Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's use of technical rhetorical devices

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's use of technical rhetorical devices
  • Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 21:42:15 -0500


Dear list,
The recent postings on rhetoric bring to mind a question that might be
interesting to consider here. There is of course an ongoing debate about the
level of Paul's training in rhetoric, if formal at all. It is clear that
Paul knew some elements of rhetoric, or at least that his secretaries did.
Getting beyond that issue with certainty will always be a problem, for we
cannot know where Paul's skills left off and those of secretaries trained in
epistolary and oral rhetoric begin. Of course the Hellenistic as well as
Jewish communal air he breathed was likely filled with many conventions he
might consciously or unconsciously learn and incorporate.

But allowing that this problem remains, what technical rhetorical devices
are employed in his letters that might signal something about Paul's
competence, or give us some way to rank the level of formal training he is
likely to have undertaken? No doubt other ways to consider the results of
any evidence that is gathered will emerge too. But an effort to list the
devices might make an interesting list-project, especially with several of
the specialists we have on the list, a few from whom we seldom if ever get
posts.

To get the ball rolling, I would like to post one that arises in the
interesting discussion of Janet Fairweather (whom I do not know) in a rather
lengthy two part essay, "The Epistle to the Galatians and Classical
Rhetoric: Parts 1 & 2," Tyndale Bulletin 45.1 (1994) 1-38, and 45.2 (1994)
213-43.

She claims that Galatians includes "two uncommon words from the technical
vocabulary of literary criticism, namely MAKARISMOS (Gal. 4:15) and
ALLHGOROUMENA (Gal. 4:24)" (p. 33). The first is translated "blessing," but
she suggests it is technically a "pronounced blessing" when used in Romans
4:6, 9 with reference to the opening of Psalm 32, as given in Aristotle's
Rhetoric 1.9.34 (1367b 33); and cf. Plato, Rep. 591a. The second is
allegory, which use she claims is unprecedented in substantival use of the
neuter plural form before Paul. But her main point features Paul's use of
METESXHMATISA in 1 Cor. 4:6 (pp. 34-36), which basically translates as "to
transform." This she says deals with figured speech.

What Fairweather claims (if I understand her correctly) is that Paul here
"specifically unveils the fact that he has been deploying figures--like a
flower-arranger exposing the wire-netting--is in flagrant breach of normal
rhetorical practice." Paul makes clear where he is using classical figured
rhetoric, as found listed e.g. in Cicero's De Or. 3.53.204 (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5,
10; 4:3). This, she concludes, is a strong indication of his likely training
in rhetoric, whether gained in training for synagogue preaching or in a
school or rhetoric. "But wherever it was that he learnt what he knew about
the theory of figures, we certainly cannot claim that he was totally
ignorant of, or uninvolved in, the classical art of rhetoric" (p. 36). She
is very careful here, and in part 2 (as I remember it), but what say you
experts in classical rhetoric about this matter? Any other specific
indicators of this kind?

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page