The Limitations and Proper Usage of Rhetorical CriticismBy Owen WeddleLast semester, I attended a class by the famous evangelical scholar

Ben Witherington on theexegesis of Galatians at Asbury Theological Seminary. He is a rather strong proponent of the socio-rhetorical method for studying the New Testament. Matter of fact, he has even written a couple booksdedicated to rhetorical analysis on the NT, such as

New Testament Rhetoric.

As I was introduced to thisnew tool for biblical studies, I was enamored by it, as if it was sort of a holy grail for unlocking all thesecrets of the New Testament. However, my cautious nature soon made me question if rhetoricalcriticism is as valuable as Dr. Witherington has argued it to be.I don't pretend to have the vast knowledge that he does of the primary sources, but from whatlittle exposure I do have, I feel that rhetoric does have its strong points, but I feel it is not justifiable for it to be systematically and universally pressed upon all of the documents of the New Testament.Also, I feel it necessary to add that while I am primarily engaging and critiquing Dr.Witherington's work on rhetorical criticism, it is not because I am setting myself against his work,

per se

. Rather, it is my attempt to remark on the field in general. However, the majority of my exposure inrhetorical criticism has come through his work (such a high level of exposure has come about becauseof my immense respect for and reliance upon his scholastic work). In the end, I am usingWitherington's scholarly contributions to be the catalyst to launch my understanding of rhetoric, whichwill affect my future work and comments on Romans.In three of Witherington's commentaries that I have studied up to this point he has felt itnecessary to assign the letters within one of the three primary forms of ancient rhetoric: deliberative,forensic, and epideitic.

He assigns Revelation to the forensic form.

Whereas H.D. Betz places the

1Witherington, Ben;

New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the NewTestament

(Eugene, Or.: Cascade Books, 2009)2Ibid. 13-14.3Witherington, Ben;

Revelation: The New Cambridge Bible Commentary

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

epistle to the Galatians as an apologetic letter

(a particular form of forensic rhetoric), Witheringtonthinks it is primarily deliberative.

Finally and most pertinent to my present purposes, he assignsRomans to the class of deliberative rhetoric also.

I would guess, though I might be wrong, he does thesame for the rest of his commentaries. However, is it justifiable to try to press a primary category uponall or most the epistles (and Gospels) of the New Testament and delineate a structure from that asWitherington believes

?Aristotle declares rhetoric “is concerned with the modes of persuasion.”

A rather pertinentquestion to ask is how broad is persuasion to be envisioned? Is it a specialized form of discourse thatmakes deliberate and methodical attempts to change the minds of another person, or can any form of communication to others that provides information to be accepted or rejected be classified as persuasive? Aristotle continues by classifying persuasion as “a sort of demonstration,”

implying thatnot all forms of knowledge transfer are what he would consider persuasion. Furthermore, he dividesrhetoric into the political, forensic, and the ceremonial realms.

However, certainly there are other times where verbal skills are necessary, such as teaching, commanding, encouraging, etc. Thedifference one might give for those roles from to the ones Aristotle envisions for rhetoric is that theformer place derive authority of the message in some form the contents of the speech, including the personal

ethos.

However, the second class of communication presume an already established authorityor congenial relationship (as in the case of encouragement) based upon past interchanges,

2003) 15.4Betz, H.D.;

Galatians: Hermenia

(Philadelpia: Fortress Press, 1979)5Witherington, Ben;

Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Galatians

(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1998) 27.6Witherington, Ben;

Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004)16.7“Here is where rhetoric has proved much more helpful in unlocking the structural and substantive intricacies of themajority of the NT documents.” - Witheringon,

New Testament Rhetoric

8Aristotle;

Rhetoric

, (http://www.public.iastate.edu/~honeyl/Rhetoric/index.html), translated by W. Rhys Roberts, Bk. 1,Ch. 1.9Ibid.10Ibid., Bk. 1, Ch.3.11George Kennedy defines

ethos

as “the credibility that the author or speaker is able to establish in his work.” Kennedy,George A.;

New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism

(Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Press. 1984)15.

acknowledged titles, etc. In those cases, their attention is nearly automatic and is not necessary tostrongly persuade them to accept a particular message.Therefore, one way in which rhetorical criticism (and I am defining rhetoric as persuasivespeech and not simply any form of oral or written communication) is limited is that not all forms of communication inherently contain persuasive content. For instance, does Paul in Colossians (if it isindeed from Paul) attempt to persuade the audience, or is his past relationship and current authoritysufficiently established without contention that he can merely teach, command, encourage, and exhortwithout have to try to convince the Colossians of his statements? If not, one would be hard pressed to believe that Paul was consciously forming the letter into a deliberate oratorical form of communication,unless one sees Paul as using contentiously persuasive techniques, even when it is rather unnecessary.In rejecting the idea that all or most of the NT documents must structurally be rhetorical works,we don't need to go to the opposite direction and presume that many documents contain very few or norhetorical features. More specifically, the techniques and language characteristic of macro-rhetoricalforms of deliberative, judicial, and epideitic may indeed be used in portions of the letters of the NewTestament that do not follow a rhetorical structure in the entire letter. For instance, I will argue thatRomans is not structurally a rhetorical piece of work, but it may intermittently use certain rhetoricaltactics. For instance, I believe that Romans 1:16-2:5 is a form of epideitic rhetoric in its attempt toshame portions of the audience and its usage of blame language.

Secondly, while rhetoric may be broadly classified under three categories, a piece work of oratory need not necessarily conform entirely, or even primarily, to only one form. The rhetoricianQuintilian avoids placing any absolutes on the usage of rhetoric.

Rather,

he believes that

“rules must

12For instance, the Louw-Nida lexicon classifies

evpaiscunomai

(“I am ashamed”) in 1:16 under the category of shame,disgrace, and humiliation which works for the praise and blame language of epideitic rhetoric.13“But let no man require from me such a system of precepts as is laid down by most authors of books of rules, a system inwhich I should have to make certain laws, fixed by immutable necessity, for all students of eloquence, commencing withthe

prooemium

and what must be the character of it, saying that the

statement of facts

must come next, and what rulemust be observed in stating them; that after this must come the

proposition

, or as some have preferred to call it, theexcursion, and then that there must be a certain order of questions; adding also other precepts, which some speakersobserve as if it were unlawful to do otherwise, and as if they were acting under orders;” - Quintilian;

Institutes of Oratory

(http://honeyl.public.iastate.edu/quintilian/

), translated by John Selby Watson, 2.13.1.