-
[CR:BS 5 (1997) 175-207]
RHETORICAL CRITICISM OF HEBREWSAND THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES SINCE
1978
Duane F. WatsonDepartment of Religion and Philosophy,
Malone College, Canton, Ohio 44709
Throughout this century in Europe there has been sporadic
interest inthe rhetorical criticism of Hebrews. The work of Keijo
Nissil (1979)turned sporadic interest in the rhetoric of Hebrews
into sustainedexamination. The rhetorical criticism of the Catholic
Epistles is onlyvery recent. Wilhelm Wuellners investigation of the
rhetoric of James(1978) began the modern rhetorical study of the
Catholic Epistles andgives us the starting date for our discussion.
Even so, Wuellner wasahead of his time and other rhetorical
analyses of the Catholic Epistlesdid 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 dis-covery is not limited to description of the
rhetoric as was the case inthe infancy of the endeavor, but has
turned to determining its functionas well. As rhetorical criticism
of these letters matures, our under-standing of their rhetorical
and historical contexts, as well as theirsocial, cultural, and
ideological fabric is branching out in new direc-tions. With a
better understanding of the rhetorical strategies of theseletters
and new readings of them comes a greater appreciation of thelight
they shed on the struggles of the early church and their value
forthe contemporary church.
This article has four main objectives. The first is to identify
and assesscurrent issues in the rhetorical criticism of Hebrews and
the CatholicEpistles. The second is to summarize important articles
and books thatanalyze 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 sum-mary conclusion of the advances in rhetorical criticism of
the NewTestament that are reflected in, and advanced by, these
studies. Thefourth is to provide a bibliography of these important
studies in hopesof spurring further research that they abundantly
suggest (for furtherbibliography, see Watson and Hauser 1994:
202-205). The article isintended as a complementary article to my
previous study in thisjournal, Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline
Epistles Since 1975(Watson 1995).
Current Issues in Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrewsand the
Catholic Epistles
The rhetorical criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles is
in-volved in several current issues of a broader scope. These
issues includethe selection of rhetorical methodology appropriate
to New Testamentinterpretation; the relationship of rhetorical and
epistolary theory inancient letters; the rhetorical training of the
biblical authors; the properassignment of New Testament letters
within ancient rhetorical tradi-tions; and the determination of
what rhetorical analysis can contributeto the study of the social,
cultural, and ideological world from whichthe New Testament
arose.
The Selection of Rhetorical MethodologyCurrent practitioners of
rhetorical criticism of these letters are usinga variety of
methodologies based on Greco-Roman rhetoric, modernrhetoric, a
combination of these two, and various combinations of rhet-oric
with a host of other methodologies. Among others, these
method-ologies include social scientific studies, semiotics,
text-linguistics, dis-course analysis, speech-act theory, and
literary criticism. The use ofGreco-Roman rhetoric has the
advantage of placing these letters in theiroral and written
culture, while the use of modern rhetoric helps con-temporary
audiences reread these letters in new and more immediateways.
To date, rhetorical criticism of the Catholic Epistles has
primarilyused the methodology of George Kennedy (1984). His method
reliesupon Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions systematized in
rhetoricalhandbooks, illustrated in speeches and letters of the
period, and basicto the education of youth. Kennedys methodology
has five steps.
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 177
(1) Determine the boundaries of the rhetorical unit by noting
signsof structure and delineation. (2) Define the rhetorical
situation whichprompted the author to write and which he or she
wanted to motivatethe audience to modify. (3) Determine the
rhetorical problem or stasisof the issue at hand and the species of
rhetoric in which the work can beclassified, whether judicial
(accusation and defense), deliberative (per-suasion and
dissuasion), or epideictic (praise and blame). (4) Analyzeall the
intricacies of invention, arrangement, and style. Invention
isargumentation by ethos, pathos, and logos. Arrangement is the
order-ing of the main parts of the speech: the exordium
(introduction);narratio (statement of facts); the partitio
(enumeration of the proposi-tions to be discussed); the probatio
(main body, sometimes called argu-mentatio or confirmatio) which
proves the rhetors case (confirmatio)and disproves the case of any
opposition (refutatio, sometimes calledconfutatio); and the
peroratio (conclusion). Style is molding languageto serve the needs
of invention. (5) Evaluate the rhetorical effective-ness of the
work in modifying the rhetorical situation through inven-tion,
arrangement, and style.
Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions had been partially
incorpo-rated by Jewish rhetorical practice before the advent of
the Christianera. In Hellenistic culture rhetoric was central to
secondary educationand public oratory. Even if a New Testament
writer had not beenformally educated, rhetorical practice was
everywhere and its formswould have been familiar. Much of Jewish
and Greco-Roman rhet-orical practice was shaped by the needs of an
oral culture. Most peo-ple were illiterate and could only hear the
message. The rhetoricalforms 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
ofrhetorical criticism of the New Testament that was lost at the
turn ofthe century. It is ideal for historical investigation of the
text. How-ever, it is well understood that the field of New
Testament needs tomove beyond it in order fully to utilize all that
rhetorical criticism hasto offer interpretation. Kennedys
methodology can and should be en-hanced by comparison of the
rhetoric of the New Testament with morethan the systematized
conventions enumerated in rhetorical handbooks.Comparison should be
made with actual speeches and written works ofa highly rhetorical
nature. These works illustrate the peculiarities of
-
178 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
rhetoric necessitated by the contingencies of public rhetorical
practiceand the rhetorical situations addressed. This alerts the
interpreter to fea-tures peculiar to the New Testament and allows
literature that sharesthose peculiar rhetorical features to
illuminate interpretation.
Many interpreters legitimately find rhetorical criticism of
Hebrewsand the Catholic Epistles using Greco-Roman rhetoric too
limited (forcritique, see Watson and Hauser 1994: 109-12; Watson
1995: 220-22).They turn to the many forms of modern rhetoric that
address thetheoretical, practical, and philosophical problems posed
by speech thatGreco-Roman rhetorical theory does not address.
Modern rhetoric isnot only the reconceptualization of Greco-Roman
rhetoric, such as theNew Rhetoric (e.g. Perelman and
Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969), but moveswell beyond it. The use of a
variety of modern rhetorics to analyzethe New Testament has proven
very insightful for rereading it in waysrelevant for contemporary
audiences. As previously mentioned, mod-ern rhetoric is often used
in combination with other related method-ologies to create new
interdisciplinary studies, and this is also true ofrhetorical
studies of the Catholic Epistles (e.g. Neufeld 1994; Thurn1990,
1995a; Wendland 1994). One recent development is socio-rhetorical
criticism as defined primarily by Robbins (1996a, 1996b).It is a
highly interdisciplinary textual analysis performed on the
innertexture, intertexture, social and cultural texture, and
ideological textureof the text. In the Catholic Epistles it makes
it debut with Wachobsstudy on James (1993) discussed below.
The Relationship between Epistolary and Rhetorical TheoryIn
Pauline studies there is considerable debate concerning the
extentthat rhetorical theory influenced the epistolary genre in
antiquity andthe extent that Paul utilized rhetorical invention,
arrangement, and stylein his letters (Watson and Hauser 1994:
120-24; Watson 1995: 222-24). However, there is virtually no debate
about rhetoric playing a rolein Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles.
It seems to be an assumed prem-ise of the majority of studies. The
use of rhetoric in these letters is notperceived as marginalized to
style and isolated argumentative strate-gies. Rather, these letters
are viewed as speeches in written form of ahighly rhetorical nature
meant to be heard by the audiences addressed.
The role of rhetoric in New Testament letters is becoming
moreaccepted as a working premise as New Testament studies move
awayfrom Adolf Deissmanns false distinction (1927: 233-51). He
catego-
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 179
rized ancient letters as either literary epistles (rhetorical)
or non-liter-ary, documentary letters (non-rhetorical), with New
Testament lettersfalling in the latter category. However, the
literary letters may be amore appropriate point of comparison for
New Testament letters. Bythe first century BCE rhetorical education
had incorporated instructionon letters and had exerted a strong
influence on epistolary compositionamong the educated (Aune 1987:
160). This influence is easily seen inHebrews and the Catholic
Epistles.
The Rhetorical Training of the AuthorsThe rhetorical
sophistication of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles hasled to
agreement that the authors of these works have done more
thanimitate written and spoken communication experienced in public
lifewhere rhetorical practice abounded. Rather, these letters are a
studiedapplication of rhetorical conventions. Several of these
authors may havereceived rhetorical training and consciously used
Greco-Roman rhet-oric. Evans (1988: 3) suggests that the author of
Hebrews while think-ing predominantly in Jewish and
Jewish-Christian categories, was morethan any other New Testament
writer influenced as to expression, andpossibly as to form, by the
rhetoric of the Greco-Roman world. Morestrongly, Aune (1987: 212)
can state of Hebrews, The author obvi-ously enjoyed the benefits of
a Hellenistic rhetorical education throughthe tertiary level.
Garuti (1995b) and Mack (1990: 77-78) show theinfluence of the
progymnasmata or elementary exercises of the educa-tional system in
Hebrews. Watson (1993b, 1993c) demonstrates thatthe author of James
used the Greco-Roman pattern of elaboration forthemes and complete
arguments as taught in secondary school withinthe progymnasmata.
Thurn (1995b: 275) claims that James is a con-scious orator. Neyrey
(1993: 41, 131) proposes that the authors of Judeand 2 Peter had
scribal training. Charles (1991: 118-20) argues thatJudes literary
and rhetorical skill may have come from formal edu-cation. He calls
Jude the product of a literary-rhetorical artist at work(p. 124).
Watson (1993a) shows that the author of 1 John used virtuallyall
the amplification techniques central to the exercises of
progym-nasmata in secondary school.
The Placement within Ancient Rhetorical TraditionsAnother issue
is the proper classification of Hebrews and the CatholicEpistles
within ancient rhetorical traditions. Should they be placed
-
180 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
within Jewish or Greco-Roman rhetorical traditions? Does this
ques-tion contain a false distinction since Greco-Roman rhetoric
had influ-enced Jewish rhetoric by the New Testament era more
extensively thanwas previously imagined? How is early Christian
rhetoric distinctivewhen compared with Jewish and Greco-Roman modes
of argumen-tation that were adapted by early Christian writers? For
example, inlight of the heavy reliance upon Jewish traditions the
rhetoric ofHebrews and Jude is difficult to categorize. Jewish
midrash is oftenthe classification, but this is too simplistic and
anachronistic. Some earlyChristian rhetoric is clearly distinctive.
Second Peter is a rare pseude-pigraph in letter form which
consciously uses Greco-Roman rhetoricto create an obvious
pseudepigraph for teaching purposes. These ques-tions cannot be
adequately answered until further research rectifiesthe lack of
broad-based and in depth studies of Jewish rhetoric in
theHellenistic period.
Insight into the Cultural, Social, and Ideological World of the
TextThere is much that rhetoric can help uncover about the
cultural, social,and ideological background of the New Testament
texts. The many waysin which an author uses rhetoric to shape a
communitys self-per-ception inform us about the values and
perceptions of that community.The values underlying the stated and
unstated premises of argumenta-tion are assumed by an author to be
shared with the community. Com-munity values and perceptions
undergird praise and denunciation,honor and shame language in a
text. These in turn establish boundariesfor community behavior. For
example, the use of standard topics ofencomium in comparing Christ
with ancient worthies of salvation his-tory in Hebrews indicates an
audience steeped in the honorshame,patronbenefactor society of the
Mediterranean (deSilva 1995). Therhetorical strategy of a text
helps discover the perception of the authorand audience in relation
to their culture, whether as members of thedominant culture, a
subculture, a counterculture, and so on. The ide-ology of a text is
uncovered through the motivations and assumptionsunderlying its
argumentation. Focusing on the function of rhetoricopens New
Testament texts to their Mediterranean culture in new ways(e.g.
Elliott 1993). Perhaps this will be one of rhetorical
criticismsmost lasting contributions to interpretation.
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 181
Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic
EpistlesHebrewsGreco-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 He-brews. Although he does not offer a rhetorical
analysis, Vanhoye (1963,1989) uses rhetorical features such as
catchwords, inclusion, and repe-tition to delineate the structural
units of Hebrews. These features areneeded to help an audience in a
predominantly oral culture hear andunderstand 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 theexample list in Heb. 11.3-40 is enhanced through a
sophisticated use ofrhetorical techniques (especially anaphora) to
make the examples mus-tered seem representative of a great many
more. The example list pro-vides the audience with famous worthies
illustrating the enduring faithencouraged in Heb. 10.19-39 and
defined in Heb. 11.1-2. The list func-tions to exhort the audience
to remain faithful to Christ and the promiseof future reward in
spite of its persecution. Mack (1990: 73-78) ana-lyzes Heb.
11.1-12.3 as an encomium on faith to encourage imitation ofthe
faithful, and he analyzes 12.4-17 as an elaboration of the
themeendurance as discipline according to the elaboration pattern
of theschool exercises or progymnasmata.
Lindars (1989) looks at the rhetorical effectiveness of
Hebrewsrather than its rhetorical structure. He classifies Hebrews
as delibera-tive rhetoric seeking to persuade a Hellenistic
Jewish-Christian churchof the Diaspora to return to the apostolic
faith and practice. Some inthe church had returned to the synagogue
and Judaism for purifi-cation, driven by an unresolved problem of a
consciousness of sin. Theauthor tries to persuade them that the
sacrifice of Christ for sin and theeffects of his sacrifice are
permanent, and they do not need to returnto Judaism for
purification. However, Lindars rejects the attempts ofSpicq (see
below) and Vanhoye to find studied rhetorical arrangementin Hebrews
(pp. 382-84). The article contains the puzzling inconsistencythat
the author had a training in and command of the art of rhetoricand
used all the skill at his command, but it is a mistake to view
[He-brews] as a product of conscious artistry (pp. 383). If the
authors rhet-
-
182 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
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 spe-cies, and overall rhetorical strategy of Hebrews are
elusive. Severalsources provide a survey of these issues (Attridge
1989: 13-21; Aune1987: 212-14; Lane 1991: I, lxxv-lxxx). Regarding
genre, Hebrewscalls itself a word of exhortation (logos ts
paraklses, 13.22), a des-ignation also used of Pauls sermon in Acts
13.15. Wills (1984) arguesthat Hebrews is a sermon or homily. In
both individual and larger unitsHebrews exhibits a threefold
pattern of Hellenistic Jewish and earlyChristian sermonic material:
(1) the presentation of scriptural quota-tions, biblical examples,
and authoritative exposition of theologicalpoints; (2) a conclusion
based on the examples which indicates theirsignificance to the
audience; and (3) exhortation based on the conclu-sion (e.g.
3.14.16; 8.110.25). While not extensively addressing thispattern in
Hebrews, Black (1988) argues that the features noted byWills are to
be placed in the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition.
Placing Hebrews within the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition
hashad a long history in Europe which often goes unnoted, but set
theagenda for modern study. Von Soden (1899: 11) proposed that
Hebrewswas judicial rhetoric and could be outlined as proemium
(1.14.13), adigsis or narratio (4.146.20), apodeixis or probatio
(7.110.18), andepilogue (10.1913.21). In his classic commentary on
Hebrews, Spicq(1952: I, 38) proposed that Hebrews was a homily
organized on thebasis of the rhetorical arrangement outlined in
Aristotle (Rhetoric3.13.1414a19.1420a): the exordium containing the
proposition orprosthesis (1.1-4); the digsis or narratio providing
the doctrinal andpsychological introduction (chs. 16); the
apodeixis or probatio con-taining arguments common to the
epideictic rhetoric and concerningChrist as priest and victim
(7.110.18); an expos persuasif on theChristian life based on the
preceding proof (10.1912.13) (an elementof arrangement not found in
Aristotle); and the peroratio or conclu-sion (12.14-29). Spicq
devoted an entire chapter to the stylistic andrhetorical devices of
the letter (I, 351-78).
Nissil (1979) classifies Hebrews as a speech conforming to the
con-ventions of ancient deliberative rhetoric. He argues that the
high priestmotif is the unifying motif of the letter. The main
structural pointaround which the letter is written is 8.1 which
explicitly upholds thehigh priesthood of Christ as the main point.
He analyzes the rhetorical
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 183
aspects of the use of the high priest motif in nine pericopes
and devisesthe following rhetorical outline: exordium (1.1-4),
narratio (1.52.18),argumentatio (3.112.29), and epilogus (13.1-25).
Building uponNissil, belacker (1989) combines rhetorical analysis
with discourseanalysis. He also argues that Hebrews is deliberative
rhetoric, for itseeks to persuade the audience to accept Jesus
sacrifice as sufficient toprovide access to God. He outlines
Hebrews as exordium (1.1-4); nar-ratio (1.52.18) with 2.17-18 as
the propositio; argumentatio with pro-batio (proof) and refutatio
(refutation) (3.112.29); peroratio (13.1-21); and postscriptum
(13.22-25). The developments regarding com-parison (synkrisis)
discussed below make it more difficult to argue thatHebrews
conforms to the standard Greco-Roman arrangement of aspeech.
Attridge (1990) demonstrates that while Hebrews exhibits
manyhortatory elements, it cannot be classified according to any of
the sub-genres of hortatory literature. In particular, the
classification of pare-nesis does not explain the relationship
between the doctrinal expositionand the exhortation. Attridge
suggests that Hebrews might be betterdefined as a homily or
paraclsis. This genre may have been created inthe synagogues of
diaspora Judaism using elements of epideictic anddeliberative
rhetoric to address the need to actualize the sacred text inthe new
social context of the Hellenistic polis.
Paraclesis, I suggest, is a newly minted rhetorical form that
actualizes tra-ditional scripture for a community in a
non-traditional environment. Itcertainly has affinities with the
classical forms of oratory, and those whoregularly practiced it
probably had some training in rhetorical art, but para-clesis is in
fact a mutant on the evolutionary trail of ancient rhetoric(p.
217).
Paraclesis relies upon a pattern of introduction, citation,
expositorydevelopment, and application or exhortation. Attridge
argues thatHebrews is mainly an epideictic oration with some
deliberative ele-ments. The citation of the Old Testament, and the
subsequent compar-ative or synkritic strategy proving the
superiority of Jesus and theevents of his life over all other
objects of comparison, form the basisof the exhortation. The
purpose of Hebrews is to keep the audiencefaithful to the Jesus
tradition and values and commitments associatedwith it in spite of
suffering social ostracism as a consequence.
-
184 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
Aune (1987: 213) states thatDespite the authors rhetorical
training and his epideictic intention, Hebrewsis 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
ourrevelation more seriously than we have. The rhetorical strategy
of theauthor is based on a comparison (synkrisis) between the old
and the new[original emphasis].
Although Aune too quickly dismisses typical patterns of
epideictic anddeliberative rhetoric in Hebrews (see Seid below), he
correctly pointsus away from simplistic classification by
rhetorical species and towardthe direction of comparison or
synkrisis and associated genres.
Evans (1988) examines the recurring, dominant role in Hebrews
ofsynkrisis or comparison. Synkrisis compares representatives of a
typein order to determine the superiority of one representative
over an-other. It is a means of praising or blaming people by
comparing themon topics of family, natural endowments, upbringing
and education,achievements, and death. Through comparison, Hebrews
shows thatChrist is superior to angels, the levitical priesthood,
and human wor-thies of salvation history. Synkrisis serves the
Christology of Hebrewsas the types of Christ are demoted or
depreciated by comparison toChrist himself in order to portray him
as the divine hero.
Olbricht (1993) also notes the role of synkrisis in Hebrews. He
clas-sifies Hebrews as epideictic rhetoric in the encomium and
comparisonof its superstructure, and as deliberative rhetoric in
its argumentationas a word of exhortation (13.22). He proposes that
Hebrews is mod-eled on the funeral orations of classical Greece and
the early churchfathers. Central to such orations was comparison of
the deceased withillustrious personages of the past in order to
prove the superior statusof the deceased. In Hebrews the comparison
of Christ with angels, thelevitical priests and sacrifices, and
worthies of salvation history servesto amplify the argument as a
whole. In each case the christological com-parison is followed by
exhortation to spiritual renewal and action basedon the
Christology. However, it can be argued that funeral orationsare not
typically as hortatory as Hebrews. They do not alternate
com-parison with exhortation as a main structural feature like
Hebrews,although the purpose of praising someone by comparison is
implicitlyto hold them up for emulation.
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 185
While rejecting his proposal that Hebrews is modeled on the
funeraloration, Seid (1996) builds upon Olbrichts observations
about synkri-sis. He rejects the typical identification of Hebrews
as a Jewish midrashor Jewish-Christian homily familiar within
Jewish literature. Instead,he classifies Hebrews as a written
speech of encomium (epideictic rhet-oric) belonging to the genre of
synkrisis within Hellenistic literatureand rhetoric. The synkrisis
alternates with exhortation (parenesis) basedon the synkrisis (as
in Plutarchs Parallel Lives) for the purpose ofmoral exhortation.
The person proven superior then becomes the modelfor imitation and
the basis of exhortation for people to progress to thevirtuous life
being portrayed. Such exhortation is found in encomia inthe Greek
protreptic tradition.
Moving beyond current thematic, literary, and linguistic
approachesto the structure of Hebrews, Seid reveals the structure
of Hebrews usingthe synkrisisparenesis alternation. With this
alternation the compar-ison is between Christ and models of the Old
Testament, showing thesuperiority of Christ over the elements of
the first covenant. The pare-nesis holds Christ up for imitation as
superior. Hebrews is structured asfollows: 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); com-parison of Aaron and
Christ (5.1-10) and parenesis (5.116.20); com-parison of
MelchizedekChrist and the levitical priesthood (7.1-25)
andparenesis (7.268.3); comparison of the first covenant and new
cove-nant (8.410.18) and parenesis (10.1912.29); and epistolary
appendix(13.1-25). This synkrisisparenesis alternation encourages
the audienceto progress in moral conduct by remaining faithful to
the greater rev-elation in Jesus Christ and emulating the models of
its Scripture, aswell as warns the audience of the greater judgment
to befall thoseunfaithful to the greater revelation. Seid brings
his study to bear onHebrews 7. In spite of the many quotations of
the Old Testament, thechapter is not midrash, but synkrisis. Using
typical topics of encomi-um, the chapter formally compares Christ
and Melchizedekan priest-hood with the levitical priesthood,
demonstrating the superiority ofthe former.
Garuti (1995b) has provided one of the most detailed discussions
ofclassical rhetoric and its use within Hebrews, including the
influenceof the progymnasmata or elementary exercises of the
educational sys-tem. A multitude of aspects of the use of style,
arrangement, and inven-tion in Hebrews are discussed, especially
those found in Hebrews 7
-
186 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
and 12. We can only hope that an English translation of this
importantwork in Italian will be made. In an article Garuti (1995a)
examines theuse of the terms parabol (symbol or type) and
hypodeigma (example,model) in Hebrews and the structure and
philosophical background ofits argumentation. In another article,
Garuti (1994) investigates therhetoric of Heb. 7.1-28 in great
detail according to invention, arrange-ment, and style.
DeSilva (1995) uses Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks and
Greekand Jewish speeches and ethical treatises to demonstrate how
the authorused honor and shame language to promote the values and
commit-ments of the audience as a minority culture against the
values of thedominant culture (as did other minority cultures like
Jewish communi-ties and Greco-Roman philosophical schools). He
classifies the letter asdeliberative rhetoric which relies upon
epideictic rhetoric. Which spe-cies of rhetoric dominates depends
in part upon the hearer: for the onecontemplating apostasy, it is
deliberative; and for the one who remainedcommitted, it is
epideictic. Hebrews is composed in the tradition of theclassical
rhetorical handbooks, but the macrostructure of Hebrews doesnot
conform to the standard elements of arrangement. However,
thealternating exposition and exhortation in the macrostructure are
linkedby concerns about honor and its role in persuasion and
dissuasion.
The addressees were in a new patronclient relationship with
Godthrough Christ with its own networks of honor and shame. The
authorsrhetorical appeal is to endure the negative sanctions of
disgrace as-cribed by the dominant society for not conforming to
its values andbehaviors which are at odds with Christian values. He
appeals for theaudience to adhere to values and behavior that are
honorable to God,their divine benefactor, and to their fellow
believers. Honor and shameplay a large part in the proofs from
pathos, as the author uses emula-tion and shame to gain audience
consent, and logos, as the authormotivates endurance through the
promise of greater honor to come.Hebrews resembles protreptic
literature in its appeal to faithfulness toa way of life already
chosen as an honorable course.
In summary, Hebrews is no longer being discussed primarily as
asynagogue homily or midrash within the Jewish rhetorical
tradition.Current study recognizes the rhetorical training and
skill of the authorand places the letter in the Greco-Roman
rhetorical tradition. The genreof the letter is typically
determined to be deliberative, but the morethat the role of
synkrisis is recognized, the more the letter is classified
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 187
as epideictic rhetoric with deliberative intent. Herein lies the
rhetor-ical strategy: praise by comparison (epideictic) is intended
by itself andthe addition of parenesis to persuade the audience to
a course of action(deliberative). The course of action upheld
includes elements of find-ing the sacrifice of Christ and the new
covenant satisfactory, emulatingChrists example, and the need to
adhere to values of the minority cul-ture established by that
covenantall similarities with Greek pro-treptic literature.
Invention, arrangement, and style are used in serviceof this
overall comparative scheme. Making Hebrews conform to thetypical
elements of arrangement now seems forced.
JamesCommentators frequently remark that James is unstructured,
evenchaotic, and often suppose that this is due to its considerable
pareneticcontent. Parenesis is typically understood as a litany of
exhortationarranged in no particular order like pearls on a string.
However, in arhetorically sophisticated text parenesis often plays
an important rolein effectively structuring the text. Consensus is
emerging that in spiteof its parenesis (or should we say in light
of it) James contains a the-matic and rhetorical unity which can be
placed within the Greco-Romanrhetorical tradition, even though
there is disagreement about how todescribe this unity.
Wuellner (1978) analyzes James using the new rhetoric and
semioticand communications theory. He argues that James is
pragmatic and itsgoal is not teaching, but recruiting. He outlines
James as epistolaryprescript (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) consistingof recapitulatio (vv. 7-8) and
peroratio proper (vv. 9-20). Modifyingthe work of Wuellner,
Baasland (1988: 3649-61) classifies James asdeliberative rhetoric,
a protreptic, wisdom speech in letter form. Hegives the outline of
exordium (1.2-18) with transitus in 1.16-18, propo-sitio (1.19-27),
confirmatio (2.1-3.12), confutatio (3.135.6), and per-oratio
(5.7-20). The figures of style used in James are numerous andserve
to clarify and amplify the argumentation. This last point is
alsoemphasized by Gieger (1981) who offers an extensive study of
thestylistic figures of James involving resemblance, change,
amplification,and condensation.
Also building upon the work of Wuellner, Elliott (1993)
discoversthe thematic cohesion of James using both rhetorical and
social scientific
-
188 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
studies. James begins with an multifaceted introduction
(1.1-12). Theintroduction contains an epistolary address and
salutation (1.1-2), astatement of the main themethe wholeness of
both the individual andthe community, and the relationship of both
to God (and by impli-cation the opposite of division and
fragmentation) (1.3-4), and relatedcontrasts (1.5-12). The main
body of James (1.135.12) consists ofexhortation in seven
subsections contrasting negative indictments ofdivision with
positive recommendations for integrity and wholeness.James
concludes with the themes of the introduction (5.13-20). Theletter
encourages the recipients to reestablish the distinctive
Christianethos 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 (1.26-27). This choice ultimately leads to wholeness and
holiness rather thandivision and the devilish on the correlated
personal, social, and cosmiclevels.
Van der Westhuizen (1991) uses Kennedys method of rhetorical
crit-icism (1984) to analyze Jas 2.14-26. He classifies this
pericope as delib-erative rhetoric because it exhorts the hearers
to action (faith withworks) and its argumentation is predominantly
from example. He iden-tifies the stasis as fact since it seeks to
answer the question: What kindof faith is real? (However, this
question as defined concerns the natureof something. This is
usually identified as the stasis of quality.) Then inmeticulous
detail, van der Westhuizen exposes the intricacies of inven-tion,
arrangement, and style in this pericope. Of particular note he
sug-gests that the pericope is a form of comparison (synkrisis),
herecomparing faith without works with faith demonstrated by works.
Thepericope is arranged as proem (v. 14), proposition (vv. 14, 17),
pos-sible narratio (vv. 15-16), proof (vv. 18-25), and epilogue (v.
26). Heemphasizes the function of style as clarifying and
amplifying the argu-mentation and addressing the rhetorical
situation.
Working independently of van der Westhuizen, Watson
(1993b,1993c) does not view a rigid application of Kennedys method
as ade-quate for fully understanding the material of Jas 2.13.12.
He demon-strates that the central portion of James (2.13.12) is
deliberative rhet-oric aimed at advising the audience to take
certain courses of actionand dissuade it from others. It contains
three sections which use theGreco-Roman pattern of elaboration for
themes and the complete argu-ment as outlined in the Rhetorica ad
Alexandrum, Rhetorica ad
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 189
Herennium, and works of Hermogenes. In these three sections
therhetor advises his audience that partiality is inconsistent with
faith (2.1-13), faith without works does not profit (2.14-26), and
not many shouldbecome teachers (3.1-12). The pattern used to
elaborate each of thesepropositions into complete arguments is:
propositio (proposition), ratio(reason for the propositio),
confirmatio (proof of the ratio by compar-ison, example, and
amplification), exornatio (embellishment of the con-firmatio), and
conplexio (conclusion drawing the argument together).The parenetic
materials and diatribal features of James are incorpo-rated into
this pattern of argumentation as key elements in the amplifi-cation
of the argument.
Wachob (1993) investigates the rhetorical scheme in Jas 2.1-13
andits appropriation of a saying of Jesus in 2.5 to address the
social issueof the conflict between the rich and poor. He uses
socio-rhetorical crit-icism as defined by Vernon Robbins (1996a,
1996b). He classifies Jamesas deliberative rhetoric and a rhetoric
that is subcultural within Jewishculture and countercultural to
Greco-Roman culture. In his study ofinner texture he discovers the
use of the elaboration of a theme orargument of the progymnasmata
in Jas 2.1-13. He agrees with Watson(1993b) on this point, although
his analysis differs somewhat in thedelineation of this pattern.
His study of intertexture shows that 2.5 is aperformance of the
Jesus chreia in Mt. 5.3 (Q). The social and cul-tural texture of
2.1-13 indicates that 2.5 establishes that Gods king-dom belongs to
the poor and determines the identity and behavior ofthe recipients.
The ideological texture of 2.5 brings the beliefs andvalues of the
recipients to bear to persuade them that partiality is
incom-patible with the Christian faith. It establishes a particular
communityself-understanding (the pious poor of Jewish piety) and
boundaries ofacceptable behavior (giving to those in need).
Thurn (1995b) challenges Dibeliuss assessment (1976: 1-11) that
asparenesis James cannot be expected to have developed themes or
ad-dress an actual situation. He claims that James is epideictic
rhetoric,reinforcing values the audience already holds. The stasis
is quality, forthe question is the credibility of the issues at
hand (e.g. joy in trial).Approaching James on the functional or
pragmatic level, he analyzesthe rhetoric of the entire letter
according to Greco-Roman categories.The exordium (1.1-18)
introduces the two central themes of persever-ance 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 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
argumentatio (2.15.6) develops the two themes of the exordium
inthree parts: 2.1-26 on money/action, 3.14.12 on wisdom/speech,
and4.135.6 supplying a climax dealing with both themes focused on
therich man. The peroratio (5.7-20) consists of recapitulatio or
reitera-tion of themes (perseverance, speech) and conquestio or
final exhor-tation (5.12-20). Thurn explains the obscurity of the
structure andmessage on the surface level of the letter as the use
of insinuatio orsubtlety in rhetorical approach to avoid being too
obvious to a rhetor-ically sophisticated audience. However, it is
more likely that Jamessimply does not conform to Greco-Roman
standards in its overallarrangement. Also, the presentation
neglects the use of the Greco-Roman pattern of elaboration for
themes and the complete argumentin 2.13.12. James is more complex
structurally than Thurn suggests.
1 PeterRhetorical analysis has recently focused upon the
function of meta-phors in 1 Peter, the various ways it can be read
by the audience, and,most recently, determining its underlying
ideology. The rhetoricalstrategy that the rhetor uses to address
churches in Asia Minor under-going local persecution has been shown
to be very sophisticated.
Ellul (1990) examines the alternation of the verbs between the
indica-tive and the imperative (proclamation and exhortation), the
repe-titions, the parallelisms, and the citations of the Old
Testament in 1Peter to determine its structure and meaning. The
letter is structured asproclamation (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 (4.125.11). This
pattern reveals that 2.21b-25 provides the main focusChrist as a
model of non-violence. However, this conclusion needs tobe weighed
against the practice of Greco-Roman rhetoric in placing themain
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 isdesigned to reinforce the religious and ethical values that
the audiencealready holds rather than convince it to adopt new
ones. He uses bothancient and modern rhetoric to determine the
function of the ambigu-ous expressions in 1 Peter, for example,
whether the participles areindicative (encouraging) or imperative
(exhorting). He believes thatthese ambiguous expressions are the
key to the authors rhetorical
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 191
strategy. By using ambiguity the author is able to address
simul-taneously two distinct groups in the audience and their
individual re-sponses to suffering: those passively assimilating to
the world in orderto avoid suffering and those actively avenging
their injustice and incur-ring yet more suffering. To the passive
group the author critiques unac-ceptable elements of pagan culture
to persuade it away from undueassimilation, and teaches it that
suffering is part of the Christian life.To the active group he
upholds acceptable elements of pagan cultureto persuade it to
increase assimilation in order to maintain contact andcontinue
missionary work. Ambiguous expressions enable each groupto hear the
message differently according to its predisposition. Thurnoutlines
the letter as exordium (1.1-12); argumentatio aimed mainly atthe
passive group (1.132.10), the active group (2.113.12), and
bothgroups in the audience (3.134.11, 4.125.7); and peroratio
(5.8-14).
Some crucial questions arise in the course of Thurns study.
Ancientdiscussions of ambiguity focus on its various uses in a
single word orgroup of words (e.g. jest and word-play) scattered
throughout a dis-course. What is the viability of understanding an
entire ancient text asusing a sophisticated rhetorical strategy
based on ambiguity derivedfrom modern rhetoric? Has Thurn uncovered
an ancient authorsdeliberate rhetorical strategy or an ingenious
way for modern readersto read the text on another level? Would an
ancient audience have reador heard the text in the sophisticated
fashion described or simply havenoticed a few instances of
ambiguity as part of wit and style?
Thompson (1994) classifies 1 Peter as a sermon and analyzes it
ac-cording to Greco-Roman rhetoric and the methodology of
Kennedy(1984). As indicated by its conclusion (5.12), the letter is
meant toexhort (parakale) and testify (epimartyre). It is hortatory
literaturewith the deliberative purpose of encouraging the audience
to a certaincourse of actionmaintaining hope and good works in
spite of suffer-ing (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 sufferingand the behavior appropriate to an exile
community. Although the typ-ical elements of rhetorical arrangement
are not present, 1.3-9 operateslike an exordium, 1.10-12 like a
narratio, 1.135.5 like a probatio, and5.6-11 like a peroratio. The
subsections of the probatio are each con-structed as exhortation to
prescribed conduct subsequently groundedby argumentation appealing
to the authority of the author, communitytradition, and Scripture.
The middle style characterizes the letter.
-
192 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
Apparently Thompson was unaware of Thurns work (1990) andhas
some overlapping observations. However, Thurn is correct thatthe
exhortation has an epideictic purpose of confirming values, not
adeliberative purpose of persuading to a course of action which in
thiscase the audience is already pursuing. Parakale in 5.12 is an
epis-tolary petition, not a firm indication that the rhetorical
species of theentire letter is deliberative. Thompsons
identification of the stasis of theargument as quality and defining
appropriate behavior is also charac-teristic 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 ancientliterature. These metaphors are drawn from the
overarching meta-phor of the Diaspora which provides the thematic
motif of 1 Peter anddescribes the status of the audience. These
three metaphor clusters de-lineate the three main sections of the
middle epistolary body of 1 Peter:the elect household of God
(1.142.10), aliens in this world (2.113.12), and sufferers in the
diaspora (3.135.11). Two images drawnfrom the metaphor of the
diasporaa journey to be undertaken and adangerous place pressuring
the faithful to assimilateset the rhetor-ical situation and the
authors dual purposes in writing: to demonstrateconduct appropriate
for the Christian eschatological journey, and todissuade the
audience from defecting from the faith and to remainsteadfast.
In contrast to Martin, Achtemeier (1989) proposes that the
con-trolling metaphor of 1 Peter is the Christian community as the
newpeople of God constituted by the Christ who suffered (and
rose)(p. 224). The first half of the metaphor contrasts the
audiences pastin Greco-Roman social and religious life with its
present life as thenew people of God separate from Gentiles and
their customs. The sec-ond half provides a model in the suffering
of Christ for presentbehavior, as well as contrasts the audiences
present suffering with thegreater future glory Christ now enjoys.
The argumentation and exhor-tation assure the audience that as long
as it remains faithful, just as thepresent transformed the past, so
the future will transform the presentand its suffering.
More recently, Thurn (1995a) provides a second provocative
anal-ysis of 1 Peter. First he gathers the motivating expressions
of the com-mands and parenesis of 1 Peter using a semantic method.
Then he uses amodified form of S.E. Toulmins theory of
argumentation (1958) and
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 193
a rhetorical perspective to analyze the argumentation. The
results of theanalysis of the argumentation are systematized to
yield the ideologicallevel behind the text which serves the
parenesis. In order to elicit rightattitudes and behavior, this
ideological level offers the audience a dualline of motivation, one
that is both positive (e.g. thankfulness andpraise) and negative
(e.g. deprivation of final salvation). With increas-ing emphasis
upon the ideology of New Testament texts, Thurnoffers one method of
determining that ideology.
2 PeterWatson (1988) observes that 2 Peter is the product of a
studied use ofthe conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. The letter
seeks to counteran eschatological crisis caused by the delay of the
parousia of Christand the infiltration of the audience by false
teachers (2.1) whose solu-tion to the crisis was denial of the
apostolic preaching of the parousiaaltogether (1.16-21; 3.1-4,
8-13) and the judgment expected to accom-pany it (2.3b-10; 3.1-7),
with immoral behavior being one consequence(2.10b-22). The letter
is mainly deliberative rhetoric intended to advisethe members of
the audience to adhere to the promises of Christ andthe apostolic
tradition, and dissuade them from accepting the teachingand
behavior of the false teachers. However, like most ancient
letters,the letter is a mixture of several rhetorical species.
Judicial rhetoric isused to refute the false teachers and to affirm
the parousia and judg-ment as eschatological realities (1.162.10a;
3.1-13). Epideictic rhet-oric is used to shame the false teachers
and lessen their ethos (2.10b-22). The stasis of the argument is
one of quality: determining the truthof the apostolic doctrines of
the parousia and its judgment.
The arrangement of the letter is epistolary prescript (1.1-2);
ex-ordium (1.3-15) upholding apostolic doctrine for remembrance
andtopics for further development; probatio (1.163.13) refuting the
doc-trinal 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 keypoints and eliciting emotion. The style is
grand, being vigorous andhighly repetitive, and amplifying the
entire argumentative scheme.
The letter is a creative mixture of genres. It is at once a
pseudony-mous letter and farewell address. In the post-apostolic
era the authorassumes the guise of the Apostle Peter, grouping
himself with the apos-tles (1.16-19; 3.2-4), especially Paul
(3.15-16). The farewell address
-
194 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
shares the purposes of deliberative rhetoric in persuading the
audienceto adhere to the tradition and ethics of the community. The
authormolds the testament so that the arguments and behavior of the
falseteachers can be refuted specifically as if they had been
prophesied,which he can then refute using the futuristic use of the
present. The let-ter gives us a glimpse into early Christian
apologetics and rhetoricalapproach to false teaching in the
post-apostolic era, probably in Rome.
Neyrey (1993) accepts Watsons rhetorical outline and
combinesmany elements of the rhetorical analysis with insights from
culturalanthropology, social science, and ancient rhetoric. Second
Peter is de-scribed as an apology and polemic justifying prophecies
of the parousiaand Gods judgment against Epicurean (or similar)
theodicy whichdenied divine judgment, survival after death, and
postmortem retri-bution. The author applies an antitheodicy stance
commonly used bycontemporary Jews and Greeks to respond to similar
theodicy.
After discussing the role of stylistics in New Testament
interpre-tation, Thurn (1996) examines the role of style in 2
Peter. He agreeswith Watson (1988) that 2 Peter is in the grand
style, and even goesfurther in calling it the best representative
of Asian rhetoric in theBible (p. 340 n. 65). He moves beyond the
description of the style of2 Peter to the function of the forceful
style in relation to the rhetor-ical situation. He notes that in
borrowing from Jude the pseudonymousauthor changed the style of the
material from the middle to the grand.Also, the portions of the
letter that epistolary theory indicates revealthe 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 ethosof the author,
undergirds the reliability of Peters message and theapostolic
interpretation of the Old Testament, and consolidates the
audi-ences adherence to this ethos. By virtue of his stylistically
enhancedethos, the authors presentation of the false teachers
denial of apos-tolic preaching of the parousia and the resulting
immorality decreasestheir ethos. The unexpectedly forceful,
explicit emphasis on ethos inthese key sentences lets us suggest
that the ethos in 2 Peter is not somuch a means as an end in itself
(p. 344).
JudeIn spite of its small size, Jude has been the subject of
several rhetoricalanalyses. Watson (1988) observes that Jude adapts
Jewish-Christiantopics and authoritative sources within the
confines of contemporary
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 195
rhetorical conventions and practice. Jude addresses the problem
of theinfiltration of the audience by itinerant prophets or
teachers who re-jected the authority of the Law of Moses and Christ
himself, with oneconsequence being sexual immorality (vv. 4, 8-10,
16). It is deliber-ative rhetoric advising the audience to contend
for the apostolic faith(v. 3) and dissuading it from following the
teaching and practices ofthe false teachers. The stasis or basis of
the argumentation is quality,showing that the words and deeds of
the false teachers are ungodly andsubject to judgment. In order to
destroy the ethos of the false teachers,Jude also employs
epideictic rhetoric to denounce them as akin to noto-rious 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 contend-ing for the apostolic faith. These are followed by the
narratio (v. 4)providing the infiltration of false teachers in the
audience as thereason for contending for the faith. The narratio
provides the mainpropositions: (1) the false teachers are ungodly
and subject to judg-ment, and (2) they are the ungodly whose
presence and judgment inthe 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 ungodlyprophesied to come in the last days
and that they will be judged fortheir rejection of authority and
sexual immorality. The peroratio (vv.17-23) reiterates the main
points and instructs the audience on how torespond to the crisis.
The letter closes with a doxology as an epis-tolary postscript (vv.
24-25). Style, especially the use of strong meta-phors and triads,
plays an important role in proving and amplifyingthat the false
teachers are ungodly. The letter gives us a glimpse intoearly
Jewish-Christian polemic and rhetorical approach to opponents.
As with 2 Peter, Neyrey (1993) accepts Watsons rhetorical
outlineand combines many elements of the rhetorical analysis with
insightsfrom 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 forthe faith indicates a deliberative intent.
Neyrey argues that Jude is aresponse to a realized eschatology
which claimed that the resurrectionhad occurred and rejected the
future judgment of the saints.
Wolthuis (1989) presents a dialogue between Cicero and Jude.
Inthe dialogue Jude argues that the letter is not consciously
rhetorical in
-
196 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
structure. It is intriguing that Cicero analyzes the letter
according toWatsons analysis of species of rhetoric, invention,
arrangement, andstylistic elements. However, Wolthuis argues that
Judes persuasivetechniques can be explained as the use of Jewish
midrash under theinformal experience of Greco-Roman rhetoric within
Hellenistic cul-ture. I would argue that the detail of the
conformity to Greco-Romanpractice, down to the distribution of
topics and sophisticated use ofstyle, indicates formal study. Also,
recent studies of midrash observethat the citation of a biblical
verse is central to midrash as a genre.Midrash came into being in
the second century CE in rabbinic Judaismin school settings and was
not used in worship settings of the first cen-tury CE as homilies
or as polemical tracts. To classify Judesargumentation as midrashic
is anachronistic. Since rabbis usedHellenistic modes of
argumentation in the New Testament era, placingJude in the
Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition as filtered throughJudaism seems
more appropriate, even if some of these characteristicsof
argumentation were later shared with midrash.
Joubert (1995) classifies Jude as epideictic rhetoric, but this
classifi-cation neglects the careful argumentative strategy which
is atypical ofepideictic rhetoric. He emphasizes the
positivenegative presentationstrategy of the letter: the positive
presentation (laudatio) of the con-gregation as faithful to
apostolic tradition and possessing Gods Spiritversus the negative
presentation (vituperatio) of the opponents as in-truders in the
church rejected by God. This strategy gives the faithfulthe
opportunity to live within the image of themselves projected bythe
text and reject the opponents and their teachings.
Wendland (1994) analyzes Watsons classically oriented
rhetoricalanalysis and compares it to the commentary of Richard
Bauckham(1983) which Wendland (but not Bauckham) claims is in the
school ofrhetorical criticism as practiced by James Muilenburg and
followers,especially in its attention to repetition and stylistic
devices. The com-parison shows how differences in method and
emphasis lead to differ-ent understandings of the overall discourse
structure and purpose ofJude. Wendlands own macrostructural
analysis finds that the entireletter progresses as an extended
structural and thematic chiasm or intro-version, with retrogression
of previously introduced topics recur-sively recycled in order to
reinforce the topics and the purpose of theletter as a whole. The
woe oracle of v. 11 is the affective or conno-tative apex of the
letter, and the appeal of vv. 22-23 is the thematic or
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 197
conceptual apex of the letter. He urges an interdisciplinary
approachto analysis, including classical and modern rhetoric,
discourse analysis,and speech-act theory.
In his recent monograph, Charles (1993: 25-42) discusses the
rhet-oric of Jude in dialogue with Watsons analysis and the
literary strate-gies in Jude in general. He agrees that Jude is
predominantly deliber-ative with some epideictic elements, but adds
that the accusations, woe,and sentencing in the letter are
judicial. However, these are betterexplained as elements of
vituperation characteristic of epideictic rhet-oric. His rhetorical
outline is virtually the same as Watsons, but hedefines the
exordium as the letter prescript (vv. 1-2) and expands thenarratio
to include v. 3 (vv. 3-4). This neglects the epistolary elementsof
the letter. The petition of v. 3 and its background in v. 4 form a
nat-ural exordium and narratio respectively. Like Wolthuis (1989),
he findsthe inventional strategy of Jude more in tune with Jewish
midrash thanGreco-Roman rhetorical conventions. Charless article
(1991) is inmany ways a summation of chapter 2 of his monograph,
much of whichI have just described.
Webb (1996) explores the rhetorical and social functions of
salva-tion and judgment in the eschatology of Jude within the
overall strat-egy of the letter. The rhetorical function of the
eschatological judgmentis to convince the readers to judge the
intruders as ungodly, while therhetorical function of salvation is
to assure the readers that their sal-vation is safe. They will not
be judged as long as they do not followthe ungodly intruders. The
social function of salvation and judgmentis to produce an us and
them distinction between the readers and theintruders to encourage
the former to separate from the latter.
The Johannine EpistlesThe Johannine Epistles address a schism
within the Johannine commu-nity caused by secessionists who were
espousing a corrupt Christologyand becoming morally indifferent.
Vouga (1990a, 1990b) proposes that1 John is deliberative rhetoric
and has the following outline: epistolaryprescript (1.1-4);
exordium (captatio benevolentiae) (1.52.17) whichgives the content
of the revelation announced in the prescript; narratio(2.18-27)
explaining the implications of the schism within the com-munity;
propositio (2.28-29) concerning abiding in Christ; probatio(3.1-24)
confirming the convictions of the exordium and interpretingthe
situation to show that the letter is justified; exhortatio
(4.1-21)
-
198 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
exhorting the churches to preserve the unity of the community
throughdiscerning the spirits in the knowledge of Christ; peroratio
urging themaintenance of unity through faithfulness to Johannine
teachings (5.1-12); epistolary conclusion (5.13); and epistolary
postscript (5.14-21).However, 1 John is not deliberative rhetoric
because by all indicationsthe audience is composed of those who
remained faithful in the schismand do not need to be persuaded to
return. Not arriving at the probatiountil close to halfway through
the presentation is not expected either.In fact, in 1.5 the author
begins the message he is intending to writeabout (cf. 2.1) which
indicates that the probatio begins in 1.5.
Watson (1991) suggests that the author of 1 John employs
epideicticrhetoric in order to bolster the compliance of the
faithful to the re-ceived Christology and ethics of the Johannine
community by uphold-ing these as honorable and beneficial. Quality
is the stasis or basis ofthe letter, for the author inquires into
the true nature of Jesus Christand the ethical walk that Christs
nature requires of his followers, aswell as the nature of the
aberrant Christology and ethics. He asserts thatpursuing the former
is the best course of action. The exordium (1.1-4)establishes the
authority of the discourse as grounded upon the testi-mony of
eyewitnesses of the revelation of the word of life. The
probatio(1.55.12) affirms the received teachings of the Johannine
communityand refutes those of the secessionists. The composition of
the probatiois typical of epideictic rhetoric. It includes
propositions advanced ascertain, antitheses, enthymemes, and
exhortation, with the topics beinghighly amplified. The peroratio
(5.13-21) reiterates key points madeand proposes the policies that
the audience should pursue in light ofthem.
Watson (1993a) demonstrates that the repetitive and emphatic
natureof 1 John is explained by the authors use of Greco-Roman
amplifica-tion techniques as a major component of his inventional
strategy. Vir-tually every rhetorical technique for amplification
in antiquity is uti-lized in 1 John. Expolitio, or dwelling on a
point and yet appearing tobe saying something new, is the dominant
technique. This may be thecase because expolitio is versatile and
was central to the exercises ofprogymnasmata in rhetorical school.
Amplification functions in epide-ictic rhetoric to strengthen
adherence to traditional and honorabletruths and weaken adherence
to aberrant dishonorable substitutes. In 1John the amplification
clarifies Johannine tradition through repetitionand emphasis of
themes and topics, drawing subtle distinctions between
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 199
Johannine tradition and its aberrant forms as taught by the
seces-sionists. It helps the audience clarify where their
allegiance should bemaintained.
Klauck (1990) qualifies the work of Vouga and Watson on the
Johan-nine Epistles, arguing for the structural priority of the
epistolary form.He does not question the use of style in these
letters or the value ofstylistic analysis for exegesis. He does,
however, question the assump-tion that Greco-Roman rhetorical
invention and arrangement are foundin the detail proposed for these
letters. He classifies 1 John as deliber-ative rhetoric rather than
epideictic and outlines the letter as prescript(1.1-4), captatio
benevolentiae (1.52.17), narratio (2.18-27), propo-sitio (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 andKlauck on
the rhetoric of 1 John.
Neufeld (1994) rightly claims that the interpretation of a text
isrestricted by the assumption that its language must be anchored
in itshistorical context in order for its meaning and significance
to berecovered. He moves beyond the interpretation of the
Christology andethics of 1 John solely within the context of the
construction of thehistorical and theological development of
Johannine community andcontroversies within it. He applies a
modified version of speech-acttheory to two groups of passages in 1
Johnchristological confessionsand ethical exhortations. Speech-act
theory is interested in the powerof language to make commitments,
shape the self, and create new pat-terns of speech and conduct (p.
5). The text not only reflects reality,it creates reality. Neufeld
argues that the author of 1 John incorpo-rates a number of
speech-acts in boasts, denials, and confessions tocreate a literary
world of an apocalyptic kind. This world delimits theboundaries of
proper and improper confession and ethical behaviorand the
apocalyptic consequences of each, often relying heavily
uponantithesis for clarification. When entering this world the
readers areencouraged to transform their understanding of God,
Jesus, the world,their speech, and their conduct. They are
challenged to create a properconfession and ethical behavior rather
than become alienated fromGod.
The Presbyter wrote 2 John to address further the problem of
seces-sionists sending missionaries to outlying churches in the
JohannineCommunity (vv. 7, 10; cf. 3 John). Watson (1989a) analyzes
2 John
-
200 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
with careful attention to the interrelationship of ancient
epistolaryconventions and rhetorical theory. He proposes that 2
John is a letterof exhortation and advice, of the subtype of
parenetic letter (as definedby Pseudo-Libanius and
Pseudo-Demetrius). The Presbyter uses delib-erative rhetoric to
advise the audience that the most beneficial and expe-dient course
of action is to love one another (v. 5), maintain the teach-ings of
the community so as not to lose eternal life and fellowshipwith the
Father and the Son (vv. 8-9), and not to even give the
visitingteachers a hearing. Any other course of action would result
in sharingin the wicked deeds of the secessionists (v. 11) and
becoming an anti-christ (v. 7). The stasis of the argument is
quality, for it concernswhether or not the Christology of the
secessionists is appropriate forthe 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
commandmentwhich embodies the proper understanding of Christology
and ethics;probatio (vv. 6-11) using exhortation and amplification
to persuadethe audience to adhere to the love commandment and not
to extend thesecessionists hospitality or give them a hearing;
peroratio (v. 12) ampli-fying the importance of the message; and
epistolary postscript (v. 13).The exordium and narratio conform to
the letter body opening andshare its function of introducing the
main reason for writing, theprobatio conforms to the body middle
and its function of developingtopics related to the reason for
writing, and the peroratio conforms tothe body closing of the
letter which summarizes topics previouslypresented.
The Presbyter wrote 3 John because a leader of an outlying
Johan-nine community church, Diotrephes, refused to receive
missionariesfrom the Johannine community and ordered the members of
his churchto do the same (vv. 9-10). The Presbyter urges a
Christian named Gaiusto continue extending hospitality (vv. 5-8,
11-12). Watson (1989b) pro-poses that 3 John is a mixed letter,
exhibiting characteristics of severaltypes of letters (as defined
by Pseudo-Libanius and Pseudo-Demetrius)including the friendly,
requesting, advisory or parenetic, commenda-tory, praising,
encouraging, vituperative, and accusing. Third John isepideictic
rhetoric of praise and blame. It commends Gaius for hishospitality
and encourages him to continue to extend it, and accusesDiotrephes
for his refusal to extend hospitality and rejecting the
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 201
authority of the Presbyter. The stasis is quality because it
pertains tothe nature and necessity of hospitality. The letter is
composed of anepistolary prescript (v. 1); an exordium (vv. 2-4)
praising Gaius forwalking in the truth; a narratio (vv. 5-6)
praising Gaius for hospitalityand 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 epistolarypostscript (v. 15). As in
1 John the exordium and narratio form theletter body opening, the
probatio the body middle, and the peroratiothe body closing.
Conclusion
Rhetorical criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles gives
us aglimpse of the early churchs use of rhetoric for
self-definition againstJudaism and Hellenism, for the inculcation
of its distinctive values andideology, for addressing everything
from apathy to suffering, and forpolemic against opposition both
from within and without. The rhetor-ical sophistication and
creativity of these authors is high. Advancesmade in the rhetorical
criticism of these works have moved the fieldof rhetorical
criticism of the New Testament toward maturity andaided
interpretation at several levels. These advances have been
illus-trated in the preceding discussion and seven are gathered
here foremphasis and clarification.
(1) There is a move beyond simplistic labeling of a New
Testamentletter as one of the three rhetorical species. It is
recognized that theseletters are mixed letters, that is, they use
all three species of rhetoric.These species themselves were not
delineated adequately in antiquityand overlap in function. For
example, encomium of an individual notonly has the epideictic
purpose of praise and affirming social values,but the deliberative
purpose of encouraging the audience to take thecourse of action of
living likewise.
(2) There is a move beyond simply labeling individual
argumentsfrom logos, ethos, and pathos (which is still important)
to identifyinglarger argumentation patterns and rhetorical
strategies and their func-tions. For example, comparison in Hebrews
is now placed within thebroader use of synkrisis (comparison) as a
genre.
-
202 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
(3) We are witnessing a shift from conscripting rhetorical
criticismfor description of stylistic figures to a full
appreciation that style isintegral to rhetorical invention and the
function of a work. Stylisticanalysis is no longer seen as
regressive as it was in the earlier part ofthis century when
rhetorical analysis was limited to style. It has movedstill further
from description to functional concerns. For example, thegrand
style of 2 Peter is now understood to function to increase theethos
of the author, of Peter, the apostles, and the message they
pre-sent, and to decrease the ethos of those who oppose them.
(4) Our understanding and use of Greco-Roman rhetoric is no
longerlimited primarily to rhetorical handbooks, but is
supplemented withcomparative work with actual rhetorical works. A
fuller picture ofthe rhetoric of the New Testament letters, both in
conformity to anddivergence from convention and practice, is
possible. For example,the study of the rhetoric of Hebrews, which
does not conform in inven-tion and arrangement to the conventions
of the rhetorical handbooks,took a noticeable step forward when
compared to actual encomiasticdocuments using synkrisis.
(5) There is a greater awareness of the interrelationship
betweenliterary genres and their forms and rhetoric. The
interrelationship ofrhetoric and the epistolary and apocalyptic
genres, the forms of pare-nesis, and pseudonymity to name a few are
being explored with greatersophistication. For example, parenesis
in Hebrews is found to be inte-gral to a comparative (synkrisis)
rhetorical scheme, not a literary fea-ture that is a remnant of
Jewish wisdom literature with an undeterminedliterary function.
Another example is pseudonymity which enables 2Peter to function as
a teaching tool.
(6) There has been a move beyond description of rhetorical
fea-tures to analysis of their function in a text. For example,
rather thansimply noting metaphors as figures of speech in 1 Peter,
their functionwithin the text is now the focus.
(7) There has been an accelerating move from analyzing New
Tes-tament letters solely using Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions
tousing a variety of modern rhetoric in combination with other
disci-plines. For example, in his study of 1 John, York (1993)
notes the manysimilarities between the rhetorical and discourse
analysis of the struc-ture of 1 John and proposes an
interdisciplinary method that synthe-sizes the two. At this time
the advent of socio-rhetorical criticism
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 203
(Robbins 1996a, 1996b) is the most exciting and comprehensive
inter-disciplinary 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:
Biblicaland 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
inHonor 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
desJakobusbriefes, 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 ofExample 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 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
the Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS, 152; Atlanta: Scholars
Press).Dibelius, M.
1976 James (rev. H. Greeven; trans. M.A. Williams; ed. H.
Koester;Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Elliott, J.H.1993 The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social
Scientific Perspective:
Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication, BTB 23:
71-81.Ellul, D.
1990 Un exemple de cheminement rhtorique: 1 Pierre, RHPR 70:
17-34.Evans, C.F.
1988 The Theology of Rhetoric: The Epistle to the Hebrews
(Friends of DrWilliamss Library, Lecture 42; London: Dr Williamss
Trust).
Garuti, P.1994 Ebrei 7,1-28: Un problema giuridico, DivThom 97:
9-105.1995a Alcune strutture argomentative nella Lettera agli
Ebrei, DivThom 98:
197-224.1995b Alle origini dellomiletica Cristiana. La Lettera
agli Ebrei: Note di
analisi retorica (SBFAn, 38; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing
Press).Gieger, L.G.
1981 Figures of Speech in the Epistle of James: A Rhetorical and
ExegeticalAnalysis (PhD dissertation, Southwestern Baptist
TheologicalSeminary).
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).
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 205
Olbricht, T.H.1993 Hebrews as Amplification, in S.E. Porter and
T.H. Olbricht (eds.),
Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992
HeidelbergConference (JSNTSup, 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press) 375-87.
Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca1969 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-RhetoricalInterpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press
International).
1996b The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric,
Society andIdeology (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;
Leipzigand 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
AmbiguousExpressions (bo: bo Akademi).
1995a Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of
ChristianParaenesis (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 lp tre aux Hbreux (StudNeot, 1;
Paris:Descle de Brouwer [rev. edn, 1976]).
-
206 Currents in Research 5 (1997)
1989 Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Subsidia Biblica,12; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
Vouga, F.1990a Die Johannesbriefe (HNT, 15.3; Tbingen: Mohr
[Paul Siebeck]).1990b La rception de la thologie johannique dans
les ptres, in J.-D.
Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet and J. Zumstein (eds.), La
communautjohannique et son histoire: La trajectoire de lvangile de
Jean aux deuxpremiers sicles (Le Monde de la Bible; Geneva: Labor
et Fides) 283-302.
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
(PhDdissertation, 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 withNotes 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
andModernWith Special Reference to the Larger Structure and
Functionof 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.
-
WATSON Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews 207
1989 Jude and the Rhetorician: A Dialogue on the Rhetorical
Nature of theEpistle of Jude, Calvin Theological Journal 24:
126-34.
York, H.W.1993 An Analysis and Synthesis of the Exegetical
Methods of Rhetorical
Criticism and Discourse Analysis as Applied to the Structure of
FirstJohn (ThD dissertation, Mid-America Baptist Theological
Seminary).
-
Copyright of Currents in Research: Biblical Studies is the
property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its contentmay not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.