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: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 06:39:21 -0500


on 7/7/01 11:38 AM, David C. Hindley at dhindley AT compuserve.com wrote:

> Mark Nanos asked:
>
>>> ... 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 ... <<

And Dave wrote:
> Are you referring to the possible employment of the *technical*
> language of rhetoric (as your starting examples suggest), or to the
> possible organization of material in his letters as outlined in the
> rhetorical handbooks of the period (or even along the lines of modern
> "universal rhetoric")?

Hi Dave,
Thanks for your well informed questions. I mean the technical language
elements. It just thought it might be interesting to compile these and see
what that might lead to hypothesizing. I am presently of the opinion that
Paul's letters are not organized as orations according to the three genres,
at least that Galatians is not. Elements of all of these can be found, or
argued to be evident, in Paul's letters. I will explain this view, which is
in sympathy with several others you mention, in an appendix to my Irony of
Galatians, due this fall from Fortress, which will include an extensive
bibliography on the topic.

> Have you read Philip H. Kern's _Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an
> approach to Paul's epistle_ (Cambridge UP, 1998)? Kern was recently a
> guest of Rhetoric-l back in October, 2000, for a "re/interview" where
> the book is reviewed and the author interviewed (read "grilled in a
> friendly, collegial manner"). I did not see any posts from you in that
> re/interview. Was your attention diverted (by academic demands, etc.),
> or do you have reservations about Kern's approach? Considering the
> subject matter, I presume you may have lurked.

I worked through Kern closely as soon as available, appreciated and learned
from this work, did follow that discussion, and even posted a time or two. I
highly recommend his book for anyone taking up the topic.
>
> Also, the subject of rhetoric in the Pauline letters was brought up in
> the Corpus Paul list by, I think, Jim Hester, back in Aug. and early
> Sept., 2000. While I did note you made a couple of contributions, it
> seems you only mentioned rhetoric in passing. In this thread Jim
> Hester's review of _The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord
> or Methodological Synthesis?_ (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Johannes
> Buetler, Eerdmans, 2000) was brought up. The review considered a
> number of issues relating to ancient epistolography, especially with
> regards to whether rhetorical analysis is the best method for study of
> the Pauline letters. Hester's review can be found at:
> http://rhetjournal.uor.edu/DebateReview.html

Hester's work is also very helpful, especially as he has been a port of this
area of research in NT studies from the start, and has changed his view
several times along the way, and even more so now. Jim is one of those I
hoped my post might provoke to discussion of the question posed.
>
> Aside from Kern, Hester's review alerts me to the fact that other
> scholars, such as Stanley Porter, Joachim Classen, Jeffrey A. D.
> Weima, and Dennis Stamps have reservations about the employment of
> "handbook" rhetoric as interpretive tools. The major reservation is
> that everyone comes to completely different conclusions even though
> employing the same interpretive basis (handbook rhetoric). In effect,
> it seems we are reading our own expectations into the analysis. How do
> you feel about this situation?

As long as we start with a hunch or view in our research--and why would we
start if we did not have one?--we must remain vulnerable to the problem you
note. To some degree that kind of problem always arises, and discussion and
continued research lead to advances, which include constraints on the
promise of every method at some point. Are we simply finding another way to
confirm what we already "know," or actually trying to learn something new,
willing to allow our presumptions to be challenged by what we find. I think
that many of these "rhetorical" approaches demonstrate the problem, but also
why the interpreter must avail themselves of every method available.
>
> In what way are you hoping to benefit from this present thread?
> Perhaps that will help us focus the discussion.

Just a discussion of the technical elements of rhetoric to be found in
Paul's letters and what that may or may not suggest for the larger questions
of Paul's training, or at least comfort with these elements in his letters
as used by his secretaries. We can also make this an element of discussions
of the audience profile for any given letter, as it might contribute to
what we think Paul expects them to understand. When it is different for
letters to different groups, this could be an element to consider along with
the many others at play.

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