Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] RE: Paul and Rhetoric

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Given, Mark Douglas" <mdg421f AT smsu.edu>
  • To: <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] RE: Paul and Rhetoric
  • Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:45:30 -0500

Dave Hindley wrote:

Actually, I
> have very low expectations for the level of rhetorical skill
> that Paul might exhibit. Philip H. Kern's _Rhetoric in
> Galatians_ (Cambridge U.P., 1998) provides some examples of
> attempts to discern the rhetorical devices employed by the
> author of Galatians, illustrating the wide range of
> conflicting opinions as to the types and functions of the
> basic rhetorical units employed in the book.

For some solid critique of Kern's work I would echo, see Fred Long's review:
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=29&CodePage=29. I would
add that simply showing that not every scholar agrees precisely in their
rhetorical analyses proves little if anything. Think of the wide range of
issues in Pauline exegesis of which that could be said! It's the old "nobody
agrees so there's nothing to it" fallacy. Also, I find Kern's work to have
an apologetic tone similar to that of Bruce Winter. Paul must be protected
from "real" rhetoric. For more on that, see my shameless plug below.

I used to agree with Kern that one should not expect to find handbook-type
structuration in Paul's letters, but, rather to my surprise, as I continue to
work with some of Paul's arguments I tend to see more, not less, evidence of
rhetorical education. One of the most fascinating cases for me is Rom 9-11.
Check out the way I've outlined it in this lecture outline:

http://courses.smsu.edu/mdg421f/reli102/RELI102.16b.htm

Comments and critique are welcome. What I see here is a profound example of
the multicultural Paul. His subject matter is quite Jewish while his
rhetoric is quite Hellenistic.

Dave Hinley also wrote:

> Mark Nanos, for his part, had done his homework before
> writing _Irony of Galatians_, and he at least sees some
> rhetorical techniques being employed, mainly revolving around
> his use of irony. What I am critical of, though, are those
> researchers who explain the apparent contradictions and
> contrasts in the corpus as part of an elaborate rhetorical
> strategy designed almost to shock and confuse the reader
> until s/he is steered to a predetermined conclusion.

Since I resemble that remark--at least partly--time for the shameless plug.
My published dissertation is Paul's True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning and
Deception in Greece and Rome. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 7. Trinity
Press International, 2001. Links to reviews are available on my CV page:
http://courses.smsu.edu/mdg421f/cv.htm. One is a long one delivered by Ron
Hock in Toronto last year in the Rhetoric and the New Testament section.
What I like about it is that he shows that if I'd paid more attention to
writers contemporary with Paul, my already convincing thesis would be even
more convincing. (Consider the alternative and you'll see why I like that
criticism.) (-; Some of the papers linked on the CV page were revised and
later became chapter sections in the book.

Also, see now Johan S. Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus. WUNT 149.
Mohr Siebeck, 2002.

Mark

Mark D. Given
Associate Professor
Department of Religious Studies
Southwest Missouri State University
901 S. National Ave.
Springfield, MO 65804





  • [Corpus-Paul] RE: Paul and Rhetoric, Given, Mark Douglas, 05/29/2003

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page