Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

[CR:BS 5 (1997) 175-207]
RHETORICAL CRITICISM OF HEBREWS

AND THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES SINCE 1978
Duane F. Watson
Department of Religion and Philosophy,
Malone College, Canton, Ohio 44709
Throughout this century in Europe there has been sporadic interest in

the rhetorical criticism of Hebrews. The work of Keijo Nissil (1979)
turned sporadic interest in the rhetoric of Hebrews into sustained
examination. The rhetorical criticism of the Catholic Epistles is only
very recent. Wilhelm Wuellners investigation of the rhetoric of James
(1978) began the modern rhetorical study of the Catholic Epistles and
gives us the starting date for our discussion. Even so, Wuellner was
ahead of his time and other rhetorical analyses of the Catholic Epistles
did not appear for another decade (e.g. Watson 1988).
Current rhetorical analysis is discovering much about the invention,
arrangement, and style of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles. This discovery is not limited to description of the rhetoric as was the case in
the infancy of the endeavor, but has turned to determining its function
as well. As rhetorical criticism of these letters matures, our understanding of their rhetorical and historical contexts, as well as their
social, cultural, and ideological fabric is branching out in new directions. With a better understanding of the rhetorical strategies of these
letters and new readings of them comes a greater appreciation of the
light they shed on the struggles of the early church and their value for
the contemporary church.
This article has four main objectives. The first is to identify and assess
current issues in the rhetorical criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic
Epistles. The second is to summarize important articles and books that
analyze these letters rhetorically and to assess their contribution to
176
Currents in Research 5 (1997)
persistent questions of interpretation. The third is to provide a summary conclusion of the advances in rhetorical criticism of the New
Testament that are reflected in, and advanced by, these studies. The
fourth is to provide a bibliography of these important studies in hopes
of spurring further research that they abundantly suggest (for further
bibliography, see Watson and Hauser 1994: 202-205). The article is
intended as a complementary article to my previous study in this
journal, Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles Since 1975
(Watson 1995).
Current Issues in Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews
and the Catholic Epistles
The rhetorical criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles is involved in several current issues of a broader scope. These issues include
the selection of rhetorical methodology appropriate to New Testament
interpretation; the relationship of rhetorical and epistolary theory in
ancient letters; the rhetorical training of the biblical authors; the proper
assignment of New Testament letters within ancient rhetorical traditions; and the determination of what rhetorical analysis can contribute
to the study of the social, cultural, and ideological world from which
the New Testament arose.
The Selection of Rhetorical Methodology
Current practitioners of rhetorical criticism of these letters are using
a variety of methodologies based on Greco-Roman rhetoric, modern
rhetoric, a combination of these two, and various combinations of rhetoric with a host of other methodologies. Among others, these methodologies include social scientific studies, semiotics, text-linguistics, discourse analysis, speech-act theory, and literary criticism. The use of
Greco-Roman rhetoric has the advantage of placing these letters in their
oral and written culture, while the use of modern rhetoric helps contemporary audiences reread these letters in new and more immediate
ways.
To date, rhetorical criticism of the Catholic Epistles has primarily
used the methodology of George Kennedy (1984). His method relies
upon Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions systematized in rhetorical
handbooks, illustrated in speeches and letters of the period, and basic
to the education of youth. Kennedys methodology has five steps.
W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews
177
(1) Determine the boundaries of the rhetorical unit by noting signs

of structure and delineation. (2) Define the rhetorical situation which
prompted the author to write and which he or she wanted to motivate
the audience to modify. (3) Determine the rhetorical problem or stasis
of the issue at hand and the species of rhetoric in which the work can be
classified, whether judicial (accusation and defense), deliberative (persuasion and dissuasion), or epideictic (praise and blame). (4) Analyze
all the intricacies of invention, arrangement, and style. Invention is
argumentation by ethos, pathos, and logos. Arrangement is the ordering of the main parts of the speech: the exordium (introduction);
narratio (statement of facts); the partitio (enumeration of the propositions to be discussed); the probatio (main body, sometimes called argumentatio or confirmatio) which proves the rhetors case (confirmatio)
and disproves the case of any opposition (refutatio, sometimes called
confutatio); and the peroratio (conclusion). Style is molding language
to serve the needs of invention. (5) Evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of the work in modifying the rhetorical situation through invention, arrangement, and style.
Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions had been partially incorporated by Jewish rhetorical practice before the advent of the Christian
era. In Hellenistic culture rhetoric was central to secondary education
and public oratory. Even if a New Testament writer had not been
formally educated, rhetorical practice was everywhere and its forms
would have been familiar. Much of Jewish and Greco-Roman rhetorical practice was shaped by the needs of an oral culture. Most people were illiterate and could only hear the message. The rhetorical
forms developed to facilitate that hearing were well recognized (e.g.
repetition and parallelism).
Kennedys method was a fine beginning for the revival of the art of
rhetorical criticism of the New Testament that was lost at the turn of
the century. It is ideal for historical investigation of the text. However, it is well understood that the field of New Testament needs to
move beyond it in order fully to utilize all that rhetorical criticism has
to offer interpretation. Kennedys methodology can and should be enhanced by comparison of the rhetoric of the New Testament with more
than the systematized conventions enumerated in rhetorical handbooks.
Comparison should be made with actual speeches and written works of
a highly rhetorical nature. These works illustrate the peculiarities of
178
rhetoric necessitated by the contingencies of public rhetorical practice

and the rhetorical situations addressed. This alerts the interpreter to features peculiar to the New Testament and allows literature that shares
those peculiar rhetorical features to illuminate interpretation.
Many interpreters legitimately find rhetorical criticism of Hebrews
and the Catholic Epistles using Greco-Roman rhetoric too limited (for
critique, see Watson and Hauser 1994: 109-12; Watson 1995: 220-22).
They turn to the many forms of modern rhetoric that address the
theoretical, practical, and philosophical problems posed by speech that
Greco-Roman rhetorical theory does not address. Modern rhetoric is
not only the reconceptualization of Greco-Roman rhetoric, such as the
New Rhetoric (e.g. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969), but moves
well beyond it. The use of a variety of modern rhetorics to analyze
the New Testament has proven very insightful for rereading it in ways
relevant for contemporary audiences. As previously mentioned, modern rhetoric is often used in combination with other related methodologies to create new interdisciplinary studies, and this is also true of
rhetorical studies of the Catholic Epistles (e.g. Neufeld 1994; Thurn
1990, 1995a; Wendland 1994). One recent development is sociorhetorical criticism as defined primarily by Robbins (1996a, 1996b).
It is a highly interdisciplinary textual analysis performed on the inner
texture, intertexture, social and cultural texture, and ideological texture
of the text. In the Catholic Epistles it makes it debut with Wachobs
study on James (1993) discussed below.
The Relationship between Epistolary and Rhetorical Theory
In Pauline studies there is considerable debate concerning the extent
that rhetorical theory influenced the epistolary genre in antiquity and
the extent that Paul utilized rhetorical invention, arrangement, and style
in his letters (Watson and Hauser 1994: 120-24; Watson 1995: 22224). However, there is virtually no debate about rhetoric playing a role
in Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles. It seems to be an assumed premise of the majority of studies. The use of rhetoric in these letters is not
perceived as marginalized to style and isolated argumentative strategies. Rather, these letters are viewed as speeches in written form of a
highly rhetorical nature meant to be heard by the audiences addressed.
The role of rhetoric in New Testament letters is becoming more
accepted as a working premise as New Testament studies move away
from Adolf Deissmanns false distinction (1927: 233-51). He catego-
179
rized ancient letters as either literary epistles (rhetorical) or non-literary, documentary letters (non-rhetorical), with New Testament letters
falling in the latter category. However, the literary letters may be a
more appropriate point of comparison for New Testament letters. By
the first century BCE rhetorical education had incorporated instruction
on letters and had exerted a strong influence on epistolary composition
among the educated (Aune 1987: 160). This influence is easily seen in
Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles.
The Rhetorical Training of the Authors
The rhetorical sophistication of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles has
led to agreement that the authors of these works have done more than
imitate written and spoken communication experienced in public life
where rhetorical practice abounded. Rather, these letters are a studied
application of rhetorical conventions. Several of these authors may have
received rhetorical training and consciously used Greco-Roman rhetoric. Evans (1988: 3) suggests that the author of Hebrews while thinking predominantly in Jewish and Jewish-Christian categories, was more
than any other New Testament writer influenced as to expression, and
possibly as to form, by the rhetoric of the Greco-Roman world. More
strongly, Aune (1987: 212) can state of Hebrews, The author obviously enjoyed the benefits of a Hellenistic rhetorical education through
the tertiary level. Garuti (1995b) and Mack (1990: 77-78) show the
influence of the progymnasmata or elementary exercises of the educational system in Hebrews. Watson (1993b, 1993c) demonstrates that
the author of James used the Greco-Roman pattern of elaboration for
themes and complete arguments as taught in secondary school within
the progymnasmata. Thurn (1995b: 275) claims that James is a conscious orator. Neyrey (1993: 41, 131) proposes that the authors of Jude
and 2 Peter had scribal training. Charles (1991: 118-20) argues that
Judes literary and rhetorical skill may have come from formal education. He calls Jude the product of a literary-rhetorical artist at work
(p. 124). Watson (1993a) shows that the author of 1 John used virtually
all the amplification techniques central to the exercises of progymnasmata in secondary school.
The Placement within Ancient Rhetorical Traditions
Another issue is the proper classification of Hebrews and the Catholic
Epistles within ancient rhetorical traditions. Should they be placed
180
within Jewish or Greco-Roman rhetorical traditions? Does this question contain a false distinction since Greco-Roman rhetoric had influenced Jewish rhetoric by the New Testament era more extensively than
was previously imagined? How is early Christian rhetoric distinctive
when compared with Jewish and Greco-Roman modes of argumentation that were adapted by early Christian writers? For example, in
light of the heavy reliance upon Jewish traditions the rhetoric of
Hebrews and Jude is difficult to categorize. Jewish midrash is often
the classification, but this is too simplistic and anachronistic. Some early
Christian rhetoric is clearly distinctive. Second Peter is a rare pseudepigraph in letter form which consciously uses Greco-Roman rhetoric
to create an obvious pseudepigraph for teaching purposes. These questions cannot be adequately answered until further research rectifies
the lack of broad-based and in depth studies of Jewish rhetoric in the
Hellenistic period.
Insight into the Cultural, Social, and Ideological World of the Text
There is much that rhetoric can help uncover about the cultural, social,
and ideological background of the New Testament texts. The many ways
in which an author uses rhetoric to shape a communitys self-perception inform us about the values and perceptions of that community.
The values underlying the stated and unstated premises of argumentation are assumed by an author to be shared with the community. Community values and perceptions undergird praise and denunciation,
honor and shame language in a text. These in turn establish boundaries
for community behavior. For example, the use of standard topics of
encomium in comparing Christ with ancient worthies of salvation history in Hebrews indicates an audience steeped in the honorshame,
patronbenefactor society of the Mediterranean (deSilva 1995). The
rhetorical strategy of a text helps discover the perception of the author
and audience in relation to their culture, whether as members of the
dominant culture, a subculture, a counterculture, and so on. The ideology of a text is uncovered through the motivations and assumptions
underlying its argumentation. Focusing on the function of rhetoric
opens New Testament texts to their Mediterranean culture in new ways
(e.g. Elliott 1993). Perhaps this will be one of rhetorical criticisms
most lasting contributions to interpretation.
181
Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles

Hebrews
Greco-Roman and Jewish rhetorical features are prevalent in Hebrews.
For example, the comparative argument from the lesser to the greater
(argumentum e minore ad maius or qal wahomer) is common in Hebrews. Although he does not offer a rhetorical analysis, Vanhoye (1963,
1989) uses rhetorical features such as catchwords, inclusion, and repetition to delineate the structural units of Hebrews. These features are
needed to help an audience in a predominantly oral culture hear and
understand the text as it is read aloud.
There are many studies of particular rhetorical features in Hebrews,
especially antithesis (e.g. Attridge 1986) and chiasm (e.g. Bligh 1966).
Cosby (1988a, 1988b) provides two notable studies showing how the
example list in Heb. 11.3-40 is enhanced through a sophisticated use of
rhetorical techniques (especially anaphora) to make the examples mustered seem representative of a great many more. The example list provides the audience with famous worthies illustrating the enduring faith
encouraged in Heb. 10.19-39 and defined in Heb. 11.1-2. The list functions to exhort the audience to remain faithful to Christ and the promise
of future reward in spite of its persecution. Mack (1990: 73-78) analyzes Heb. 11.1-12.3 as an encomium on faith to encourage imitation of
the faithful, and he analyzes 12.4-17 as an elaboration of the theme
endurance as discipline according to the elaboration pattern of the
school exercises or progymnasmata.
Lindars (1989) looks at the rhetorical effectiveness of Hebrews
rather than its rhetorical structure. He classifies Hebrews as deliberative rhetoric seeking to persuade a Hellenistic Jewish-Christian church
of the Diaspora to return to the apostolic faith and practice. Some in
the church had returned to the synagogue and Judaism for purification, driven by an unresolved problem of a consciousness of sin. The
author tries to persuade them that the sacrifice of Christ for sin and the
effects of his sacrifice are permanent, and they do not need to return
to Judaism for purification. However, Lindars rejects the attempts of
Spicq (see below) and Vanhoye to find studied rhetorical arrangement
in Hebrews (pp. 382-84). The article contains the puzzling inconsistency
that the author had a training in and command of the art of rhetoric
and used all the skill at his command, but it is a mistake to view [Hebrews] as a product of conscious artistry (pp. 383). If the authors rhet-
182
orical training is being determined by the skill exhibited in Hebrews,

why would the use of rhetoric not be conscious?
In spite of its obvious rhetorical features, the genre, rhetorical species, and overall rhetorical strategy of Hebrews are elusive. Several
sources provide a survey of these issues (Attridge 1989: 13-21; Aune
1987: 212-14; Lane 1991: I, lxxv-lxxx). Regarding genre, Hebrews
calls itself a word of exhortation (logos ts paraklses, 13.22), a designation also used of Pauls sermon in Acts 13.15. Wills (1984) argues
that Hebrews is a sermon or homily. In both individual and larger units
Hebrews exhibits a threefold pattern of Hellenistic Jewish and early
Christian sermonic material: (1) the presentation of scriptural quotations, biblical examples, and authoritative exposition of theological
points; (2) a conclusion based on the examples which indicates their
significance to the audience; and (3) exhortation based on the conclusion (e.g. 3.14.16; 8.110.25). While not extensively addressing this
pattern in Hebrews, Black (1988) argues that the features noted by
Wills are to be placed in the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition.
Placing Hebrews within the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition has
had a long history in Europe which often goes unnoted, but set the
agenda for modern study. Von Soden (1899: 11) proposed that Hebrews
was judicial rhetoric and could be outlined as proemium (1.14.13), a
digsis or narratio (4.146.20), apodeixis or probatio (7.110.18), and
epilogue (10.1913.21). In his classic commentary on Hebrews, Spicq
(1952: I, 38) proposed that Hebrews was a homily organized on the
basis of the rhetorical arrangement outlined in Aristotle (Rhetoric
3.13.1414a19.1420a): the exordium containing the proposition or
prosthesis (1.1-4); the digsis or narratio providing the doctrinal and
psychological introduction (chs. 16); the apodeixis or probatio containing arguments common to the epideictic rhetoric and concerning
Christ as priest and victim (7.110.18); an expos persuasif on the
Christian life based on the preceding proof (10.1912.13) (an element
of arrangement not found in Aristotle); and the peroratio or conclusion (12.14-29). Spicq devoted an entire chapter to the stylistic and
rhetorical devices of the letter (I, 351-78).
Nissil (1979) classifies Hebrews as a speech conforming to the conventions of ancient deliberative rhetoric. He argues that the high priest
motif is the unifying motif of the letter. The main structural point
around which the letter is written is 8.1 which explicitly upholds the
high priesthood of Christ as the main point. He analyzes the rhetorical
183
aspects of the use of the high priest motif in nine pericopes and devises
the following rhetorical outline: exordium (1.1-4), narratio (1.52.18),
argumentatio (3.112.29), and epilogus (13.1-25). Building upon
Nissil, belacker (1989) combines rhetorical analysis with discourse
analysis. He also argues that Hebrews is deliberative rhetoric, for it
seeks to persuade the audience to accept Jesus sacrifice as sufficient to
provide access to God. He outlines Hebrews as exordium (1.1-4); narratio (1.52.18) with 2.17-18 as the propositio; argumentatio with probatio (proof) and refutatio (refutation) (3.112.29); peroratio (13.121); and postscriptum (13.22-25). The developments regarding comparison (synkrisis) discussed below make it more difficult to argue that
Hebrews conforms to the standard Greco-Roman arrangement of a
speech.
Attridge (1990) demonstrates that while Hebrews exhibits many
hortatory elements, it cannot be classified according to any of the subgenres of hortatory literature. In particular, the classification of parenesis does not explain the relationship between the doctrinal exposition
and the exhortation. Attridge suggests that Hebrews might be better
defined as a homily or paraclsis. This genre may have been created in
the synagogues of diaspora Judaism using elements of epideictic and
deliberative rhetoric to address the need to actualize the sacred text in
the new social context of the Hellenistic polis.
Paraclesis, I suggest, is a newly minted rhetorical form that actualizes traditional scripture for a community in a non-traditional environment. It
certainly has affinities with the classical forms of oratory, and those who
regularly practiced it probably had some training in rhetorical art, but paraclesis is in fact a mutant on the evolutionary trail of ancient rhetoric
(p. 217).
Paraclesis relies upon a pattern of introduction, citation, expository

development, and application or exhortation. Attridge argues that
Hebrews is mainly an epideictic oration with some deliberative elements. The citation of the Old Testament, and the subsequent comparative or synkritic strategy proving the superiority of Jesus and the
events of his life over all other objects of comparison, form the basis
of the exhortation. The purpose of Hebrews is to keep the audience
faithful to the Jesus tradition and values and commitments associated
with it in spite of suffering social ostracism as a consequence.
184
Aune (1987: 213) states that

Despite the authors rhetorical training and his epideictic intention, Hebrews
is not structured in accordance with the typical patterns of epideictic or
(the closely related) deliberative rhetoric. The entire work is hortatory,
based on the central theme expressed in Hebrews 2:24: we must take our
revelation more seriously than we have. The rhetorical strategy of the
author is based on a comparison (synkrisis) between the old and the new
[original emphasis].
Although Aune too quickly dismisses typical patterns of epideictic and

deliberative rhetoric in Hebrews (see Seid below), he correctly points
us away from simplistic classification by rhetorical species and toward
the direction of comparison or synkrisis and associated genres.
Evans (1988) examines the recurring, dominant role in Hebrews of
synkrisis or comparison. Synkrisis compares representatives of a type
in order to determine the superiority of one representative over another. It is a means of praising or blaming people by comparing them
on topics of family, natural endowments, upbringing and education,
achievements, and death. Through comparison, Hebrews shows that
Christ is superior to angels, the levitical priesthood, and human worthies of salvation history. Synkrisis serves the Christology of Hebrews
as the types of Christ are demoted or depreciated by comparison to
Christ himself in order to portray him as the divine hero.
Olbricht (1993) also notes the role of synkrisis in Hebrews. He classifies Hebrews as epideictic rhetoric in the encomium and comparison
of its superstructure, and as deliberative rhetoric in its argumentation
as a word of exhortation (13.22). He proposes that Hebrews is modeled on the funeral orations of classical Greece and the early church
fathers. Central to such orations was comparison of the deceased with
illustrious personages of the past in order to prove the superior status
of the deceased. In Hebrews the comparison of Christ with angels, the
levitical priests and sacrifices, and worthies of salvation history serves
to amplify the argument as a whole. In each case the christological comparison is followed by exhortation to spiritual renewal and action based
on the Christology. However, it can be argued that funeral orations
are not typically as hortatory as Hebrews. They do not alternate comparison with exhortation as a main structural feature like Hebrews,
although the purpose of praising someone by comparison is implicitly
to hold them up for emulation.
185
While rejecting his proposal that Hebrews is modeled on the funeral

oration, Seid (1996) builds upon Olbrichts observations about synkrisis. He rejects the typical identification of Hebrews as a Jewish midrash
or Jewish-Christian homily familiar within Jewish literature. Instead,
he classifies Hebrews as a written speech of encomium (epideictic rhetoric) belonging to the genre of synkrisis within Hellenistic literature
and rhetoric. The synkrisis alternates with exhortation (parenesis) based
on the synkrisis (as in Plutarchs Parallel Lives) for the purpose of
moral exhortation. The person proven superior then becomes the model
for imitation and the basis of exhortation for people to progress to the
virtuous life being portrayed. Such exhortation is found in encomia in
the Greek protreptic tradition.
Moving beyond current thematic, literary, and linguistic approaches
to the structure of Hebrews, Seid reveals the structure of Hebrews using
the synkrisisparenesis alternation. With this alternation the comparison is between Christ and models of the Old Testament, showing the
superiority of Christ over the elements of the first covenant. The parenesis holds Christ up for imitation as superior. Hebrews is structured as
follows: comparison of Son and angels (1.1-14) and parenesis (2.1-18);
comparison of Moses and Christ (3.1-6) and parenesis (3.74.16); comparison of Aaron and Christ (5.1-10) and parenesis (5.116.20); comparison of MelchizedekChrist and the levitical priesthood (7.1-25) and
parenesis (7.268.3); comparison of the first covenant and new covenant (8.410.18) and parenesis (10.1912.29); and epistolary appendix
(13.1-25). This synkrisisparenesis alternation encourages the audience
to progress in moral conduct by remaining faithful to the greater revelation in Jesus Christ and emulating the models of its Scripture, as
well as warns the audience of the greater judgment to befall those
unfaithful to the greater revelation. Seid brings his study to bear on
Hebrews 7. In spite of the many quotations of the Old Testament, the
chapter is not midrash, but synkrisis. Using typical topics of encomium, the chapter formally compares Christ and Melchizedekan priesthood with the levitical priesthood, demonstrating the superiority of
the former.
Garuti (1995b) has provided one of the most detailed discussions of
classical rhetoric and its use within Hebrews, including the influence
of the progymnasmata or elementary exercises of the educational system. A multitude of aspects of the use of style, arrangement, and invention in Hebrews are discussed, especially those found in Hebrews 7
186
and 12. We can only hope that an English translation of this important
work in Italian will be made. In an article Garuti (1995a) examines the
use of the terms parabol (symbol or type) and hypodeigma (example,
model) in Hebrews and the structure and philosophical background of
its argumentation. In another article, Garuti (1994) investigates the
rhetoric of Heb. 7.1-28 in great detail according to invention, arrangement, and style.
DeSilva (1995) uses Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks and Greek
and Jewish speeches and ethical treatises to demonstrate how the author
used honor and shame language to promote the values and commitments of the audience as a minority culture against the values of the
dominant culture (as did other minority cultures like Jewish communities and Greco-Roman philosophical schools). He classifies the letter as
deliberative rhetoric which relies upon epideictic rhetoric. Which species of rhetoric dominates depends in part upon the hearer: for the one
contemplating apostasy, it is deliberative; and for the one who remained
committed, it is epideictic. Hebrews is composed in the tradition of the
classical rhetorical handbooks, but the macrostructure of Hebrews does
not conform to the standard elements of arrangement. However, the
alternating exposition and exhortation in the macrostructure are linked
by concerns about honor and its role in persuasion and dissuasion.
The addressees were in a new patronclient relationship with God
through Christ with its own networks of honor and shame. The authors
rhetorical appeal is to endure the negative sanctions of disgrace ascribed by the dominant society for not conforming to its values and
behaviors which are at odds with Christian values. He appeals for the
audience to adhere to values and behavior that are honorable to God,
their divine benefactor, and to their fellow believers. Honor and shame
play a large part in the proofs from pathos, as the author uses emulation and shame to gain audience consent, and logos, as the author
motivates endurance through the promise of greater honor to come.
Hebrews resembles protreptic literature in its appeal to faithfulness to
a way of life already chosen as an honorable course.
In summary, Hebrews is no longer being discussed primarily as a
synagogue homily or midrash within the Jewish rhetorical tradition.
Current study recognizes the rhetorical training and skill of the author
and places the letter in the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition. The genre
of the letter is typically determined to be deliberative, but the more
that the role of synkrisis is recognized, the more the letter is classified
187
as epideictic rhetoric with deliberative intent. Herein lies the rhetorical strategy: praise by comparison (epideictic) is intended by itself and
the addition of parenesis to persuade the audience to a course of action
(deliberative). The course of action upheld includes elements of finding the sacrifice of Christ and the new covenant satisfactory, emulating
Christs example, and the need to adhere to values of the minority culture established by that covenantall similarities with Greek protreptic literature. Invention, arrangement, and style are used in service
of this overall comparative scheme. Making Hebrews conform to the
typical elements of arrangement now seems forced.
James
Commentators frequently remark that James is unstructured, even
chaotic, and often suppose that this is due to its considerable parenetic
content. Parenesis is typically understood as a litany of exhortation
arranged in no particular order like pearls on a string. However, in a
rhetorically sophisticated text parenesis often plays an important role
in effectively structuring the text. Consensus is emerging that in spite
of its parenesis (or should we say in light of it) James contains a thematic and rhetorical unity which can be placed within the Greco-Roman
rhetorical tradition, even though there is disagreement about how to
describe this unity.
Wuellner (1978) analyzes James using the new rhetoric and semiotic
and communications theory. He argues that James is pragmatic and its
goal is not teaching, but recruiting. He outlines James as epistolary
prescript (1.1), exordium (1.2-4), narratio (1.5-11), propositio (1.12),
argumentatio in five units (1.135.6), and peroratio (5.7-20) consisting
of recapitulatio (vv. 7-8) and peroratio proper (vv. 9-20). Modifying
the work of Wuellner, Baasland (1988: 3649-61) classifies James as
deliberative rhetoric, a protreptic, wisdom speech in letter form. He
gives the outline of exordium (1.2-18) with transitus in 1.16-18, propositio (1.19-27), confirmatio (2.1-3.12), confutatio (3.135.6), and peroratio (5.7-20). The figures of style used in James are numerous and
serve to clarify and amplify the argumentation. This last point is also
emphasized by Gieger (1981) who offers an extensive study of the
stylistic figures of James involving resemblance, change, amplification,
and condensation.
Also building upon the work of Wuellner, Elliott (1993) discovers
the thematic cohesion of James using both rhetorical and social scientific
188
studies. James begins with an multifaceted introduction (1.1-12). The

introduction contains an epistolary address and salutation (1.1-2), a
statement of the main themethe wholeness of both the individual and
the community, and the relationship of both to God (and by implication the opposite of division and fragmentation) (1.3-4), and related
contrasts (1.5-12). The main body of James (1.135.12) consists of
exhortation in seven subsections contrasting negative indictments of
division with positive recommendations for integrity and wholeness.
James concludes with the themes of the introduction (5.13-20). The
letter encourages the recipients to reestablish the distinctive Christian
ethos of a holy community over against the unholy society at large.
This can be accomplished by choosing heavenly versus earthly wisdom
(3.13-18) and observing distinctions of purity versus pollution (1.2627). This choice ultimately leads to wholeness and holiness rather than
division and the devilish on the correlated personal, social, and cosmic
levels.
Van der Westhuizen (1991) uses Kennedys method of rhetorical criticism (1984) to analyze Jas 2.14-26. He classifies this pericope as deliberative rhetoric because it exhorts the hearers to action (faith with
works) and its argumentation is predominantly from example. He identifies the stasis as fact since it seeks to answer the question: What kind
of faith is real? (However, this question as defined concerns the nature
of something. This is usually identified as the stasis of quality.) Then in
meticulous detail, van der Westhuizen exposes the intricacies of invention, arrangement, and style in this pericope. Of particular note he suggests that the pericope is a form of comparison (synkrisis), here
comparing faith without works with faith demonstrated by works. The
pericope is arranged as proem (v. 14), proposition (vv. 14, 17), possible narratio (vv. 15-16), proof (vv. 18-25), and epilogue (v. 26). He
emphasizes the function of style as clarifying and amplifying the argumentation and addressing the rhetorical situation.
Working independently of van der Westhuizen, Watson (1993b,
1993c) does not view a rigid application of Kennedys method as adequate for fully understanding the material of Jas 2.13.12. He demonstrates that the central portion of James (2.13.12) is deliberative rhetoric aimed at advising the audience to take certain courses of action
and dissuade it from others. It contains three sections which use the
Greco-Roman pattern of elaboration for themes and the complete argument as outlined in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Rhetorica ad
189
Herennium, and works of Hermogenes. In these three sections the

rhetor advises his audience that partiality is inconsistent with faith (2.113), faith without works does not profit (2.14-26), and not many should
become teachers (3.1-12). The pattern used to elaborate each of these
propositions into complete arguments is: propositio (proposition), ratio
(reason for the propositio), confirmatio (proof of the ratio by comparison, example, and amplification), exornatio (embellishment of the confirmatio), and conplexio (conclusion drawing the argument together).
The parenetic materials and diatribal features of James are incorporated into this pattern of argumentation as key elements in the amplification of the argument.
Wachob (1993) investigates the rhetorical scheme in Jas 2.1-13 and
its appropriation of a saying of Jesus in 2.5 to address the social issue
of the conflict between the rich and poor. He uses socio-rhetorical criticism as defined by Vernon Robbins (1996a, 1996b). He classifies James
as deliberative rhetoric and a rhetoric that is subcultural within Jewish
culture and countercultural to Greco-Roman culture. In his study of
inner texture he discovers the use of the elaboration of a theme or
argument of the progymnasmata in Jas 2.1-13. He agrees with Watson
(1993b) on this point, although his analysis differs somewhat in the
delineation of this pattern. His study of intertexture shows that 2.5 is a
performance of the Jesus chreia in Mt. 5.3 (Q). The social and cultural texture of 2.1-13 indicates that 2.5 establishes that Gods kingdom belongs to the poor and determines the identity and behavior of
the recipients. The ideological texture of 2.5 brings the beliefs and
values of the recipients to bear to persuade them that partiality is incompatible with the Christian faith. It establishes a particular community
self-understanding (the pious poor of Jewish piety) and boundaries of
acceptable behavior (giving to those in need).
Thurn (1995b) challenges Dibeliuss assessment (1976: 1-11) that as
parenesis James cannot be expected to have developed themes or address an actual situation. He claims that James is epideictic rhetoric,
reinforcing values the audience already holds. The stasis is quality, for
the question is the credibility of the issues at hand (e.g. joy in trial).
Approaching James on the functional or pragmatic level, he analyzes
the rhetoric of the entire letter according to Greco-Roman categories.
The exordium (1.1-18) introduces the two central themes of perseverance in trials in the practical areas of wisdom/speech and money/action.
The propositio (1.19-27) is to accept the word and live by it. The
190
argumentatio (2.15.6) develops the two themes of the exordium in

three parts: 2.1-26 on money/action, 3.14.12 on wisdom/speech, and
4.135.6 supplying a climax dealing with both themes focused on the
rich man. The peroratio (5.7-20) consists of recapitulatio or reiteration of themes (perseverance, speech) and conquestio or final exhortation (5.12-20). Thurn explains the obscurity of the structure and
message on the surface level of the letter as the use of insinuatio or
subtlety in rhetorical approach to avoid being too obvious to a rhetorically sophisticated audience. However, it is more likely that James
simply does not conform to Greco-Roman standards in its overall
arrangement. Also, the presentation neglects the use of the GrecoRoman pattern of elaboration for themes and the complete argument
in 2.13.12. James is more complex structurally than Thurn suggests.
1 Peter
Rhetorical analysis has recently focused upon the function of metaphors in 1 Peter, the various ways it can be read by the audience, and,
most recently, determining its underlying ideology. The rhetorical
strategy that the rhetor uses to address churches in Asia Minor undergoing local persecution has been shown to be very sophisticated.
Ellul (1990) examines the alternation of the verbs between the indicative and the imperative (proclamation and exhortation), the repetitions, the parallelisms, and the citations of the Old Testament in 1
Peter to determine its structure and meaning. The letter is structured as
proclamation (1.3-12), exhortation (1.132.3), proclamation (2.4-10),
exhortation (2.11-21a), proclamation (2.21b-25), exhortation (3.1-17),
proclamation (3.18-22), exhortation (4.1-11) and exhortation (4.12
5.11). This pattern reveals that 2.21b-25 provides the main focus
Christ as a model of non-violence. However, this conclusion needs to
be weighed against the practice of Greco-Roman rhetoric in placing the
main point either at the beginning or ending of the body of a work,
not in the middle.
Thurn (1990) classifies 1 Peter as epideictic rhetoric because it is
designed to reinforce the religious and ethical values that the audience
already holds rather than convince it to adopt new ones. He uses both
ancient and modern rhetoric to determine the function of the ambiguous expressions in 1 Peter, for example, whether the participles are
indicative (encouraging) or imperative (exhorting). He believes that
these ambiguous expressions are the key to the authors rhetorical
191
strategy. By using ambiguity the author is able to address simultaneously two distinct groups in the audience and their individual responses to suffering: those passively assimilating to the world in order
to avoid suffering and those actively avenging their injustice and incurring yet more suffering. To the passive group the author critiques unacceptable elements of pagan culture to persuade it away from undue
assimilation, and teaches it that suffering is part of the Christian life.
To the active group he upholds acceptable elements of pagan culture
to persuade it to increase assimilation in order to maintain contact and
continue missionary work. Ambiguous expressions enable each group
to hear the message differently according to its predisposition. Thurn
outlines the letter as exordium (1.1-12); argumentatio aimed mainly at
the passive group (1.132.10), the active group (2.113.12), and both
groups in the audience (3.134.11, 4.125.7); and peroratio (5.8-14).
Some crucial questions arise in the course of Thurns study. Ancient
discussions of ambiguity focus on its various uses in a single word or
group of words (e.g. jest and word-play) scattered throughout a discourse. What is the viability of understanding an entire ancient text as
using a sophisticated rhetorical strategy based on ambiguity derived
from modern rhetoric? Has Thurn uncovered an ancient authors
deliberate rhetorical strategy or an ingenious way for modern readers
to read the text on another level? Would an ancient audience have read
or heard the text in the sophisticated fashion described or simply have
noticed a few instances of ambiguity as part of wit and style?
Thompson (1994) classifies 1 Peter as a sermon and analyzes it according to Greco-Roman rhetoric and the methodology of Kennedy
(1984). As indicated by its conclusion (5.12), the letter is meant to
exhort (parakale) and testify (epimartyre). It is hortatory literature
with the deliberative purpose of encouraging the audience to a certain
course of actionmaintaining hope and good works in spite of suffering (2.13-15, 20; 3.17). The stasis of the argument is one of quality,
for it concerns the nature of the communitys endurance of suffering
and the behavior appropriate to an exile community. Although the typical elements of rhetorical arrangement are not present, 1.3-9 operates
like an exordium, 1.10-12 like a narratio, 1.135.5 like a probatio, and
5.6-11 like a peroratio. The subsections of the probatio are each constructed as exhortation to prescribed conduct subsequently grounded
by argumentation appealing to the authority of the author, community
tradition, and Scripture. The middle style characterizes the letter.
192
Apparently Thompson was unaware of Thurns work (1990) and

has some overlapping observations. However, Thurn is correct that
the exhortation has an epideictic purpose of confirming values, not a
deliberative purpose of persuading to a course of action which in this
case the audience is already pursuing. Parakale in 5.12 is an epistolary petition, not a firm indication that the rhetorical species of the
entire letter is deliberative. Thompsons identification of the stasis of the
argument as quality and defining appropriate behavior is also characteristic of epideictic rhetoric, not deliberative rhetoric.
In trying to determine the literary composition of 1 Peter, Martin
(1992) discovers three distinct clusters of metaphors common to ancient
literature. These metaphors are drawn from the overarching metaphor of the Diaspora which provides the thematic motif of 1 Peter and
describes the status of the audience. These three metaphor clusters delineate the three main sections of the middle epistolary body of 1 Peter:
the elect household of God (1.142.10), aliens in this world (2.11
3.12), and sufferers in the diaspora (3.135.11). Two images drawn
from the metaphor of the diasporaa journey to be undertaken and a
dangerous place pressuring the faithful to assimilateset the rhetorical situation and the authors dual purposes in writing: to demonstrate
conduct appropriate for the Christian eschatological journey, and to
dissuade the audience from defecting from the faith and to remain
steadfast.
In contrast to Martin, Achtemeier (1989) proposes that the controlling metaphor of 1 Peter is the Christian community as the new
people of God constituted by the Christ who suffered (and rose)
(p. 224). The first half of the metaphor contrasts the audiences past
in Greco-Roman social and religious life with its present life as the
new people of God separate from Gentiles and their customs. The second half provides a model in the suffering of Christ for present
behavior, as well as contrasts the audiences present suffering with the
greater future glory Christ now enjoys. The argumentation and exhortation assure the audience that as long as it remains faithful, just as the
present transformed the past, so the future will transform the present
and its suffering.
More recently, Thurn (1995a) provides a second provocative analysis of 1 Peter. First he gathers the motivating expressions of the commands and parenesis of 1 Peter using a semantic method. Then he uses a
modified form of S.E. Toulmins theory of argumentation (1958) and
193
a rhetorical perspective to analyze the argumentation. The results of the

analysis of the argumentation are systematized to yield the ideological
level behind the text which serves the parenesis. In order to elicit right
attitudes and behavior, this ideological level offers the audience a dual
line of motivation, one that is both positive (e.g. thankfulness and
praise) and negative (e.g. deprivation of final salvation). With increasing emphasis upon the ideology of New Testament texts, Thurn
offers one method of determining that ideology.
2 Peter
Watson (1988) observes that 2 Peter is the product of a studied use of
the conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. The letter seeks to counter
an eschatological crisis caused by the delay of the parousia of Christ
and the infiltration of the audience by false teachers (2.1) whose solution to the crisis was denial of the apostolic preaching of the parousia
altogether (1.16-21; 3.1-4, 8-13) and the judgment expected to accompany it (2.3b-10; 3.1-7), with immoral behavior being one consequence
(2.10b-22). The letter is mainly deliberative rhetoric intended to advise
the members of the audience to adhere to the promises of Christ and
the apostolic tradition, and dissuade them from accepting the teaching
and behavior of the false teachers. However, like most ancient letters,
the letter is a mixture of several rhetorical species. Judicial rhetoric is
used to refute the false teachers and to affirm the parousia and judgment as eschatological realities (1.162.10a; 3.1-13). Epideictic rhetoric is used to shame the false teachers and lessen their ethos (2.10b22). The stasis of the argument is one of quality: determining the truth
of the apostolic doctrines of the parousia and its judgment.
The arrangement of the letter is epistolary prescript (1.1-2); exordium (1.3-15) upholding apostolic doctrine for remembrance and
topics for further development; probatio (1.163.13) refuting the doctrinal challenges of the false teachers and confirming apostolic doctrine,
using a variety of proofs including eyewitness testimony, documents,
example, and enthymemes; and peroratio (3.14-18) summing up key
points and eliciting emotion. The style is grand, being vigorous and
highly repetitive, and amplifying the entire argumentative scheme.
The letter is a creative mixture of genres. It is at once a pseudonymous letter and farewell address. In the post-apostolic era the author
assumes the guise of the Apostle Peter, grouping himself with the apostles (1.16-19; 3.2-4), especially Paul (3.15-16). The farewell address
194
shares the purposes of deliberative rhetoric in persuading the audience

to adhere to the tradition and ethics of the community. The author
molds the testament so that the arguments and behavior of the false
teachers can be refuted specifically as if they had been prophesied,
which he can then refute using the futuristic use of the present. The letter gives us a glimpse into early Christian apologetics and rhetorical
approach to false teaching in the post-apostolic era, probably in Rome.
Neyrey (1993) accepts Watsons rhetorical outline and combines
many elements of the rhetorical analysis with insights from cultural
anthropology, social science, and ancient rhetoric. Second Peter is described as an apology and polemic justifying prophecies of the parousia
and Gods judgment against Epicurean (or similar) theodicy which
denied divine judgment, survival after death, and postmortem retribution. The author applies an antitheodicy stance commonly used by
contemporary Jews and Greeks to respond to similar theodicy.
After discussing the role of stylistics in New Testament interpretation, Thurn (1996) examines the role of style in 2 Peter. He agrees
with Watson (1988) that 2 Peter is in the grand style, and even goes
further in calling it the best representative of Asian rhetoric in the
Bible (p. 340 n. 65). He moves beyond the description of the style of
2 Peter to the function of the forceful style in relation to the rhetorical situation. He notes that in borrowing from Jude the pseudonymous
author changed the style of the material from the middle to the grand.
Also, the portions of the letter that epistolary theory indicates reveal
the main purpose of writing stress the ethos of Peter and the apostles
(1.12-15; 3.1-2, 15b-16). The grand and noble style enhances the ethos
of the author, undergirds the reliability of Peters message and the
apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament, and consolidates the audiences adherence to this ethos. By virtue of his stylistically enhanced
ethos, the authors presentation of the false teachers denial of apostolic preaching of the parousia and the resulting immorality decreases
their ethos. The unexpectedly forceful, explicit emphasis on ethos in
these key sentences lets us suggest that the ethos in 2 Peter is not so
much a means as an end in itself (p. 344).
Jude
In spite of its small size, Jude has been the subject of several rhetorical
analyses. Watson (1988) observes that Jude adapts Jewish-Christian
topics and authoritative sources within the confines of contemporary
195
rhetorical conventions and practice. Jude addresses the problem of the

infiltration of the audience by itinerant prophets or teachers who rejected the authority of the Law of Moses and Christ himself, with one
consequence being sexual immorality (vv. 4, 8-10, 16). It is deliberative rhetoric advising the audience to contend for the apostolic faith
(v. 3) and dissuading it from following the teaching and practices of
the false teachers. The stasis or basis of the argumentation is quality,
showing that the words and deeds of the false teachers are ungodly and
subject to judgment. In order to destroy the ethos of the false teachers,
Jude also employs epideictic rhetoric to denounce them as akin to notorious sinners of history and the subject of prophetic judgments.
Jude begins with an epistolary prescript (vv. 1-2) and an exordium
(v. 3) using a petition to give the main reason for writing as contending for the apostolic faith. These are followed by the narratio (v. 4)
providing the infiltration of false teachers in the audience as the
reason for contending for the faith. The narratio provides the main
propositions: (1) the false teachers are ungodly and subject to judgment, and (2) they are the ungodly whose presence and judgment in
the last days has been foretold. Then follows the probatio (vv. 5-16)
which uses a variety of proofs from example (vv. 5-10) and prophecy
(vv. 11-13, 14-16) to prove that the false teachers are the ungodly
prophesied to come in the last days and that they will be judged for
their rejection of authority and sexual immorality. The peroratio (vv.
17-23) reiterates the main points and instructs the audience on how to
respond to the crisis. The letter closes with a doxology as an epistolary postscript (vv. 24-25). Style, especially the use of strong metaphors and triads, plays an important role in proving and amplifying
that the false teachers are ungodly. The letter gives us a glimpse into
early Jewish-Christian polemic and rhetorical approach to opponents.
As with 2 Peter, Neyrey (1993) accepts Watsons rhetorical outline
and combines many elements of the rhetorical analysis with insights
from cultural anthropology, social science, and ancient rhetoric.
Neyrey argues that Jude is perhaps better classified as judicial rhetoric
(p. 27). However, the fact that the letter is a petition to contend for
the faith indicates a deliberative intent. Neyrey argues that Jude is a
response to a realized eschatology which claimed that the resurrection
had occurred and rejected the future judgment of the saints.
Wolthuis (1989) presents a dialogue between Cicero and Jude. In
the dialogue Jude argues that the letter is not consciously rhetorical in
196
structure. It is intriguing that Cicero analyzes the letter according to

Watsons analysis of species of rhetoric, invention, arrangement, and
stylistic elements. However, Wolthuis argues that Judes persuasive
techniques can be explained as the use of Jewish midrash under the
informal experience of Greco-Roman rhetoric within Hellenistic culture. I would argue that the detail of the conformity to Greco-Roman
practice, down to the distribution of topics and sophisticated use of
style, indicates formal study. Also, recent studies of midrash observe
that the citation of a biblical verse is central to midrash as a genre.
Midrash came into being in the second century CE in rabbinic Judaism
in school settings and was not used in worship settings of the first century C E as homilies or as polemical tracts. To classify Judes
argumentation as midrashic is anachronistic. Since rabbis used
Hellenistic modes of argumentation in the New Testament era, placing
Jude in the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition as filtered through
Judaism seems more appropriate, even if some of these characteristics
of argumentation were later shared with midrash.
Joubert (1995) classifies Jude as epideictic rhetoric, but this classification neglects the careful argumentative strategy which is atypical of
epideictic rhetoric. He emphasizes the positivenegative presentation
strategy of the letter: the positive presentation (laudatio) of the congregation as faithful to apostolic tradition and possessing Gods Spirit
versus the negative presentation (vituperatio) of the opponents as intruders in the church rejected by God. This strategy gives the faithful
the opportunity to live within the image of themselves projected by
the text and reject the opponents and their teachings.
Wendland (1994) analyzes Watsons classically oriented rhetorical
analysis and compares it to the commentary of Richard Bauckham
(1983) which Wendland (but not Bauckham) claims is in the school of
rhetorical criticism as practiced by James Muilenburg and followers,
especially in its attention to repetition and stylistic devices. The comparison shows how differences in method and emphasis lead to different understandings of the overall discourse structure and purpose of
Jude. Wendlands own macrostructural analysis finds that the entire
letter progresses as an extended structural and thematic chiasm or introversion, with retrogression of previously introduced topics recursively recycled in order to reinforce the topics and the purpose of the
letter as a whole. The woe oracle of v. 11 is the affective or connotative apex of the letter, and the appeal of vv. 22-23 is the thematic or
197
conceptual apex of the letter. He urges an interdisciplinary approach

to analysis, including classical and modern rhetoric, discourse analysis,
and speech-act theory.
In his recent monograph, Charles (1993: 25-42) discusses the rhetoric of Jude in dialogue with Watsons analysis and the literary strategies in Jude in general. He agrees that Jude is predominantly deliberative with some epideictic elements, but adds that the accusations, woe,
and sentencing in the letter are judicial. However, these are better
explained as elements of vituperation characteristic of epideictic rhetoric. His rhetorical outline is virtually the same as Watsons, but he
defines the exordium as the letter prescript (vv. 1-2) and expands the
narratio to include v. 3 (vv. 3-4). This neglects the epistolary elements
of the letter. The petition of v. 3 and its background in v. 4 form a natural exordium and narratio respectively. Like Wolthuis (1989), he finds
the inventional strategy of Jude more in tune with Jewish midrash than
Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions. Charless article (1991) is in
many ways a summation of chapter 2 of his monograph, much of which
I have just described.
Webb (1996) explores the rhetorical and social functions of salvation and judgment in the eschatology of Jude within the overall strategy of the letter. The rhetorical function of the eschatological judgment
is to convince the readers to judge the intruders as ungodly, while the
rhetorical function of salvation is to assure the readers that their salvation is safe. They will not be judged as long as they do not follow
the ungodly intruders. The social function of salvation and judgment
is to produce an us and them distinction between the readers and the
intruders to encourage the former to separate from the latter.
The Johannine Epistles
The Johannine Epistles address a schism within the Johannine community caused by secessionists who were espousing a corrupt Christology
and becoming morally indifferent. Vouga (1990a, 1990b) proposes that
1 John is deliberative rhetoric and has the following outline: epistolary
prescript (1.1-4); exordium (captatio benevolentiae) (1.52.17) which
gives the content of the revelation announced in the prescript; narratio
(2.18-27) explaining the implications of the schism within the community; propositio (2.28-29) concerning abiding in Christ; probatio
(3.1-24) confirming the convictions of the exordium and interpreting
the situation to show that the letter is justified; exhortatio (4.1-21)
198
exhorting the churches to preserve the unity of the community through

discerning the spirits in the knowledge of Christ; peroratio urging the
maintenance of unity through faithfulness to Johannine teachings (5.112); epistolary conclusion (5.13); and epistolary postscript (5.14-21).
However, 1 John is not deliberative rhetoric because by all indications
the audience is composed of those who remained faithful in the schism
and do not need to be persuaded to return. Not arriving at the probatio
until close to halfway through the presentation is not expected either.
In fact, in 1.5 the author begins the message he is intending to write
about (cf. 2.1) which indicates that the probatio begins in 1.5.
Watson (1991) suggests that the author of 1 John employs epideictic
rhetoric in order to bolster the compliance of the faithful to the received Christology and ethics of the Johannine community by upholding these as honorable and beneficial. Quality is the stasis or basis of
the letter, for the author inquires into the true nature of Jesus Christ
and the ethical walk that Christs nature requires of his followers, as
well as the nature of the aberrant Christology and ethics. He asserts that
pursuing the former is the best course of action. The exordium (1.1-4)
establishes the authority of the discourse as grounded upon the testimony of eyewitnesses of the revelation of the word of life. The probatio
(1.55.12) affirms the received teachings of the Johannine community
and refutes those of the secessionists. The composition of the probatio
is typical of epideictic rhetoric. It includes propositions advanced as
certain, antitheses, enthymemes, and exhortation, with the topics being
highly amplified. The peroratio (5.13-21) reiterates key points made
and proposes the policies that the audience should pursue in light of
them.
Watson (1993a) demonstrates that the repetitive and emphatic nature
of 1 John is explained by the authors use of Greco-Roman amplification techniques as a major component of his inventional strategy. Virtually every rhetorical technique for amplification in antiquity is utilized in 1 John. Expolitio, or dwelling on a point and yet appearing to
be saying something new, is the dominant technique. This may be the
case because expolitio is versatile and was central to the exercises of
progymnasmata in rhetorical school. Amplification functions in epideictic rhetoric to strengthen adherence to traditional and honorable
truths and weaken adherence to aberrant dishonorable substitutes. In 1
John the amplification clarifies Johannine tradition through repetition
and emphasis of themes and topics, drawing subtle distinctions between
199
Johannine tradition and its aberrant forms as taught by the secessionists. It helps the audience clarify where their allegiance should be
maintained.
Klauck (1990) qualifies the work of Vouga and Watson on the Johannine Epistles, arguing for the structural priority of the epistolary form.
He does not question the use of style in these letters or the value of
stylistic analysis for exegesis. He does, however, question the assumption that Greco-Roman rhetorical invention and arrangement are found
in the detail proposed for these letters. He classifies 1 John as deliberative rhetoric rather than epideictic and outlines the letter as prescript
(1.1-4), captatio benevolentiae (1.52.17), narratio (2.18-27), propositio (2.28-29), probatio (3.1-24), exhortatio (4.1-21), and peroratio
(5.1-12). He does not include 5.13-21 within his scheme. York (1993:
60-76) provides an extensive comparison of the work of Watson and
Klauck on the rhetoric of 1 John.
Neufeld (1994) rightly claims that the interpretation of a text is
restricted by the assumption that its language must be anchored in its
historical context in order for its meaning and significance to be
recovered. He moves beyond the interpretation of the Christology and
ethics of 1 John solely within the context of the construction of the
historical and theological development of Johannine community and
controversies within it. He applies a modified version of speech-act
theory to two groups of passages in 1 Johnchristological confessions
and ethical exhortations. Speech-act theory is interested in the power
of language to make commitments, shape the self, and create new patterns of speech and conduct (p. 5). The text not only reflects reality,
it creates reality. Neufeld argues that the author of 1 John incorporates a number of speech-acts in boasts, denials, and confessions to
create a literary world of an apocalyptic kind. This world delimits the
boundaries of proper and improper confession and ethical behavior
and the apocalyptic consequences of each, often relying heavily upon
antithesis for clarification. When entering this world the readers are
encouraged to transform their understanding of God, Jesus, the world,
their speech, and their conduct. They are challenged to create a proper
confession and ethical behavior rather than become alienated from
God.
The Presbyter wrote 2 John to address further the problem of secessionists sending missionaries to outlying churches in the Johannine
Community (vv. 7, 10; cf. 3 John). Watson (1989a) analyzes 2 John
200
with careful attention to the interrelationship of ancient epistolary

conventions and rhetorical theory. He proposes that 2 John is a letter
of exhortation and advice, of the subtype of parenetic letter (as defined
by Pseudo-Libanius and Pseudo-Demetrius). The Presbyter uses deliberative rhetoric to advise the audience that the most beneficial and expedient course of action is to love one another (v. 5), maintain the teachings of the community so as not to lose eternal life and fellowship
with the Father and the Son (vv. 8-9), and not to even give the visiting
teachers a hearing. Any other course of action would result in sharing
in the wicked deeds of the secessionists (v. 11) and becoming an antichrist (v. 7). The stasis of the argument is quality, for it concerns
whether or not the Christology of the secessionists is appropriate for
the Christian life.
The letter is arranged rhetorically as epistolary prescript (vv. 1-3);
exordium (v. 4) giving the main topic as walking in the truth; narratio
(v. 5) petitioning the audience to adhere to the love commandment
which embodies the proper understanding of Christology and ethics;
probatio (vv. 6-11) using exhortation and amplification to persuade
the audience to adhere to the love commandment and not to extend the
secessionists hospitality or give them a hearing; peroratio (v. 12) amplifying the importance of the message; and epistolary postscript (v. 13).
The exordium and narratio conform to the letter body opening and
share its function of introducing the main reason for writing, the
probatio conforms to the body middle and its function of developing
topics related to the reason for writing, and the peroratio conforms to
the body closing of the letter which summarizes topics previously
presented.
The Presbyter wrote 3 John because a leader of an outlying Johannine community church, Diotrephes, refused to receive missionaries
from the Johannine community and ordered the members of his church
to do the same (vv. 9-10). The Presbyter urges a Christian named Gaius
to continue extending hospitality (vv. 5-8, 11-12). Watson (1989b) proposes that 3 John is a mixed letter, exhibiting characteristics of several
types of letters (as defined by Pseudo-Libanius and Pseudo-Demetrius)
including the friendly, requesting, advisory or parenetic, commendatory, praising, encouraging, vituperative, and accusing. Third John is
epideictic rhetoric of praise and blame. It commends Gaius for his
hospitality and encourages him to continue to extend it, and accuses
Diotrephes for his refusal to extend hospitality and rejecting the
201
authority of the Presbyter. The stasis is quality because it pertains to

the nature and necessity of hospitality. The letter is composed of an
epistolary prescript (v. 1); an exordium (vv. 2-4) praising Gaius for
walking in the truth; a narratio (vv. 5-6) praising Gaius for hospitality
and petitioning him to continue extending it; a probatio (vv. 7-12)
demonstrating the need for hospitality, amplifying Gaiuss hospitality,
and denouncing the lack of the same by Diotrephes; a peroratio
(vv. 13-14) emphasizing the importance of the message; and epistolary
postscript (v. 15). As in 1 John the exordium and narratio form the
letter body opening, the probatio the body middle, and the peroratio
the body closing.
Conclusion
Rhetorical criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles gives us a
glimpse of the early churchs use of rhetoric for self-definition against
Judaism and Hellenism, for the inculcation of its distinctive values and
ideology, for addressing everything from apathy to suffering, and for
polemic against opposition both from within and without. The rhetorical sophistication and creativity of these authors is high. Advances
made in the rhetorical criticism of these works have moved the field
of rhetorical criticism of the New Testament toward maturity and
aided interpretation at several levels. These advances have been illustrated in the preceding discussion and seven are gathered here for
emphasis and clarification.
(1) There is a move beyond simplistic labeling of a New Testament
letter as one of the three rhetorical species. It is recognized that these
letters are mixed letters, that is, they use all three species of rhetoric.
These species themselves were not delineated adequately in antiquity
and overlap in function. For example, encomium of an individual not
only has the epideictic purpose of praise and affirming social values,
but the deliberative purpose of encouraging the audience to take the
course of action of living likewise.
(2) There is a move beyond simply labeling individual arguments
from logos, ethos, and pathos (which is still important) to identifying
larger argumentation patterns and rhetorical strategies and their functions. For example, comparison in Hebrews is now placed within the
broader use of synkrisis (comparison) as a genre.
202
(3) We are witnessing a shift from conscripting rhetorical criticism

for description of stylistic figures to a full appreciation that style is
integral to rhetorical invention and the function of a work. Stylistic
analysis is no longer seen as regressive as it was in the earlier part of
this century when rhetorical analysis was limited to style. It has moved
still further from description to functional concerns. For example, the
grand style of 2 Peter is now understood to function to increase the
ethos of the author, of Peter, the apostles, and the message they present, and to decrease the ethos of those who oppose them.
(4) Our understanding and use of Greco-Roman rhetoric is no longer
limited primarily to rhetorical handbooks, but is supplemented with
comparative work with actual rhetorical works. A fuller picture of
the rhetoric of the New Testament letters, both in conformity to and
divergence from convention and practice, is possible. For example,
the study of the rhetoric of Hebrews, which does not conform in invention and arrangement to the conventions of the rhetorical handbooks,
took a noticeable step forward when compared to actual encomiastic
documents using synkrisis.
(5) There is a greater awareness of the interrelationship between
literary genres and their forms and rhetoric. The interrelationship of
rhetoric and the epistolary and apocalyptic genres, the forms of parenesis, and pseudonymity to name a few are being explored with greater
sophistication. For example, parenesis in Hebrews is found to be integral to a comparative (synkrisis) rhetorical scheme, not a literary feature that is a remnant of Jewish wisdom literature with an undetermined
literary function. Another example is pseudonymity which enables 2
Peter to function as a teaching tool.
(6) There has been a move beyond description of rhetorical features to analysis of their function in a text. For example, rather than
simply noting metaphors as figures of speech in 1 Peter, their function
within the text is now the focus.
(7) There has been an accelerating move from analyzing New Testament letters solely using Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions to
using a variety of modern rhetoric in combination with other disciplines. For example, in his study of 1 John, York (1993) notes the many
similarities between the rhetorical and discourse analysis of the structure of 1 John and proposes an interdisciplinary method that synthesizes the two. At this time the advent of socio-rhetorical criticism
203
(Robbins 1996a, 1996b) is the most exciting and comprehensive interdisciplinary method available in which rhetoric plays a central role.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achtemeier, P.J.
1989
Newborn Babes and Living Stones: Literal and Figurative in 1 Peter,
in M.P. Horgan and P.J. Kobelski (eds.), To Touch the Text: Biblical
and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (New York:
Crossroad) 207-36.
Attridge, H.W.
1986
The Uses of Antithesis in Hebrews 8-10, in G.W.E. Nickelsburg and
G.W. MacRae (eds.), Christians among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in
Honor of Krister Stendahl on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press) 1-9.
1989
The Epistle to the Hebrews (ed. H. Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press).
1990
Paraenesis in a Homily ( logos paraklses): The Possible Location of,
and Socialization in, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Semeia 50: 211-26.
Aune, D.E.
1987
The New Testament in its Literary Environment (LEC, 8; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press).
Baasland, E.
1988
Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des
Jakobusbriefes, ANRW, II.25.5: 3646-84.
Bauckham, R.
1983
Jude, 2 Peter (WBC, 50; Waco, TX: Word Books).
Black, C.C.
1988
The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian
Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills, HTR 81: 1-18.
Bligh, J.
1966
Chiastic Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heythrop College,
England: Athenaeum).
Charles, J.D.
1991
Literary Artifice in the Epistle of Jude, ZNW 82: 106-24.
1993
Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (Scranton, PA: University of
Scranton Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Presses).
Cosby, M.R.
1988a
The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light of
Example Lists in Antiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press).
1988b
The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews 11, JBL 107: 257-73.
Deissmann, A.
1927
Light from the Ancient East (trans. L.R.M. Shacham; New York:
Doian).
deSilva, D.A.
1995
Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in
204

the Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS, 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Dibelius, M.
1976
Elliott, J.H.
1993
Ellul, D.
1990
Evans, C.F.
1988
Garuti, P.
1994
1995a
1995b
Gieger, L.G.
1981
James (rev. H. Greeven; trans. M.A. Williams; ed. H. Koester;

Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective:
Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication, BTB 23: 71-81.
Un exemple de cheminement rhtorique: 1 Pierre, RHPR 70: 17-34.
The Theology of Rhetoric: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Friends of Dr
Williamss Library, Lecture 42; London: Dr Williamss Trust).
Ebrei 7,1-28: Un problema giuridico, DivThom 97: 9-105.
Alcune strutture argomentative nella Lettera agli Ebrei, DivThom 98:
197-224.
Alle origini dellomiletica Cristiana. La Lettera agli Ebrei: Note di
analisi retorica (SBFAn, 38; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press).
Figures of Speech in the Epistle of James: A Rhetorical and Exegetical
Analysis (PhD dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary).
Joubert, S.J.
1995
Persuasion in the Letter of Jude, JSNT 58: 75-87.
Kennedy, G.A.
1984
New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press).
Klauck, H.-J.
1990
Zur rhetorischen Analyse der Johannesbriefe, ZNW 81: 205-24.
Lane, W.
1991
Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC, 47a, 47b; Waco, TX: Word Books).
Lindars, B.
1989
The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews, NTS 35: 382-406.
Mack, B.L.
1990
Rhetoric and the New Testament (Guides to Biblical Scholarship;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Martin, T.W.
1992
Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter (SBLDS, 131; Atlanta: Scholars
Press).
Neufeld, D.
1994
Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of 1 John (BIS, 7;
Leiden: Brill).
Neyrey, J.H.
1993
2 Peter, Jude (AB, 37C; New York: Doubleday).
Nissil, K.
1979
Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebrerbrief: Eine exegetische
Untersuchung (Schriften der finnischen exegetischen Gesellschaft, 33;
Helsinki: Oy Liiton Kirjapaino).
Olbricht, T.H.
1993
205
Hebrews as Amplification, in S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.),

Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg
Conference (JSNTSup, 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 37587.
Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca
1969
The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson
and P. Weaver; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press).
Robbins, V.K.
1996a
Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical
Interpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International).
1996b
The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and
Ideology (London: Routledge).
Seid, T.W.
1996
The Rhetorical Form of the Melchizedek/Christ Comparison in
Hebrews 7 (PhD dissertation, Brown University).
Soden, H. von
1899
Hebrerbrief, Briefe des Petrus, Jakobus, Judas (HNT, 3.2; Leipzig
and Tbingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 3rd rev. edn ).
Spicq, C.
1952
LEptre aux Hbreux (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 2nd edn, 1952
1953).
Thompson. J.W.
1994
The Rhetoric of 1 Peter, ResQ 36: 237-50.
Thurn, L.
1990
The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter: With Special Regard to Ambiguous
Expressions (bo: bo Akademi).
1995a
Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian
Paraenesis (JSNTSup, 114; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
1995b
Risky Rhetoric in James?, NovT 37: 262-84.
1996
Style Never Goes Out of Fashion: 2 Peter Re-Evaluated, in S.E.
Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.) Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology:
Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference (JSNTSup, 131; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press) 329-47.
Toulmin, S.
1958
The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
belacker, W.
1989
Der Hebrerbrief als Appell. I. Untersuchungen zu exordium, narratio,
und postscriptum (Hebr 12 und 13,22-25) (ConBNT, 21; Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell).
Van Der Westhuizen, J.D.N.
1991
Stylistic Techniques and Their Functions in James 2.14-26, Neot 25:
89-107.
Vanhoye, A.
1963
La structure littraire de lptre aux Hbreux (StudNeot, 1; Paris:
Descle de Brouwer [rev. edn, 1976]).
206
1989
Vouga, F.
1990a
1990b

Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Subsidia Biblica,
12; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
Die Johannesbriefe (HNT, 15.3; Tbingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).

La rception de la thologie johannique dans les ptres, in J.-D.
Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet and J. Zumstein (eds.), La communaut
johannique et son histoire: La trajectoire de lvangile de Jean aux deux
premiers sicles (Le Monde de la Bible; Geneva: Labor et Fides) 283302.
Wachob, W.H.
1993
The Rich in Faith and The Poor in Spirit: The Socio-Rhetorical
Function of a Saying of Jesus in the Epistle of James (PhD
dissertation, Emory University).
Watson, D.F.
1988
Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2
Peter (SBLDS, 104; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
1989a
A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John According to Greco-Roman
Convention, NTS 35: 104-30.
1989b
A Rhetorical Analysis of 3 John: A Study in Epistolary Rhetoric, CBQ
51: 479-501.
1991
An Epideictic Strategy for Increasing Adherence to Community
Values: 1 John 1.12.27, PEGLMBS 11: 144-52.
1993a
Amplification Techniques in 1 John: The Interaction of Rhetorical
Style and Invention, JSNT 51: 99-123.
1993b
James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation, N T S
39: 94-121.
1993c
The Rhetoric of James 3.1-12 and a Classical Pattern of
Argumentation, NovT 35: 48-64.
1995
Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles Since 1975, CR: BS 3:
219-48.
Watson, D.F., and A.J. Hauser
1994
Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with
Notes on History and Method (BIS, 4; Leiden: Brill).
Webb, R.L.
1996
The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude and Its Rhetorical and Social
Functions, BBR 6: 139-51.
Wendland, E.R.
1994
A Comparative Study of Rhetorical Criticism, Ancient and
ModernWith Special Reference to the Larger Structure and Function
of the Epistle of Jude, Neot 28: 193-228.
Wills, L.
1984
The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early
Christianity, HTR 77: 277-99.
Wuellner, W.H.
1978
Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatik, LB 43:
5-66.
Wolthuis, T.R.

1989
York, H.W.
1993
207
Jude and the Rhetorician: A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of the

Epistle of Jude, Calvin Theological Journal 24: 126-34.
An Analysis and Synthesis of the Exegetical Methods of Rhetorical

Criticism and Discourse Analysis as Applied to the Structure of First
John (ThD dissertation, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary).
Copyright of Currents in Research: Biblical Studies is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

[CR:BS 5 (1997) 175-207]

RHETORICAL CRITICISM OF HEBREWS

Throughout this century in Europe there has been sporadic interest in

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

(1) Determine the boundaries of the rhetorical unit by noting signs

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

rhetoric necessitated by the contingencies of public rhetorical practice

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

orical training is being determined by the skill exhibited in Hebrews,

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Paraclesis relies upon a pattern of introduction, citation, expository

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

Aune (1987: 213) states that

Although Aune too quickly dismisses typical patterns of epideictic and

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

While rejecting his proposal that Hebrews is modeled on the funeral

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

studies. James begins with an multifaceted introduction (1.1-12). The

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Herennium, and works of Hermogenes. In these three sections the

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

argumentatio (2.15.6) develops the two themes of the exordium in

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

Apparently Thompson was unaware of Thurns work (1990) and

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

a rhetorical perspective to analyze the argumentation. The results of the

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

shares the purposes of deliberative rhetoric in persuading the audience

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

rhetorical conventions and practice. Jude addresses the problem of the

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

structure. It is intriguing that Cicero analyzes the letter according to

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

conceptual apex of the letter. He urges an interdisciplinary approach

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

exhorting the churches to preserve the unity of the community through

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

with careful attention to the interrelationship of ancient epistolary

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

authority of the Presbyter. The stasis is quality because it pertains to

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

(3) We are witnessing a shift from conscripting rhetorical criticism

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

James (rev. H. Greeven; trans. M.A. Williams; ed. H. Koester;

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Hebrews as Amplification, in S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.),

Currents in Research 5 (1997)

Die Johannesbriefe (HNT, 15.3; Tbingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).

W ATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews

Jude and the Rhetorician: A Dialogue on the Rhetorical Nature of the

An Analysis and Synthesis of the Exegetical Methods of Rhetorical

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen