rhet-oric. Evans (1988: 3) suggests that the author of Hebrews while think-ing predominantly in Jewish and Jewish-Christian categories, was morethan any other New Testament writer influenced as to expression, andpossibly as to form, by the rhetoric of the Greco-Roman world. Morestrongly, Aune (1987: 212) can state of Hebrews, The author obvi-ously enjoyed the benefits of a Hellenistic rhetorical education throughthe tertiary level. Garuti (1995b) and Mack (1990: 77-78) show theinfluence of the progymnasmata or elementary exercises of the educa-tional system in Hebrews. Watson (1993b, 1993c) demonstrates thatthe author of James used the Greco-Roman pattern of elaboration forthemes and complete arguments as taught in secondary school withinthe progymnasmata. Thurn (1995b: 275) claims that James is a con-scious orator. Neyrey (1993: 41, 131) proposes that the authors of Judeand 2 Peter had scribal training. Charles (1991: 118-20) argues thatJudes literary and rhetorical skill may have come from formal edu-cation. He calls Jude the product of a literary-rhetorical artist at work(p. 124). Watson (1993a) shows that the author of 1 John used virtuallyall the amplification techniques central to the exercises of progym-nasmata in secondary school.

The Placement within Ancient Rhetorical TraditionsAnother issue is the proper classification of Hebrews and the CatholicEpistles within ancient rhetorical traditions. Should they be placed


within Jewish or Greco-Roman rhetorical traditions? Does this ques-tion contain a false distinction since Greco-Roman rhetoric had influ-enced Jewish rhetoric by the New Testament era more extensively thanwas previously imagined? How is early Christian rhetoric distinctivewhen compared with Jewish and Greco-Roman modes of argumen-tation that were adapted by early Christian writers? For example, inlight of the heavy reliance upon Jewish traditions the rhetoric ofHebrews and Jude is difficult to categorize. Jewish midrash is oftenthe classification, but this is too simplistic and anachronistic. Some earlyChristian rhetoric is clearly distinctive. Second Peter is a rare pseude-pigraph in letter form which consciously uses Greco-Roman rhetoricto create an obvious pseudepigraph for teaching purposes. These ques-tions cannot be adequately answered until further research rectifiesthe lack of broad-based and in depth studies of Jewish rhetoric in theHellenistic period.

Insight into the Cultural, Social, and Ideological World of the TextThere is much that rhetoric can help uncover about the cultural, social,and ideological background of the New Testament texts. The many waysin which an author uses rhetoric to shape a communitys self-per-ception inform us about the values and perceptions of that community.The values underlying the stated and unstated premises of argumenta-tion are assumed by an author to be shared with the community. Com-munity values and perceptions undergird praise and denunciation,honor and shame language in a text. These in turn establish boundariesfor community behavior. For example, the use of standard topics ofencomium in comparing Christ with ancient worthies of salvation his-tory in Hebrews indicates an audience steeped in the honorshame,patronbenefactor society of the Mediterranean (deSilva 1995). Therhetorical strategy of a text helps discover the perception of the authorand audience in relation to their culture, whether as members of thedominant culture, a subculture, a counterculture, and so on. The ide-ology of a text is uncovered through the motivations and assumptionsunderlying its argumentation. Focusing on the function of rhetoricopens New Testament texts to their Mediterranean culture in new ways(e.g. Elliott 1993). Perhaps this will be one of rhetorical criticismsmost lasting contributions to interpretation.


Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic EpistlesHebrewsGreco-Roman and Jewish rhetorical features are prevalent in Hebrews.For example, the comparative argument from the lesser to the greater(argumentum e minore ad maius or qal wahomer) is common in He-brews. Although he does not offer a rhetorical analysis, Vanhoye (1963,1989) uses rhetorical features such as catchwords, inclusion, and repe-tition to delineate the structural units of Hebrews. These features areneeded to help an audience in a predominantly oral culture hear andunderstand the text as it is read aloud.

There are many studies of particular rhetorical features in Hebrews,especially antithesis (e.g. Attridge 1986) and chiasm (e.g. Bligh 1966).Cosby (1988a, 1988b) provides two notable studies showing how theexample list in Heb. 11.3-40 is enhanced through a sophisticated use ofrhetorical techniques (especially anaphora) to make the examples mus-tered seem representative of a great many more. The example list pro-vides the audience with famous worthies illustrating the enduring faithencouraged in Heb. 10.19-39 and defined in Heb. 11.1-2. The list func-tions to exhort the audience to remain faithful to Christ and the promiseof future reward in spite of its persecution. Mack (1990: 73-78) ana-lyzes Heb. 11.1-12.3 as an encomium on faith to encourage imitation ofthe faithful, and he analyzes 12.4-17 as an elaboration of the themeendurance as discipline according to the elaboration pattern of theschool exercises or progymnasmata.

Lindars (1989) looks at the rhetorical effectiveness of Hebrewsrather than its rhetorical structure. He classifies Hebrews as delibera-tive rhetoric seeking to persuade a Hellenistic Jewish-Christian churchof the Diaspora to return to the apostolic faith and practice. Some inthe church had returned to the synagogue and Judaism for purifi-cation, driven by an unresolved problem of a consciousness of sin. Theauthor tries to persuade them that the sacrifice of Christ for sin and theeffects of his sacrifice are permanent, and they do not need to returnto Judaism for purification. However, Lindars rejects the attempts ofSpicq (see below) and Vanhoye to find studied rhetorical arrangementin Hebrews (pp. 382-84). The article contains the puzzling inconsistencythat the author had a training in and command of the art of rhetoricand used all the skill at his command, but it is a mistake to view [He-brews] as a product of conscious artistry (pp. 383). If the authors rhet-


orical training is being determined by the skill exhibited in Hebrews,why would the use of rhetoric not be conscious?

In spite of its obvious rhetorical features, the genre, rhetorical spe-cies, and overall rhetorical strategy of Hebrews are elusive. Severalsources provide a survey of these issues (Attridge 1989: 13-21; Aune1987: 212-14; Lane 1991: I, lxxv-lxxx). Regarding genre, Hebrewscalls itself a word of exhortation (logos ts paraklses, 13.22), a des-ignation also used of Pauls sermon in Acts 13.15. Wills (1984) arguesthat Hebrews is a sermon or homily. In both individual and larger unitsHebrews exhibits a threefold pattern of Hellenistic Jewish and earlyChristian sermonic material: (1) the presentation of scriptural quota-tions, biblical examples, and authoritative exposition of theologicalpoints; (2) a conclusion based on the examples which indicates theirsignificance to the audience; and (3) exhortation based on the conclu-sion (e.g. 3.14.16; 8.110.25). While not extensively addressing thispattern in Hebrews, Black (1988) argues that the features noted byWills are to be placed in the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition.

Placing Hebrews within the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition hashad a long history in Europe which often goes unnoted, but set theagenda for modern study. Von Soden (1899: 11) proposed that Hebrewswas judicial rhetoric and could be outlined as proemium (1.14.13), adigsis or narratio (4.146.20), apodeixis or probatio (7.110.18), andepilogue (10.1913.21). In his classic commentary on Hebrews, Spicq(1952: I, 38) proposed that Hebrews was a homily organized on thebasis of the rhetorical arrangement outlined in Aristotle (Rhetoric3.13.1414a19.1420a): the exordium containing the proposition orprosthesis (1.1-4); the digsis or narratio providing the doctrinal andpsychological introduction (chs. 16); the apodeixis or probatio con-taining arguments common to the epideictic rhetoric and concerningChrist as priest and victim (7.110.18); an expos persuasif on theChristian life based on the preceding proof (10.1912.13) (an elementof arrangement not found in Aristotle); and the peroratio or conclu-sion (12.14-29). Spicq devoted an entire chapter to the stylistic andrhetorical devices of the letter (I, 351-78).

Nissil (1979) classifies Hebrews as a speech conforming to the con-ventions of ancient deliberative rhetoric. He argues that the high priestmotif is the unifying motif of the letter. The main structural pointaround which the letter is written is 8.1 which explicitly upholds thehigh priesthood of Christ as the main point. He analyzes the rhetorical


aspects of the use of the high priest motif in nine pericopes and devisesthe following rhetorical outline: exordium (1.1-4), narratio (1.52.18),argumentatio (3.112.29), and epilogus (13.1-25). Building uponNissil, belacker (1989) combines rhetorical analysis with discourseanalysis. He also argues that Hebrews is deliberative rhetoric, for itseeks to persuade the audience to accept Jesus sacrifice as sufficient toprovide access to God. He outlines Hebrews as exordium (1.1-4); nar-ratio (1.52.18) with 2.17-18 as the propositio; argumentatio with pro-batio (proof) and refutatio (refutation) (3.112.29); peroratio (13.1-21); and postscriptum (13.22-25). The developments regarding com-parison (synkrisis) discussed below make it more difficult to argue thatHebrews conforms to the standard Greco-Roman arrangement of aspeech.

Attridge (1990) demonstrates that while Hebrews exhibits manyhortatory elements, it cannot be classified according to any of the sub-genres of hortatory literature. In particular, the classification of pare-nesis does not explain the relationship between the doctrinal expositionand the exhortation. Attridge suggests that Hebrews might be betterdefined as a homily or paraclsis. This genre may have been created inthe synagogues of diaspora Judaism using elements of epideictic anddeliberative rhetoric to address the need to actualize the sacred text inthe new social context of the Hellenistic polis.

Paraclesis, I suggest, is a newly minted rhetorical form that actualizes tra-ditional scripture for a community in a non-traditional environment. Itcertainly has affinities with the classical forms of oratory, and those whoregularly practiced it probably had some training in rhetorical art, but para-clesis is in fact a mutant on the evolutionary trail of ancient rhetoric(p. 217).

Paraclesis relies upon a pattern of introduction, citation, expositorydevelopment, and application or exhortation. Attridge argues thatHebrews is mainly an epideictic oration with some deliberative ele-ments. The citation of the Old Testament, and the subsequent compar-ative or synkritic strategy proving the superiority of Jesus and theevents of his life over all other objects of comparison, form the basisof the exhortation. The purpose of Hebrews is to keep the audiencefaithful to the Jesus tradition and values and commitments associatedwith it in spite of suffering social ostracism as a consequence.


Aune (1987: 213) states thatDespite the authors rhetorical training and his epideictic intention, Hebrewsis not structured in accordance with the typical patterns of epideictic or(the closely related) deliberative rhetoric. The entire work is hortatory,based on the central theme expressed in Hebrews 2:24: we must take ourrevelation more seriously than we have. The rhetorical strategy of theauthor is based on a comparison (synkrisis) between the old and the new[original emphasis].

Although Aune too quickly dismisses typical patterns of epideictic anddeliberative rhetoric in Hebrews (see Seid below), he correctly pointsus away from simplistic classification by rhetorical species and towardthe direction of comparison or synkrisis and associated genres.

Evans (1988) examines the recurring, dominant role in Hebrews ofsynkrisis or comparison. Synkrisis compares representatives of a typein order to determine the superiority of one representative over an-other. It is a means of praising or blaming people by comparing themon topics of family, natural endowments, upbringing and education,achievements, and death. Through comparison, Hebrews shows thatChrist is superior to angels, the levitical priesthood, and human wor-thies of salvation history. Synkrisis serves the Christology of Hebrewsas the types of Christ are demoted or depreciated by comparison toChrist himself in order to portray him as the divine hero.

Olbricht (1993) also notes the role of synkrisis in Hebrews. He clas-sifies Hebrews as epideictic rhetoric in the encomium and comparisonof its superstructure, and as deliberative rhetoric in its argumentationas a word of exhortation (13.22). He proposes that Hebrews is mod-eled on the funeral orations of classical Greece and the early churchfathers. Central to such orations was comparison of the deceased withillustrious personages of the past in order to prove the superior statusof the deceased. In Hebrews the comparison of Christ with angels, thelevitical priests and sacrifices, and worthies of salvation history servesto amplify the argument as a whole. In each case the christological com-parison is followed by exhortation to spiritual renewal and action basedon the Christology. However, it can be argued that funeral orationsare not typically as hortatory as Hebrews. They do not alternate com-parison with exhortation as a main structural feature like Hebrews,although the purpose of praising someone by comparison is implicitlyto hold them up for emulation.


While rejecting his proposal that Hebrews is modeled on the funeraloration, Seid (1996) builds upon Olbrichts observations about synkri-sis. He rejects the typical identification of Hebrews as a Jewish midrashor Jewish-Christian homily familiar within Jewish literature. Instead,he classifies Hebrews as a written speech of encomium (epideictic rhet-oric) belonging to the genre of synkrisis within Hellenistic literatureand rhetoric. The synkrisis alternates with exhortation (parenesis) basedon the synkrisis (as in Plutarchs Parallel Lives) for the purpose ofmoral exhortation. The person proven superior then becomes the modelfor imitation and the basis of exhortation for people to progress to thevirtuous life being portrayed. Such exhortation is found in encomia inthe Greek protreptic tradition.

Moving beyond current thematic, literary, and linguistic approachesto the structure of Hebrews, Seid reveals the structure of Hebrews usingthe synkrisisparenesis alternation. With this alternation the compar-ison is between Christ and models of the Old Testament, showing thesuperiority of Christ over the elements of the first covenant. The pare-nesis holds Christ up for imitation as superior. Hebrews is structured asfollows: comparison of Son and angels (1.1-14) and parenesis (2.1-18);comparison of Moses and Christ (3.1-6) and parenesis (3.74.16); com-parison of Aaron and Christ (5.1-10) and parenesis (5.116.20); com-parison of MelchizedekChrist and the levitical priesthood (7.1-25) andparenesis (7.268.3); comparison of the first covenant and new cove-nant (8.410.18) and parenesis (10.1912.29); and epistolary appendix(13.1-25). This synkrisisparenesis alternation encourages the audienceto progress in moral conduct by remaining faithful to the greater rev-elation in Jesus Christ and emulating the models of its Scripture, aswell as warns the audience of the greater judgment to befall thoseunfaithful to the greater revelation. Seid brings his study to bear onHebrews 7. In spite of the many quotations of the Old Testament, thechapter is not midrash, but synkrisis. Using typical topics of encomi-um, the chapter formally compares Christ and Melchizedekan priest-hood with the levitical priesthood, demonstrating the superiority ofthe former.

Garuti (1995b) has provided one of the most detailed discussions ofclassical rhetoric and its use within Hebrews, including the influenceof the progymnasmata or elementary exercises of the educational sys-tem. A multitude of aspects of the use of style, arrangement, and inven-tion in Hebrews are discussed, especially those found in Hebrews 7


and 12. We can only hope that an English translation of this importantwork in Italian will be made. In an article Garuti (1995a) examines theuse of the terms parabol (symbol or type) and hypodeigma (example,model) in Hebrews and the structure and philosophical background ofits argumentation. In another article, Garuti (1994) investigates therhetoric of Heb. 7.1-28 in great detail according to invention, arrange-ment, and style.

DeSilva (1995) uses Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks and Greekand Jewish speeches and ethical treatises to demonstrate how the authorused honor and shame language to promote the values and commit-ments of the audience as a minority culture against the values of thedominant culture (as did other minority cultures like Jewish communi-ties and Greco-Roman philosophical schools). He classifies the letter asdeliberative rhetoric which relies upon epideictic rhetoric. Which spe-cies of rhetoric dominates depends in part upon the hearer: for the onecontemplating apostasy, it is deliberative; and for the one who remainedcommitted, it is epideictic. Hebrews is composed in the tradition of theclassical rhetorical handbooks, but the macrostructure of Hebrews doesnot conform to the standard elements of arrangement. However, thealternating exposition and exhortation in the macrostructure are linkedby concerns about honor and its role in persuasion and dissuasion.

The addressees were in a new patronclient relationship with Godthrough Christ with its own networks of honor and shame. The authorsrhetorical appeal is to endure the negative sanctions of disgrace as-cribed by the dominant society for not conforming to its values andbehaviors which are at odds with Christian values. He appeals for theaudience to adhere to values and behavior that are honorable to God,their divine benefactor, and to their fellow believers. Honor and shameplay a large part in the proofs from pathos, as the author uses emula-tion and shame to gain audience consent, and logos, as the authormotivates endurance through the promise of greater honor to come.Hebrews resembles protreptic literature in its appeal to faithfulness toa way of life already chosen as an honorable course.

In summary, Hebrews is no longer being discussed primarily as asynagogue homily or midrash within the Jewish rhetorical tradition.Current study recognizes the rhetorical training and skill of the authorand places the letter in the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition. The genreof the letter is typically determined to be deliberative, but the morethat the role of synkrisis is recognized, the more the letter is classified


as epideictic rhetoric with deliberative intent. Herein lies the rhetor-ical strategy: praise by comparison (epideictic) is intended by itself andthe addition of parenesis to persuade the audience to a course of action(deliberative). The course of action upheld includes elements of find-ing the sacrifice of Christ and the new covenant satisfactory, emulatingChrists example, and the need to adhere to values of the minority cul-ture established by that covenantall similarities with Greek pro-treptic literature. Invention, arrangement, and style are used in serviceof this overall comparative scheme. Making Hebrews conform to thetypical elements of arrangement now seems forced.

JamesCommentators frequently remark that James is unstructured, evenchaotic, and often suppose that this is due to its considerable pareneticcontent. Parenesis is typically understood as a litany of exhortationarranged in no particular order like pearls on a string. However, in arhetorically sophisticated text parenesis often plays an important rolein effectively structuring the text. Consensus is emerging that in spiteof its parenesis (or should we say in light of it) James contains a the-matic and rhetorical unity which can be placed within the Greco-Romanrhetorical tradition, even though there is disagreement about how todescribe this unity.

Wuellner (1978) analyzes James using the new rhetoric and semioticand communications theory. He argues that James is pragmatic and itsgoal is not teaching, but recruiting. He outlines James as epistolaryprescript (1.1), exordium (1.2-4), narratio (1.5-11), propositio (1.12),argumentatio in five units (1.135.6), and peroratio (5.7-20) consistingof recapitulatio (vv. 7-8) and peroratio proper (vv. 9-20). Modifyingthe work of Wuellner, Baasland (1988: 3649-61) classifies James asdeliberative rhetoric, a protreptic, wisdom speech in letter form. Hegives the outline of exordium (1.2-18) with transitus in 1.16-18, propo-sitio (1.19-27), confirmatio (2.1-3.12), confutatio (3.135.6), and per-oratio (5.7-20). The figures of style used in James are numerous andserve to clarify and amplify the argumentation. This last point is alsoemphasized by Gieger (1981) who offers an extensive study of thestylistic figures of James involving resemblance, change, amplification,and condensation.

Also building upon the work of Wuellner, Elliott (1993) discoversthe thematic cohesion of James using both rhetorical and social scientific


studies. James begins with an multifaceted introduction (1.1-12). Theintroduction contains an epistolary address and salutation (1.1-2), astatement of the main themethe wholeness of both the individual andthe community, and the relationship of both to God (and by impli-cation the opposite of division and fragmentation) (1.3-4), and relatedcontrasts (1.5-12). The main body of James (1.135.12) consists ofexhortation in seven subsections contrasting negative indictments ofdivision with positive recommendations for integrity and wholeness.James concludes with the themes of the introduction (5.13-20). Theletter encourages the recipients to reestablish the distinctive Christianethos of a holy community over against the unholy society at large.This can be accomplished by choosing heavenly versus earthly wisdom(3.13-18) and observing distinctions of purity versus pollution (1.26-27). This choice ultimately leads to wholeness and holiness rather thandivision and the devilish on the correlated personal, social, and cosmiclevels.

Van der Westhuizen (1991) uses Kennedys method of rhetorical crit-icism (1984) to analyze Jas 2.14-26. He classifies this pericope as delib-erative rhetoric because it exhorts the hearers to action (faith withworks) and its argumentation is predominantly from example. He iden-tifies the stasis as fact since it seeks to answer the question: What kindof faith is real? (However, this question as defined concerns the natureof something. This is usually identified as the stasis of quality.) Then inmeticulous detail, van der Westhuizen exposes the intricacies of inven-tion, arrangement, and style in this pericope. Of particular note he sug-gests that the pericope is a form of comparison (synkrisis), herecomparing faith without works with faith demonstrated by works. Thepericope is arranged as proem (v. 14), proposition (vv. 14, 17), pos-sible narratio (vv. 15-16), proof (vv. 18-25), and epilogue (v. 26). Heemphasizes the function of style as clarifying and amplifying the argu-mentation and addressing the rhetorical situation.

Working independently of van der Westhuizen, Watson (1993b,1993c) does not view a rigid application of Kennedys method as ade-quate for fully understanding the material of Jas 2.13.12. He demon-strates that the central portion of James (2.13.12) is deliberative rhet-oric aimed at advising the audience to take certain courses of actionand dissuade it from others. It contains three sections which use theGreco-Roman pattern of elaboration for themes and the complete argu-ment as outlined in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Rhetorica ad


Herennium, and works of Hermogenes. In these three sections therhetor advises his audience that partiality is inconsistent with faith (2.1-13), faith without works does not profit (2.14-26), and not many shouldbecome teachers (3.1-12). The pattern used to elaborate each of thesepropositions into complete arguments is: propositio (proposition), ratio(reason for the propositio), confirmatio (proof of the ratio by compar-ison, example, and amplification), exornatio (embellishment of the con-firmatio), and conplexio (conclusion drawing the argument together).The parenetic materials and diatribal features of James are incorpo-rated into this pattern of argumentation as key elements in the amplifi-cation of the argument.

Wachob (1993) investigates the rhetorical scheme in Jas 2.1-13 andits appropriation of a saying of Jesus in 2.5 to address the social issueof the conflict between the rich and poor. He uses socio-rhetorical crit-icism as defined by Vernon Robbins (1996a, 1996b). He classifies Jamesas deliberative rhetoric and a rhetoric that is subcultural within Jewishculture and countercultural to Greco-Roman culture. In his study ofinner texture he discovers the use of the elaboration of a theme orargument of the progymnasmata in Jas 2.1-13. He agrees with Watson(1993b) on this point, although his analysis differs somewhat in thedelineation of this pattern. His study of intertexture shows that 2.5 is aperformance of the Jesus chreia in Mt. 5.3 (Q). The social and cul-tural texture of 2.1-13 indicates that 2.5 establishes that Gods king-dom belongs to the poor and determines the identity and behavior ofthe recipients. The ideological texture of 2.5 brings the beliefs andvalues of the recipients to bear to persuade them that partiality is incom-patible with the Christian faith. It establishes a particular communityself-understanding (the pious poor of Jewish piety) and boundaries ofacceptable behavior (giving to those in need).

Thurn (1995b) challenges Dibeliuss assessment (1976: 1-11) that asparenesis James cannot be expected to have developed themes or ad-dress an actual situation. He claims that James is epideictic rhetoric,reinforcing values the audience already holds. The stasis is quality, forthe question is the credibility of the issues at hand (e.g. joy in trial).Approaching James on the functional or pragmatic level, he analyzesthe rhetoric of the entire letter according to Greco-Roman categories.The exordium (1.1-18) introduces the two central themes of persever-ance in trials in the practical areas of wisdom/speech and money/action.The propositio (1.19-27) is to accept the word and live by it. The


argumentatio (2.15.6) develops the two themes of the exordium inthree parts: 2.1-26 on money/action, 3.14.12 on wisdom/speech, and4.135.6 supplying a climax dealing with both themes focused on therich man. The peroratio (5.7-20) consists of recapitulatio or reitera-tion of themes (perseverance, speech) and conquestio or final exhor-tation (5.12-20). Thurn explains the obscurity of the structure andmessage on the surface level of the letter as the use of insinuatio orsubtlety in rhetorical approach to avoid being too obvious to a rhetor-ically sophisticated audience. However, it is more likely that Jamessimply does not conform to Greco-Roman standards in its overallarrangement. Also, the presentation neglects the use of the Greco-Roman pattern of elaboration for themes and the complete argumentin 2.13.12. James is more complex structurally than Thurn suggests.

1 PeterRhetorical analysis has recently focused upon the function of meta-phors in 1 Peter, the various ways it can be read by the audience, and,most recently, determining its underlying ideology. The rhetoricalstrategy that the rhetor uses to address churches in Asia Minor under-going local persecution has been shown to be very sophisticated.

Ellul (1990) examines the alternation of the verbs between the indica-tive and the imperative (proclamation and exhortation), the repe-titions, the parallelisms, and the citations of the Old Testament in 1Peter to determine its structure and meaning. The letter is structured asproclamation (1.3-12), exhortation (1.132.3), proclamation (2.4-10),exhortation (2.11-21a), proclamation (2.21b-25), exhortation (3.1-17),proclamation (3.18-22), exhortation (4.1-11) and exhortation (4.125.11). This pattern reveals that 2.21b-25 provides the main focusChrist as a model of non-violence. However, this conclusion needs tobe weighed against the practice of Greco-Roman rhetoric in placing themain point either at the beginning or ending of the body of a work,not in the middle.

Thurn (1990) classifies 1 Peter as epideictic rhetoric because it isdesigned to reinforce the religious and ethical values that the audiencealready holds rather than convince it to adopt new ones. He uses bothancient and modern rhetoric to determine the function of the ambigu-ous expressions in 1 Peter, for example, whether the participles areindicative (encouraging) or imperative (exhorting). He believes thatthese ambiguous expressions are the key to the authors rhetorical


strategy. By using ambiguity the author is able to address simul-taneously two distinct groups in the audience and their individual re-sponses to suffering: those passively assimilating to the world in orderto avoid suffering and those actively avenging their injustice and incur-ring yet more suffering. To the passive group the author critiques unac-ceptable elements of pagan culture to persuade it away from undueassimilation, and teaches it that suffering is part of the Christian life.To the active group he upholds acceptable elements of pagan cultureto persuade it to increase assimilation in order to maintain contact andcontinue missionary work. Ambiguous expressions enable each groupto hear the message differently according to its predisposition. Thurnoutlines the letter as exordium (1.1-12); argumentatio aimed mainly atthe passive group (1.132.10), the active group (2.113.12), and bothgroups in the audience (3.134.11, 4.125.7); and peroratio (5.8-14).

Some crucial questions arise in the course of Thurns study. Ancientdiscussions of ambiguity focus on its various uses in a single word orgroup of words (e.g. jest and word-play) scattered throughout a dis-course. What is the viability of understanding an entire ancient text asusing a sophisticated rhetorical strategy based on ambiguity derivedfrom modern rhetoric? Has Thurn uncovered an ancient authorsdeliberate rhetorical strategy or an ingenious way for modern readersto read the text on another level? Would an ancient audience have reador heard the text in the sophisticated fashion described or simply havenoticed a few instances of ambiguity as part of wit and style?

Thompson (1994) classifies 1 Peter as a sermon and analyzes it ac-cording to Greco-Roman rhetoric and the methodology of Kennedy(1984). As indicated by its conclusion (5.12), the letter is meant toexhort (parakale) and testify (epimartyre). It is hortatory literaturewith the deliberative purpose of encouraging the audience to a certaincourse of actionmaintaining hope and good works in spite of suffer-ing (2.13-15, 20; 3.17). The stasis of the argument is one of quality,for it concerns the nature of the communitys endurance of sufferingand the behavior appropriate to an exile community. Although the typ-ical elements of rhetorical arrangement are not present, 1.3-9 operateslike an exordium, 1.10-12 like a narratio, 1.135.5 like a probatio, and5.6-11 like a peroratio. The subsections of the probatio are each con-structed as exhortation to prescribed conduct subsequently groundedby argumentation appealing to the authority of the author, communitytradition, and Scripture. The middle style characterizes the letter.


Apparently Thompson was unaware of Thurns work (1990) andhas some overlapping observations. However, Thurn is correct thatthe exhortation has an epideictic purpose of confirming values, not adeliberative purpose of persuading to a course of action which in thiscase the audience is already pursuing. Parakale in 5.12 is an epis-tolary petition, not a firm indication that the rhetorical species of theentire letter is deliberative. Thompsons identification of the stasis of theargument as quality and defining appropriate behavior is also charac-teristic of epideictic rhetoric, not deliberative rhetoric.

In trying to determine the literary composition of 1 Peter, Martin(1992) discovers three distinct clusters of metaphors common to ancientliterature. These metaphors are drawn from the overarching meta-phor of the Diaspora which provides the thematic motif of 1 Peter anddescribes the status of the audience. These three metaphor clusters de-lineate the three main sections of the middle epistolary body of 1 Peter:the elect household of God (1.142.10), aliens in this world (2.113.12), and sufferers in the diaspora (3.135.11). Two images drawnfrom the metaphor of the diasporaa journey to be undertaken and adangerous place pressuring the faithful to assimilateset the rhetor-ical situation and the authors dual purposes in writing: to demonstrateconduct appropriate for the Christian eschatological journey, and todissuade the audience from defecting from the faith and to remainsteadfast.

In contrast to Martin, Achtemeier (1989) proposes that the con-trolling metaphor of 1 Peter is the Christian community as the newpeople of God constituted by the Christ who suffered (and rose)(p. 224). The first half of the metaphor contrasts the audiences pastin Greco-Roman social and religious life with its present life as thenew people of God separate from Gentiles and their customs. The sec-ond half provides a model in the suffering of Christ for presentbehavior, as well as contrasts the audiences present suffering with thegreater future glory Christ now enjoys. The argumentation and exhor-tation assure the audience that as long as it remains faithful, just as thepresent transformed the past, so the future will transform the presentand its suffering.

More recently, Thurn (1995a) provides a second provocative anal-ysis of 1 Peter. First he gathers the motivating expressions of the com-mands and parenesis of 1 Peter using a semantic method. Then he uses amodified form of S.E. Toulmins theory of argumentation (1958) and


a rhetorical perspective to analyze the argumentation. The results of theanalysis of the argumentation are systematized to yield the ideologicallevel behind the text which serves the parenesis. In order to elicit rightattitudes and behavior, this ideological level offers the audience a dualline of motivation, one that is both positive (e.g. thankfulness andpraise) and negative (e.g. deprivation of final salvation). With increas-ing emphasis upon the ideology of New Testament texts, Thurnoffers one method of determining that ideology.

2 PeterWatson (1988) observes that 2 Peter is the product of a studied use ofthe conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. The letter seeks to counteran eschatological crisis caused by the delay of the parousia of Christand the infiltration of the audience by false teachers (2.1) whose solu-tion to the crisis was denial of the apostolic preaching of the parousiaaltogether (1.16-21; 3.1-4, 8-13) and the judgment expected to accom-pany it (2.3b-10; 3.1-7), with immoral behavior being one consequence(2.10b-22). The letter is mainly deliberative rhetoric intended to advisethe members of the audience to adhere to the promises of Christ andthe apostolic tradition, and dissuade them from accepting the teachingand behavior of the false teachers. However, like most ancient letters,the letter is a mixture of several rhetorical species. Judicial rhetoric isused to refute the false teachers and to affirm the parousia and judg-ment as eschatological realities (1.162.10a; 3.1-13). Epideictic rhet-oric is used to shame the false teachers and lessen their ethos (2.10b-22). The stasis of the argument is one of quality: determining the truthof the apostolic doctrines of the parousia and its judgment.

The arrangement of the letter is epistolary prescript (1.1-2); ex-ordium (1.3-15) upholding apostolic doctrine for remembrance andtopics for further development; probatio (1.163.13) refuting the doc-trinal challenges of the false teachers and confirming apostolic doctrine,using a variety of proofs including eyewitness testimony, documents,example, and enthymemes; and peroratio (3.14-18) summing up keypoints and eliciting emotion. The style is grand, being vigorous andhighly repetitive, and amplifying the entire argumentative scheme.

The letter is a creative mixture of genres. It is at once a pseudony-mous letter and farewell address. In the post-apostolic era the authorassumes the guise of the Apostle Peter, grouping himself with the apos-tles (1.16-19; 3.2-4), especially Paul (3.15-16). The farewell address


shares the purposes of deliberative rhetoric in persuading the audienceto adhere to the tradition and ethics of the community. The authormolds the testament so that the arguments and behavior of the falseteachers can be refuted specifically as if they had been prophesied,which he can then refute using the futuristic use of the present. The let-ter gives us a glimpse into early Christian apologetics and rhetoricalapproach to false teaching in the post-apostolic era, probably in Rome.

Neyrey (1993) accepts Watsons rhetorical outline and combinesmany elements of the rhetorical analysis with insights from culturalanthropology, social science, and ancient rhetoric. Second Peter is de-scribed as an apology and polemic justifying prophecies of the parousiaand Gods judgment against Epicurean (or similar) theodicy whichdenied divine judgment, survival after death, and postmortem retri-bution. The author applies an antitheodicy stance commonly used bycontemporary Jews and Greeks to respond to similar theodicy.

After discussing the role of stylistics in New Testament interpre-tation, Thurn (1996) examines the role of style in 2 Peter. He agreeswith Watson (1988) that 2 Peter is in the grand style, and even goesfurther in calling it the best representative of Asian rhetoric in theBible (p. 340 n. 65). He moves beyond the description of the style of2 Peter to the function of the forceful style in relation to the rhetor-ical situation. He notes that in borrowing from Jude the pseudonymousauthor changed the style of the material from the middle to the grand.Also, the portions of the letter that epistolary theory indicates revealthe main purpose of writing stress the ethos of Peter and the apostles(1.12-15; 3.1-2, 15b-16). The grand and noble style enhances the ethosof the author, undergirds the reliability of Peters message and theapostolic interpretation of the Old Testament, and consolidates the audi-ences adherence to this ethos. By virtue of his stylistically enhancedethos, the authors presentation of the false teachers denial of apos-tolic preaching of the parousia and the resulting immorality decreasestheir ethos. The unexpectedly forceful, explicit emphasis on ethos inthese key sentences lets us suggest that the ethos in 2 Peter is not somuch a means as an end in itself (p. 344).

JudeIn spite of its small size, Jude has been the subject of several rhetoricalanalyses. Watson (1988) observes that Jude adapts Jewish-Christiantopics and authoritative sources within the confines of contemporary


rhetorical conventions and practice. Jude addresses the problem of theinfiltration of the audience by itinerant prophets or teachers who re-jected the authority of the Law of Moses and Christ himself, with oneconsequence being sexual immorality (vv. 4, 8-10, 16). It is deliber-ative rhetoric advising the audience to contend for the apostolic faith(v. 3) and dissuading it from following the teaching and practices ofthe false teachers. The stasis or basis of the argumentation is quality,showing that the words and deeds of the false teachers are ungodly andsubject to judgment. In order to destroy the ethos of the false teachers,Jude also employs epideictic rhetoric to denounce them as akin to noto-rious sinners of history and the subject of prophetic judgments.

Jude begins with an epistolary prescript (vv. 1-2) and an exordium(v. 3) using a petition to give the main reason for writing as contend-ing for the apostolic faith. These are followed by the narratio (v. 4)providing the infiltration of false teachers in the audience as thereason for contending for the faith. The narratio provides the mainpropositions: (1) the false teachers are ungodly and subject to judg-ment, and (2) they are the ungodly whose presence and judgment inthe last days has been foretold. Then follows the probatio (vv. 5-16)which uses a variety of proofs from example (vv. 5-10) and prophecy(vv. 11-13, 14-16) to prove that the false teachers are the ungodlyprophesied to come in the last days and that they will be judged fortheir rejection of authority and sexual immorality. The peroratio (vv.17-23) reiterates the main points and instructs the audience on how torespond to the crisis. The letter closes with a doxology as an epis-tolary postscript (vv. 24-25). Style, especially the use of strong meta-phors and triads, plays an important role in proving and amplifyingthat the false teachers are ungodly. The letter gives us a glimpse intoearly Jewish-Christian polemic and rhetorical approach to opponents.

As with 2 Peter, Neyrey (1993) accepts Watsons rhetorical outlineand combines many elements of the rhetorical analysis with insightsfrom cultural anthropology, social science, and ancient rhetoric.Neyrey argues that Jude is perhaps better classified as judicial rhetoric(p. 27). However, the fact that the letter is a petition to contend forthe faith indicates a deliberative intent. Neyrey argues that Jude is aresponse to a realized eschatology which claimed that the resurrectionhad occurred and rejected the future judgment of the saints.

Wolthuis (1989) presents a dialogue between Cicero and Jude. Inthe dialogue Jude argues that the letter is not consciously rhetorical in


structure. It is intriguing that Cicero analyzes the letter according toWatsons analysis of species of rhetoric, invention, arrangement, andstylistic elements. However, Wolthuis argues that Judes persuasivetechniques can be explained as the use of Jewish midrash under theinformal experience of Greco-Roman rhetoric within Hellenistic cul-ture. I would argue that the detail of the conformity to Greco-Romanpractice, down to the distribution of topics and sophisticated use ofstyle, indicates formal study. Also, recent studies of midrash observethat the citation of a biblical verse is central to midrash as a genre.Midrash came into being in the second century CE in rabbinic Judaismin school settings and was not used in worship settings of the first cen-tury CE as homilies or as polemical tracts. To classify Judesargumentation as midrashic is anachronistic. Since rabbis usedHellenistic modes of argumentation in the New Testament era, placingJude in the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition as filtered throughJudaism seems more appropriate, even if some of these characteristicsof argumentation were later shared with midrash.

Joubert (1995) classifies Jude as epideictic rhetoric, but this classifi-cation neglects the careful argumentative strategy which is atypical ofepideictic rhetoric. He emphasizes the positivenegative presentationstrategy of the letter: the positive presentation (laudatio) of the con-gregation as faithful to apostolic tradition and possessing Gods Spiritversus the negative presentation (vituperatio) of the opponents as in-truders in the church rejected by God. This strategy gives the faithfulthe opportunity to live within the image of themselves projected bythe text and reject the opponents and their teachings.

Wendland (1994) analyzes Watsons classically oriented rhetoricalanalysis and compares it to the commentary of Richard Bauckham(1983) which Wendland (but not Bauckham) claims is in the school ofrhetorical criticism as practiced by James Muilenburg and followers,especially in its attention to repetition and stylistic devices. The com-parison shows how differences in method and emphasis lead to differ-ent understandings of the overall discourse structure and purpose ofJude. Wendlands own macrostructural analysis finds that the entireletter progresses as an extended structural and thematic chiasm or intro-version, with retrogression of previously introduced topics recur-sively recycled in order to reinforce the topics and the purpose of theletter as a whole. The woe oracle of v. 11 is the affective or conno-tative apex of the letter, and the appeal of vv. 22-23 is the thematic or


conceptual apex of the letter. He urges an interdisciplinary approachto analysis, including classical and modern rhetoric, discourse analysis,and speech-act theory.

In his recent monograph, Charles (1993: 25-42) discusses the rhet-oric of Jude in dialogue with Watsons analysis and the literary strate-gies in Jude in general. He agrees that Jude is predominantly deliber-ative with some epideictic elements, but adds that the accusations, woe,and sentencing in the letter are judicial. However, these are betterexplained as elements of vituperation characteristic of epideictic rhet-oric. His rhetorical outline is virtually the same as Watsons, but hedefines the exordium as the letter prescript (vv. 1-2) and expands thenarratio to include v. 3 (vv. 3-4). This neglects the epistolary elementsof the letter. The petition of v. 3 and its background in v. 4 form a nat-ural exordium and narratio respectively. Like Wolthuis (1989), he findsthe inventional strategy of Jude more in tune with Jewish midrash thanGreco-Roman rhetorical conventions. Charless article (1991) is inmany ways a summation of chapter 2 of his monograph, much of whichI have just described.

Webb (1996) explores the rhetorical and social functions of salva-tion and judgment in the eschatology of Jude within the overall strat-egy of the letter. The rhetorical function of the eschatological judgmentis to convince the readers to judge the intruders as ungodly, while therhetorical function of salvation is to assure the readers that their sal-vation is safe. They will not be judged as long as they do not followthe ungodly intruders. The social function of salvation and judgmentis to produce an us and them distinction between the readers and theintruders to encourage the former to separate from the latter.

The Johannine EpistlesThe Johannine Epistles address a schism within the Johannine commu-nity caused by secessionists who were espousing a corrupt Christologyand becoming morally indifferent. Vouga (1990a, 1990b) proposes that1 John is deliberative rhetoric and has the following outline: epistolaryprescript (1.1-4); exordium (captatio benevolentiae) (1.52.17) whichgives the content of the revelation announced in the prescript; narratio(2.18-27) explaining the implications of the schism within the com-munity; propositio (2.28-29) concerning abiding in Christ; probatio(3.1-24) confirming the convictions of the exordium and interpretingthe situation to show that the letter is justified; exhortatio (4.1-21)


exhorting the churches to preserve the unity of the community throughdiscerning the spirits in the knowledge of Christ; peroratio urging themaintenance of unity through faithfulness to Johannine teachings (5.1-12); epistolary conclusion (5.13); and epistolary postscript (5.14-21).However, 1 John is not deliberative rhetoric because by all indicationsthe audience is composed of those who remained faithful in the schismand do not need to be persuaded to return. Not arriving at the probatiountil close to halfway through the presentation is not expected either.In fact, in 1.5 the author begins the message he is intending to writeabout (cf. 2.1) which indicates that the probatio begins in 1.5.

Watson (1991) suggests that the author of 1 John employs epideicticrhetoric in order to bolster the compliance of the faithful to the re-ceived Christology and ethics of the Johannine community by uphold-ing these as honorable and beneficial. Quality is the stasis or basis ofthe letter, for the author inquires into the true nature of Jesus Christand the ethical walk that Christs nature requires of his followers, aswell as the nature of the aberrant Christology and ethics. He asserts thatpursuing the former is the best course of action. The exordium (1.1-4)establishes the authority of the discourse as grounded upon the testi-mony of eyewitnesses of the revelation of the word of life. The probatio(1.55.12) affirms the received teachings of the Johannine communityand refutes those of the secessionists. The composition of the probatiois typical of epideictic rhetoric. It includes propositions advanced ascertain, antitheses, enthymemes, and exhortation, with the topics beinghighly amplified. The peroratio (5.13-21) reiterates key points madeand proposes the policies that the audience should pursue in light ofthem.

Watson (1993a) demonstrates that the repetitive and emphatic natureof 1 John is explained by the authors use of Greco-Roman amplifica-tion techniques as a major component of his inventional strategy. Vir-tually every rhetorical technique for amplification in antiquity is uti-lized in 1 John. Expolitio, or dwelling on a point and yet appearing tobe saying something new, is the dominant technique. This may be thecase because expolitio is versatile and was central to the exercises ofprogymnasmata in rhetorical school. Amplification functions in epide-ictic rhetoric to strengthen adherence to traditional and honorabletruths and weaken adherence to aberrant dishonorable substitutes. In 1John the amplification clarifies Johannine tradition through repetitionand emphasis of themes and topics, drawing subtle distinctions between


Johannine tradition and its aberrant forms as taught by the seces-sionists. It helps the audience clarify where their allegiance should bemaintained.

Klauck (1990) qualifies the work of Vouga and Watson on the Johan-nine Epistles, arguing for the structural priority of the epistolary form.He does not question the use of style in these letters or the value ofstylistic analysis for exegesis. He does, however, question the assump-tion that Greco-Roman rhetorical invention and arrangement are foundin the detail proposed for these letters. He classifies 1 John as deliber-ative rhetoric rather than epideictic and outlines the letter as prescript(1.1-4), captatio benevolentiae (1.52.17), narratio (2.18-27), propo-sitio (2.28-29), probatio (3.1-24), exhortatio (4.1-21), and peroratio(5.1-12). He does not include 5.13-21 within his scheme. York (1993:60-76) provides an extensive comparison of the work of Watson andKlauck on the rhetoric of 1 John.

Neufeld (1994) rightly claims that the interpretation of a text isrestricted by the assumption that its language must be anchored in itshistorical context in order for its meaning and significance to berecovered. He moves beyond the interpretation of the Christology andethics of 1 John solely within the context of the construction of thehistorical and theological development of Johannine community andcontroversies within it. He applies a modified version of speech-acttheory to two groups of passages in 1 Johnchristological confessionsand ethical exhortations. Speech-act theory is interested in the powerof language to make commitments, shape the self, and create new pat-terns of speech and conduct (p. 5). The text not only reflects reality,it creates reality. Neufeld argues that the author of 1 John incorpo-rates a number of speech-acts in boasts, denials, and confessions tocreate a literary world of an apocalyptic kind. This world delimits theboundaries of proper and improper confession and ethical behaviorand the apocalyptic consequences of each, often relying heavily uponantithesis for clarification. When entering this world the readers areencouraged to transform their understanding of God, Jesus, the world,their speech, and their conduct. They are challenged to create a properconfession and ethical behavior rather than become alienated fromGod.

The Presbyter wrote 2 John to address further the problem of seces-sionists sending missionaries to outlying churches in the JohannineCommunity (vv. 7, 10; cf. 3 John). Watson (1989a) analyzes 2 John


with careful attention to the interrelationship of ancient epistolaryconventions and rhetorical theory. He proposes that 2 John is a letterof exhortation and advice, of the subtype of parenetic letter (as definedby Pseudo-Libanius and Pseudo-Demetrius). The Presbyter uses delib-erative rhetoric to advise the audience that the most beneficial and expe-dient course of action is to love one another (v. 5), maintain the teach-ings of the community so as not to lose eternal life and fellowshipwith the Father and the Son (vv. 8-9), and not to even give the visitingteachers a hearing. Any other course of action would result in sharingin the wicked deeds of the secessionists (v. 11) and becoming an anti-christ (v. 7). The stasis of the argument is quality, for it concernswhether or not the Christology of the secessionists is appropriate forthe Christian life.

The letter is arranged rhetorically as epistolary prescript (vv. 1-3);exordium (v. 4) giving the main topic as walking in the truth; narratio(v. 5) petitioning the audience to adhere to the love commandmentwhich embodies the proper understanding of Christology and ethics;probatio (vv. 6-11) using exhortation and amplification to persuadethe audience to adhere to the love commandment and not to extend thesecessionists hospitality or give them a hearing; peroratio (v. 12) ampli-fying the importance of the message; and epistolary postscript (v. 13).The exordium and narratio conform to the letter body opening andshare its function of introducing the main reason for writing, theprobatio conforms to the body middle and its function of developingtopics related to the reason for writing, and the peroratio conforms tothe body closing of the letter which summarizes topics previouslypresented.

The Presbyter wrote 3 John because a leader of an outlying Johan-nine community church, Diotrephes, refused to receive missionariesfrom the Johannine community and ordered the members of his churchto do the same (vv. 9-10). The Presbyter urges a Christian named Gaiusto continue extending hospitality (vv. 5-8, 11-12). Watson (1989b) pro-poses that 3 John is a mixed letter, exhibiting characteristics of severaltypes of letters (as defined by Pseudo-Libanius and Pseudo-Demetrius)including the friendly, requesting, advisory or parenetic, commenda-tory, praising, encouraging, vituperative, and accusing. Third John isepideictic rhetoric of praise and blame. It commends Gaius for hishospitality and encourages him to continue to extend it, and accusesDiotrephes for his refusal to extend hospitality and rejecting the


authority of the Presbyter. The stasis is quality because it pertains tothe nature and necessity of hospitality. The letter is composed of anepistolary prescript (v. 1); an exordium (vv. 2-4) praising Gaius forwalking in the truth; a narratio (vv. 5-6) praising Gaius for hospitalityand petitioning him to continue extending it; a probatio (vv. 7-12)demonstrating the need for hospitality, amplifying Gaiuss hospitality,and denouncing the lack of the same by Diotrephes; a peroratio(vv. 13-14) emphasizing the importance of the message; and epistolarypostscript (v. 15). As in 1 John the exordium and narratio form theletter body opening, the probatio the body middle, and the peroratiothe body closing.

Conclusion

Rhetorical criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles gives us aglimpse of the early churchs use of rhetoric for self-definition againstJudaism and Hellenism, for the inculcation of its distinctive values andideology, for addressing everything from apathy to suffering, and forpolemic against opposition both from within and without. The rhetor-ical sophistication and creativity of these authors is high. Advancesmade in the rhetorical criticism of these works have moved the fieldof rhetorical criticism of the New Testament toward maturity andaided interpretation at several levels. These advances have been illus-trated in the preceding discussion and seven are gathered here foremphasis and clarification.

(1) There is a move beyond simplistic labeling of a New Testamentletter as one of the three rhetorical species. It is recognized that theseletters are mixed letters, that is, they use all three species of rhetoric.These species themselves were not delineated adequately in antiquityand overlap in function. For example, encomium of an individual notonly has the epideictic purpose of praise and affirming social values,but the deliberative purpose of encouraging the audience to take thecourse of action of living likewise.

(2) There is a move beyond simply labeling individual argumentsfrom logos, ethos, and pathos (which is still important) to identifyinglarger argumentation patterns and rhetorical strategies and their func-tions. For example, comparison in Hebrews is now placed within thebroader use of synkrisis (comparison) as a genre.


(3) We are witnessing a shift from conscripting rhetorical criticismfor description of stylistic figures to a full appreciation that style isintegral to rhetorical invention and the function of a work. Stylisticanalysis is no longer seen as regressive as it was in the earlier part ofthis century when rhetorical analysis was limited to style. It has movedstill further from description to functional concerns. For example, thegrand style of 2 Peter is now understood to function to increase theethos of the author, of Peter, the apostles, and the message they pre-sent, and to decrease the ethos of those who oppose them.

(4) Our understanding and use of Greco-Roman rhetoric is no longerlimited primarily to rhetorical handbooks, but is supplemented withcomparative work with actual rhetorical works. A fuller picture ofthe rhetoric of the New Testament letters, both in conformity to anddivergence from convention and practice, is possible. For example,the study of the rhetoric of Hebrews, which does not conform in inven-tion and arrangement to the conventions of the rhetorical handbooks,took a noticeable step forward when compared to actual encomiasticdocuments using synkrisis.

(5) There is a greater awareness of the interrelationship betweenliterary genres and their forms and rhetoric. The interrelationship ofrhetoric and the epistolary and apocalyptic genres, the forms of pare-nesis, and pseudonymity to name a few are being explored with greatersophistication. For example, parenesis in Hebrews is found to be inte-gral to a comparative (synkrisis) rhetorical scheme, not a literary fea-ture that is a remnant of Jewish wisdom literature with an undeterminedliterary function. Another example is pseudonymity which enables 2Peter to function as a teaching tool.

(6) There has been a move beyond description of rhetorical fea-tures to analysis of their function in a text. For example, rather thansimply noting metaphors as figures of speech in 1 Peter, their functionwithin the text is now the focus.

(7) There has been an accelerating move from analyzing New Tes-tament letters solely using Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions tousing a variety of modern rhetoric in combination with other disci-plines. For example, in his study of 1 John, York (1993) notes the manysimilarities between the rhetorical and discourse analysis of the struc-ture of 1 John and proposes an interdisciplinary method that synthe-sizes the two. At this time the advent of socio-rhetorical criticism


(Robbins 1996a, 1996b) is the most exciting and comprehensive inter-disciplinary method available in which rhetoric plays a central role.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, P.J.1989 Newborn Babes and Living Stones: Literal and Figurative in 1 Peter,

in M.P. Horgan and P.J. Kobelski (eds.), To Touch the Text: Biblicaland Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (New York:Crossroad) 207-36.

Attridge, H.W.1986 The Uses of Antithesis in Hebrews 8-10, in G.W.E. Nickelsburg and

G.W. MacRae (eds.), Christians among Jews and Gentiles: Essays inHonor of Krister Stendahl on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (Philadelphia:Fortress Press) 1-9.

1989 The Epistle to the Hebrews (ed. H. Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia:Fortress Press).

1990 Paraenesis in a Homily ( logos paraklses): The Possible Location of,and Socialization in, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Semeia 50: 211-26.

Aune, D.E.1987 The New Testament in its Literary Environment (LEC, 8; Philadelphia:

Westminster Press).Baasland, E.

1988 Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung desJakobusbriefes, ANRW, II.25.5: 3646-84.

Bauckham, R.1983 Jude, 2 Peter (WBC, 50; Waco, TX: Word Books).

Black, C.C.1988 The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian

Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills, HTR 81: 1-18.Bligh, J.

1966 Chiastic Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heythrop College,England: Athenaeum).

Charles, J.D.1991 Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude, ZNW 82: 106-24.1993 Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (Scranton, PA: University of

Scranton Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Presses).Cosby, M.R.

1988a The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light ofExample Lists in Antiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press).

1988b The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews 11, JBL 107: 257-73.Deissmann, A.

1927 Light from the Ancient East (trans. L.R.M. Shacham; New York:Doian).

deSilva, D.A.1995 Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in


the Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS, 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press).Dibelius, M.

1976 James (rev. H. Greeven; trans. M.A. Williams; ed. H. Koester;Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

Elliott, J.H.1993 The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective:

Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication, BTB 23: 71-81.Ellul, D.

1990 Un exemple de cheminement rhtorique: 1 Pierre, RHPR 70: 17-34.Evans, C.F.

1988 The Theology of Rhetoric: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Friends of DrWilliamss Library, Lecture 42; London: Dr Williamss Trust).

Garuti, P.1994 Ebrei 7,1-28: Un problema giuridico, DivThom 97: 9-105.1995a Alcune strutture argomentative nella Lettera agli Ebrei, DivThom 98:

197-224.1995b Alle origini dellomiletica Cristiana. La Lettera agli Ebrei: Note di

analisi retorica (SBFAn, 38; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press).Gieger, L.G.

1981 Figures of Speech in the Epistle of James: A Rhetorical and ExegeticalAnalysis (PhD dissertation, Southwestern Baptist TheologicalSeminary).

Joubert, S.J.1995 Persuasion in the Letter of Jude, JSNT 58: 75-87.

Kennedy, G.A.1984 New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel

Hill: University of North Carolina Press).Klauck, H.-J.

1990 Zur rhetorischen Analyse der Johannesbriefe, ZNW 81: 205-24.Lane, W.

1991 Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC, 47a, 47b; Waco, TX: Word Books).Lindars, B.

1989 The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews, NTS 35: 382-406.Mack, B.L.

1990 Rhetoric and the New Testament (Guides to Biblical Scholarship;Minneapolis: Fortress Press).

Martin, T.W.1992 Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter (SBLDS, 131; Atlanta: Scholars

Press).Neufeld, D.

1994 Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of 1 John (BIS, 7;Leiden: Brill).

Neyrey, J.H.1993 2 Peter, Jude (AB, 37C; New York: Doubleday).

Nissil, K.1979 Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebrerbrief: Eine exegetische

Untersuchung (Schriften der finnischen exegetischen Gesellschaft, 33;Helsinki: Oy Liiton Kirjapaino).


Olbricht, T.H.1993 Hebrews as Amplification, in S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.),

Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 HeidelbergConference (JSNTSup, 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 375-87.

Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca1969 The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson

and P. Weaver; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press).Robbins, V.K.

1996a Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-RhetoricalInterpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International).

1996b The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society andIdeology (London: Routledge).

Seid, T.W.1996 The Rhetorical Form of the Melchizedek/Christ Comparison in

Hebrews 7 (PhD dissertation, Brown University).Soden, H. von

1899 Hebrerbrief, Briefe des Petrus, Jakobus, Judas (HNT, 3.2; Leipzigand Tbingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 3rd rev. edn ).

Spicq, C.1952 LEptre aux Hbreux (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 2nd edn, 1952

1953).Thompson. J.W.

1994 The Rhetoric of 1 Peter, ResQ 36: 237-50.Thurn, L.

1990 The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter: With Special Regard to AmbiguousExpressions (bo: bo Akademi).

1995a Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of ChristianParaenesis (JSNTSup, 114; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).

1995b Risky Rhetoric in James?, NovT 37: 262-84.1996 Style Never Goes Out of Fashion: 2 Peter Re-Evaluated, in S.E.

Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.) Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology:Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference (JSNTSup, 131; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press) 329-47.

Toulmin, S.1958 The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

belacker, W.1989 Der Hebrerbrief als Appell. I. Untersuchungen zu exordium, narratio,

und postscriptum (Hebr 12 und 13,22-25) (ConBNT, 21; Stockholm:Almqvist & Wiksell).

Van Der Westhuizen, J.D.N.1991 Stylistic Techniques and Their Functions in James 2.14-26, Neot 25:

89-107.Vanhoye, A.

1963 La structure littraire de lp tre aux Hbreux (StudNeot, 1; Paris:Descle de Brouwer [rev. edn, 1976]).


1989 Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Subsidia Biblica,12; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).

Vouga, F.1990a Die Johannesbriefe (HNT, 15.3; Tbingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).1990b La rception de la thologie johannique dans les ptres, in J.-D.

Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet and J. Zumstein (eds.), La communautjohannique et son histoire: La trajectoire de lvangile de Jean aux deuxpremiers sicles (Le Monde de la Bible; Geneva: Labor et Fides) 283-302.

Wachob, W.H.1993 The Rich in Faith and The Poor in Spirit: The Socio-Rhetorical

Function of a Saying of Jesus in the Epistle of James (PhDdissertation, Emory University).

Watson, D.F.1988 Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2

Peter (SBLDS, 104; Atlanta: Scholars Press).1989a A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John According to Greco-Roman

Convention, NTS 35: 104-30.1989b A Rhetorical Analysis of 3 John: A Study in Epistolary Rhetoric, CBQ

51: 479-501.1991 An Epideictic Strategy for Increasing Adherence to Community

Values: 1 John 1.12.27, PEGLMBS 11: 144-52.1993a Amplification Techniques in 1 John: The Interaction of Rhetorical

Style and Invention, JSNT 51: 99-123.1993b James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation, N T S

39: 94-121.1993c The Rhetoric of James 3.1-12 and a Classical Pattern of

Argumentation, NovT 35: 48-64.1995 Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles Since 1975, CR: BS 3:

219-48.Watson, D.F., and A.J. Hauser

1994 Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography withNotes on History and Method (BIS, 4; Leiden: Brill).

Webb, R.L.1996 The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude and Its Rhetorical and Social

Functions, BBR 6: 139-51.Wendland, E.R.

1994 A Comparative Study of Rhetorical Criticism, Ancient andModernWith Special Reference to the Larger Structure and Functionof the Epistle of Jude, Neot 28: 193-228.

Wills, L.1984 The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early

Christianity, HTR 77: 277-99.Wuellner, W.H.

1978 Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatik, LB 43:5-66.

Wolthuis, T.R.


1989 Jude and the Rhetorician: A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of theEpistle of Jude, Calvin Theological Journal 24: 126-34.

York, H.W.1993 An Analysis and Synthesis of the Exegetical Methods of Rhetorical

Criticism and Discourse Analysis as Applied to the Structure of FirstJohn (ThD dissertation, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary).

Copyright of Currents in Research: Biblical Studies is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

rhetorical criticism of hebrews

Documents