Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Values Argumentation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jim Hester" <hester AT jasper.uor.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Values Argumentation
  • Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:44:24 -0700


Last week I wrote:

> It would be interesting to approach the question through the interpretive
> matrix of Perelman's Universal Audience and value sharing.

In his reply to this Stephen Finlan wrote:

> Can you summarize that in a bite-size?

The quick-and-dirty answer to Stephen's question is, "No!" But I can take a
shot at some generalizations that might throw light on what I mean.

In The New Rhetoric Perelman claims that eventually values enter into all
arguments. These values may be those held by particular audiences or what he
calls the "universal audience." The "universal audience" is in fact a
creation of the mind of the speaker, his conception of an audience most
reasonable and most competent with respect to the issues under discussion.
It is used by him as the final arbiter for values or truths that he believes
are shared by both him and the particular audience. It is "universal" in
that it shares the universe of values common to the them, not in the sense
of foundational or timeless. Because it transcends the particularity of the
rhetorical situation, it can serve as a group to whom an appeal can be made
for agreement in adherence to values advocated by the speaker.

Now, what does that concept have to do with the slave metaphor in Romans?
Paul did not know the Romans well and probably did not have current
knowledge of their situation. In that sense the exigence of Romans is not
primarily something going on in Rome but rather something Paul had learned
from the Corinthian situation that he hoped to avoid in visiting Rome. Thus,
despite all the arguments to the contrary, I still like Jewett's
"ambassadorial letter" thesis. Paul is an ambassador for Christ, whose
commission sends him to the Gentiles. Thus in constructing the universal
audience for the Roman letter, he almost certainly had the Gentiles in mind
and would appeal to "values" he shared with them. The value of freedom from
slavery would be socio-political and not theological in origin.

I agree with Stephen that Jewish hearers of the letter might hear the
resonance of Exodus ideology in the slave metaphor, but that would be
because of their universal audience and not the one found in the letter.

I hope this makes some sense. If you don't know Perelman's argument, you
might look at the New Rhetoric, particularly pp. 31-35 and 74-104. Chapter
Two in Perelman's The Realm of Rhetoric is also useful. And, if the
moderator will indulge me, you can find a fuller discussion of the utility
of Perelman's neo-artistoteleanism for analyzing Paul's letters in the
archive of papers at rhetjournal.uor.edu, "Rhetoric and the Composition of
Paul's Letters."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hester "Never be afraid to try something new.
736 Buckingham Drive Remember, amateurs built the ark.
Redlands, CA 92374 Professionals built the Titanic."
(909) 792-0533
hester AT uor.edu http://rhetjournal.uor.edu
http://www.ars-rhetorica.net





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page