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: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's use of technical rhetorical devices
  • Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 12:38:32 -0400


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 ... <<

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")?

You are correct to note that we do not "know where Paul's skills left
off and those of secretaries trained in epistolary and oral rhetoric
begin," nor be sure when the author(s) of passages within the Pauline
letters are *consciously* (as opposed to unconsciously) using the
conventions of social communication prevalent in the Hellenistic and
Jewish social circles in which (t)he(y) operated or interacted.

I suppose lists could be created, drawn from the many, and usually
contradictory, perspectives of modern and ancient critics, but I fear
that the answer(s) to the question you ask is/are intimately connected
with so many interpretive issues that your objective will not come
close to realization.

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.

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

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?

In what way are you hoping to benefit from this present thread?
Perhaps that will help us focus the discussion.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

PS: Please excuse whatever ignorance of the subject the above post
might exhibit. I am still learning about it.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page