Journal of Literature & Theobgy, Vol 6, No 3, September 190.

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND

THE RHETORIC OF NEW
TESTAMENT CRITICISM
Dennis L. Stamps

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

INTRODUCTION
'RHETORIC' has become a ubiquitous term. It is applied to a wide range of
textual discourse, if all manner of textual discourse.1 The focus of this study
is the use of rhetoric as a description of various interpretive strategies in
New Testament studies. Since the publication of G. A. Kennedy's book,
New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, there has been a
virtual tidal wave of exegetical rendenngs of New Testament texts using
the rubric, rhetoric.2 The first part of the paper is a survey review of the
recent development and practice of rhetorical criticism in New Testament
studies In the second part, the various stands of rhetorical criticism outlined
in part one are analyzed in terms of their methodological perspective with
regard to textuality and the interpretive goal. Finally, in part three, in
response to the current practice(s) of rhetorical criticism, a proposal is made
for a rhetorical critical theory and practice. As a result of this survey review
and methodological analysis of rhetorical criticism in New Testament stud-
ies, it is hoped that the interpretive tensions and issues which are lurking
behind the scenes and under the critical practice in New Testament studies
are at least partially exposed.
First, a brief introduction to the current interpretive landscape of New
Testament studies is offered. Presently, pluralism is the primary hue for the
picture. This is illustrated by the way recent handbooks or introductions
on New Testament interpretation or exegesis often have a separate section
or chapter devoted to the many different interpretive strategies: textual,
canon, source, form, sociological, structuralism, etc..3 The implication of
this pluralism is that each critical method exists harmoniously with the
other, with each complimenting the other to provide an ever growing
nexus of ways and means to extract from the biblical text that allusive goal,
its meaning.4
Such harmonious presentations mask the real landscape, a war. Behind
this pluralism exists competing and uncomplimentary ways of understand-
ing texts, meaning, and truth. By surveying and analysing only one critical
perspective, rhetorical criticism, one can see what the fighting is all about.
Oxford University Press 1992
 DENNIS L. STAMPS 269
I. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN RHETORICAL CRITICISM IN NEW
TESTAMENT STUDIES
James Muilenburg, an Old Testament scholar, is credited for introducing
the phrase rhetorical criticism into 20th century biblical studies with his
writings in the'mid 1950's.5 His 1968 Society of Biblical Literature presiden-
tial address, Form Criticism and Beyond, sounded a clarion call to go beyond
form criticism by using rhetorical criticism.6 He only vaguely defined what
he meant, suggesting that the text should be approached as an 'indissoluble
whole, an artistic and creative umty, a unique formulation'.7 By adopting
this critical perspective, he hoped to find a means to move from the text

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

to 'a raid on the ultimate'.8
In this phrase, 'a raid on the ultimate', one gains a glimpse at his
understanding of text, meaning, and truth. As Walter Brueggemann, one
of Muilenburg's students, stated in his 1990 Society of Biblical Literature
presidential address, 'I suggest that such a formulation bespeaks a kind of
untroubled transcendentalism. Of course Muilenburg was not untroubled,
and he knew the text was not untroubled. Nonetheless, he moves directly
from the text to "the ultimate.'"9
A similar agenda was proposed for New Testament studies. Amos N.
Wilder's classic work published in 1964, Early Christian Rhetoric: The Lan-
guage of the Gospel, introduced a form of rhetorical critiasm which emphas-
ized, 'not so much ... what the early Christians said, as how they said it'. 10
However, he went further with respect to the text and its form in the
preface to the 1971 reprint m which he suggested that scripture in its rhetoric
was evidence of a particular and peculiar language event which, in Muilen-
burg's terms, raided the ultimate by putting the reader in touch with the
transcendent.11
Robert Funk took the insights of Wilder and gave them a specific
application to the parable and the epistle in his book, Language, Hermeneutic,
and Word of God.12 In Funk's analysis, the parable is understood as a
metaphor; the letter, as oral conversation. In both instances, for Funk, the
forms create a language event in which a fresh experience of reality occurs.
His understanding of text, meaning, and truth in this book is articulated in
the that phase of biblical theology known as the New Hermeneutic.13 As a
result of both Wilder and Funk, there emerged a number of critical treat-
ments of the New Testament sensitive to literary critical theory and modern
linguistics which discuss the rhetoric of the text.14
Rhetorical criticism m New Testament studies, however, is better known
for that critical perspective intiated by H. D. Betz. His Hermeneia comment-
aries on Galatians and on 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 interpret the New Testament
text in relation to or against the background of ancient Hellenistic classical
270 RHETORICAL CRITICISM

rhetoric. 1 5 In this same vein is the famous classicist G. A. Kennedy, whose

book, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, is now a
watershed manual in New Testament rhetorical criticism. Both Betz and
Kennedy attempt to show how the New Testament texts are examples of
the art of ancient classical rhetoric and/or function in a manner similar to
ancient classical rhetorical theory Kennedy proposes the following:

What we need to do is to try to hear his [Paul's] words as a Greek-speaking

audience would have heard them, and that involves some understanding of
classical rhetoric ... The ultimate goal of rhetorical analysis, briefly put, is the
discovery of the author's intent and of how that is transmitted through a text

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

to an audience.16

From this perspective, the New Testament supposedly was written and read
in the context of Greco-Roman rhetoric and one can reconstruct that
historical dimension in the text by identifying the classical-rhetorical units,
classifying them, and thereby assigning their rhetoncal function and intent
in relation to the original situation, the original author, and the original
audience.
Wilhelm Wuellner who was always on the perimeter of classical rhetoncal
cntidsm made a startling break-away in his now landmark article of 1987,
'Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?'. 1 7 Drawing on the theories of
Chaim Perelman's New Rhetoric, socio-linguistics, literary theory, and what-
ever else he fancies, Wuellner posits a form of rhetoncal cnticism which
corresponds with the movement for a rhetonc revalued or rhetoric rein-
vented. 18 In this, rhetoric is understood as a practical performance of power
inseparable from the social relations in which both the rhetoncal act is
situated and the rhetorical critic is situated. Wuellner states it as follows:

... as rhetorical critics (rhetorics as part of literary theory) we face the obligation
of critically examining the fateful interrelationship between (1) a text's rhetor-
ical strategies, (2) the premises upon which these strategies operate (gender in
patriarchy or matriarchy; race in social, political power structures), and (3) the
efficacy of both text and its interpretation, of both exegetical practice and its
theory (= method).19

While Wuellner's definition of rhetoric is far from clear, his move away
from rhetoric as a way to raid the ultimate or as a way to excavate meaning
is obvious.
In the next section, the second part of the appraisal, the preceding survey
is analyzed in terms of two underlying assumptions resident in rhetoncal
critical approaches to the biblical text, textuality and interpretive goals. The
analysis will hopefully give a clearer picture of where and over what the
war is being fought.
 D E N N I S L. STAMPS 271
II. AN ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO THE NEW
TESTAMENT TEXT: THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS OF TEXTUALITY
AND INTERPRETIVE GOALS
Textuality
In relation to rhetorical criticism and textuality, the question which emerges
is what kind of discourse are the New Testament writings? This is obviously
a crucial question for a New Testament rhetorical critic. The attempt to
answer this question raises a number of interesting issues. Some critics of
rhetorical criticism note that the classical rhetoncal art was applied mainly
to speech, and hence may not apply to the multiplicity of literary genres

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

employed in the New Testament.20 Yet, peculiarly, rhetoric was often
learned, or practiced, by written exercises, so is the application of rhetorical
theory to literary texts improper?21 On the other hand, others argue that
the orality of scripture is also a possible interpretive factor for the New
Testament text.22 Prior to orality theory, Funk actually defined the New
Testament epistle as structured speech or conversation.23 But one needs to
ask, is this his conclusion for all ancient letters or particularly for New
Testament letters? On another track, sociologically, it is questioned whether
all the New Testament writings correspond to ancient rhetoric as it was an
art or discipline associated with the educated class of society, the corollary
being that some New Testament writings may be sub-hterary.24
In terms of textuality, then, is the NT oral or written discourse, literary
or sub-literary discourse? Answers to these questions determine the critical
decision about where and how to look for meaning and understanding in
the text, and even more basically, about how to determine the rhetoncal
cntical stance in relation to the New Testament text.
Rather simplistically, it is easy to classify where the different rhetorical
critics situate meaning with regard to the text.25 Classical rhetoncal critics
like Betz and Kennedy see meaning as something which lies behind the text
and must be excavated from the text based on its historical context. Muilen-
burg, Wilder, and Funk with their vanous strategies for raiding the ultimate,
see the text as a vehicle for a meaning located beyond the text, especially
when the text is freed from a purely histoncal sense. For Wuellner, meaning
depends upon the reading of the text in its social context (whether ancient
or modern) as a practical exercise of power. As one begins to explore where
and how meaning resides in the text from the various rhetorical critical
perspectives it emerges that meaning may be singular or polysemous; it
may be historically situated, transcendently situated, or practically and
socially conditioned.
Certainly many of these analytical demarcations of the various strands of
rhetoncal criticism are simplistic, but heunstically they accentuate that there
272 R H E T O R I C A L CRITICISM
are differences. With regard to textuahty then, even within the critical
practice known as rhetoncal criticism it is not a clear-cut matter as to what
the text is and in what context the text is meant to operate, nor is it straight-
forward as to where the text is meant to lead the critic in terms of meaning.
This leads to the issue of interpretive goals and methods.
Interpretive Goals and Methods
New Testament scholarship, especially since the flood of rhetorical studies
which have emerged since Kennedy's book, is in a reflective and reflexive
mode. The problem is how to assimilate this burgening critical practice

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

known as rhetoncal criticism. It is not unfair to say that the histoncal
paradigm still rules in the guild of New Testament studies.26 Since this is
the case, the goal of recovering and reconstructing the historical scene from
which the New Testament texts emerged becomes paramount. This histonc-
ally reconstructed scene becomes the determinate basis for explaining the
text.
Based on this situation in New Testament studies, it is not surprising that
most of the reflective articles on rhetorical criticism emphasize the role of
the ancient classical rhetorical criticism practiced by Betz, Kennedy, and
others.27 The priontizing of this particular stream of rhetorical criticism is
natural because it seeks to correlate the text with its supposed onginal
historical context, specifically ancient Hellenistic rhetoric. The act of pnorit-
izing this stream of rhetorical criticism is achieved at the expense of the
other rhetorical critical strategies. But the prioritizing of ancient classical
rhetorical criticism is taken one step further in these reflective evaluative
articles. The practice of rhetorical criticism is assimilated into the well
entrenched histoncal paradigm which governs New Testament studies,
illustrated by such conclusions as:

Whether rhetoncal criticism should be presented as an independent, self-

sufficient method must be rightly doubted. Perhaps one better sees the new
rhetoric as an enriching segment of the larger and more encompassing histor-
ical-critical method.28

Note that this role assignment of rhetorical criticism protects the guild
which then permits a value judgement to be made from the stance of
continuing and ensured dominance. In just such a way, the quote above
immediately continues, 'But then as a segment it should be highly
respected'.29 In order to demonstrate that assimilation is a concerted practice
within the guild, two other quotes are presented:

Of what benefit, then is rhetoncal cnricism? A most attractive feature of the

method is its position at the cusp of biblical scholarship's older histoncal
 DENNIS L. STAMPS 273
concerns and its newer, literary interests. The NT was nurtured in the womb
of Roman Hellenism, and rhetoric was integral to that culture's hfeblood. For
that reason, rhetorical studies stands alongside source and form criticism, firmly
within historical criticism.30

Rhetorical criticism may be in fact the most promising form of literary criticism
for the task of reconstructing Christian origins with social issues in view.31

Against these retrenchments against rhetorical criticism, there stands two

different interpretive goals and methods. One seeks to place rhetorical
criticism as an overarching critical perspective which restates the interpetive

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

goal. For instance, though Kennedy is resolutely historical in his textuality,
he sees rhetoric as shifting this historical focus from sources and myth-
making to the verbal reahty of the text and its onginal persuasive power:

Rhetoric cannot describe the historical Jesus or identify Matthew or John; they
are probably irretrievably lost to scholarship But it does study a verbal reality,
our text of the Bible, rather than the oral sources standing behind that text,
the hypothetical stages of its composition, or the impersonal workings of social
forces, and at its best it can reveal the power of those texts as unitary messages 32

But when he speaks of the text's power, he speaks of the text's rhetoric in
classical terms and in its original historical context of author, situation, and
audience.
Far more radical is Wilhem Wuellner, whose advocacy of the priority
of rhetorics over hermeneutics not only constitutes the reinvention of
rhetoric, but also the complete abandonment of the interpretive task as
presently practiced in New Testament studies:

It made a revolutionary difference to take the familiar notion, that human

beings in general, and religious persons in particular, are hermeneutically
constituted, and replace it witn the ancient notion familiar to Jews and Greeks
alike, that we are rhetorically constituted. We have not only the capacity to
understand the content or propositions of human signs and symbols ( = hermen-
eutics); we also have the capacity to respond and interact with them ( =
rhetorics).33

For Wuellner and others, the interpretive focus becomes the power of the
text to affect, in Kenneth Burke's terms, social identification and transforma-
tion in every act of reading. 34
In terms of interpretive goals and methods, the poles could not be further
apart. From one there is the rhetoric of the hegemony of the status quo,
the maintaining of the sacred guild which determines the criteria by which
a new critical method is allowed in the picture. From the other, there is
274 RHETORICAL CRITICISM
the radical rhetoric of revolution and reconfiguration, the eclectic grasp for
a new constellation. This polarization over defining the nature and role of
rhetorical criticism is merely an illustration of the war being waged in New
Testament studies over the nature of the text and the scope of the interpretive
task.
III. A PROPOSAL FOR A RHETOBICAL CRITICAL APPROACH TO THE
NEW TESTAMENT
The proposal which follows is not meant to provide a peace-treaty for the
war. Rather, it, like what has preceded, is a hopeful engagement in the
battle. Neither is this proposal an effort at providing a definitive and

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

comprehensive super-method of cnticism to meet the peculiar interpretive
demands of the New Testament. First, certain ideas about the nature and
scope of rhetoric in texts are explored. Then, based on these ideas about
rhetoric, several possible rhetorical interpretive approaches are suggested.
The Nature and Scope of Rhetoric in Texts
Historically, rhetoric has been understood as an act of persuasion.35 In that
sense rhetoric is an action and a theory about how to achieve that action.
In these terms, Chaim Perelman's theory of the New Rhetoric focuses on
rhetoric as argumentation, with the argumentative goal being to 'induce or
to increase the mind's adherence to the theses presented for its assent'.36
Similarly, Terry Eagleton's suggestion is that rhetoric is concerned with the
kinds of effects which discourses produce, and how they produce them.37
In both instances, texts are conceived as forms of power and performance
at the point of consumption. Rhetorical cnticism, then, seeks to lay bare
both the means of power and the ways of the performance—to expose the
kinds of effects a discourse produces and how they are produced.
The words power, performance, and effect suggest the possible relationship
between hermeneutics and rhetonc, a much needed area of re-exploration.38
Wuellner's separation of rhetoric from and over hermeneutics perhaps is a
bit extreme.39 But rhetonc is distinct from the intersubjectivity of under-
standing as commonly conceived in hermeneutics and more directly related
to what David Klemm calls the hermeneutics of existence.40 Michael J. Hyde
and Craig R. Smith made a provocative suggestion along these lines:

The primordial function of rhetonc is to 'make-known' meaning both to

oneself and to others Meaning is derived by a human being in and through
the interpretive understanding of reality. Rhetonc is the process of making-
known that meaning ... Ontologically speaking, rhetonc shows itself in and
through the vanous ways understanding is interpreted and made known ... If
the hermentutical situation is the 'reservior' of meaning, then rhetonc is the
selecting tool for making known this meaning 41
 DENNIS L. STAMPS 275
This relationship between hermeneutics and rhetoric pinpoints the social
dimension of rhetoric. In Bakhtin's terms, this means rhetorical criticism as
a way of reading is not a dialogic relationship with an object.42 Rhetorical
reading constitutes the confrontation between two consciousnesses and two
subjects which creates contextual meaning that requires a responsive under-
standing that includes evaluation.43 As Brueggemann put it in commenting
on the texts regarding Babylon in the OT, 'In each case the text is a
deliberate act of combat against other views of public reality which live
through other forms of rhetoric.'44 But as Habermas might suggest, such
rhetorical power works because there exists a community convention to
utilize and mampulate in both the sphere of meaning and of expression.45

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

But one must be careful here, for the implication is that a social reality
exists without the text. Rhetoric is also concerned with the construction/
identification of social reality in each linguistic moment.46 Rhetoncal cnti-
asm, then, requires an explication of a text's performance in constructing
the social context, and in challenging social conventions.
This raises the aspect of the evaluative function of rhetonc. Rhetoric
recognizes that no discourse is objectively neutral. The humanistic reconcep-
tions of rhetoric along the lines found in Bnan Vicker's, In Defense of
Rhetoric, and even Perelman's, The New Rhetoric, is romantically naive about
the ideological, even the theological nature of all discourse.47 Instead,
rhetoncal cntiasm must employ a Platonic suspiaon of rhetonc; yet, at the
same time, accept the nasty fact that texts (including the critic's sub-texts)
as rhetoric are authontative, power performances with distinct ideological
effects. This evaluative side of rhetoric demands that the ethics of interpreta-
tion becomes a forthnght aspect of critical dialogue. Rhetoncal cntiasm,
then, requires that a text and its interpretation is accountable for its ethical
consequences and political functions.48

Rhetorical Critical Interpretive Strategies

Rhetoric and rhetoncal cntiasm conceived as above negates any effort to
establish a singular, definitive rhetorical cntical method. I would agree with
Wuellner when he says, 'Rhetorical cntiasm is not a set of analytical
techniques, not a set of approaches or methods of interpretation, which,
when applied, will produce interpretations or solve interpretive problems'.49
But rhetoncal criticism as a cntical discourse based on rhetorical theory
provides a way to establish various interpretive strategies.
It was rhetonc which first recognized the full hermeneutical sphere, what
Lausberg calls the aptum.50 The aptum concerns the relationships which exit
between the speaker, the speech, and the audience, for which one can
substitute the figures author, text, and reader. A reader who adopts the
rhetoncal critical stance, reads a text by constructing or reconstructing the
276 RHETORICAL CRITICISM

aptum and from that analyzes and evaluates the effects which discourses
produce and how they produce them.
What makes the rhetorical critical perspective potentially effective is that
it requires the critic to identify the communication coordinates with which
he or she is operating. It also recognizes that the communication event or
reading act is altered when an aspect of the aptum or one of the reading
coordinates changes. This is particularly so with the biblical text as there
are several ways to configure the communication coordinates. For instance
a critic can focus on the historical situation of the original author and reader,
or the reception situation of the modern reader in relation to the text.51

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

Besides the aptum, rhetoric posits the role of ethos, logos, and pathos as
aspects of the persuasive nature of communication. Traditionally, each of
these corresponds with the respective communication poles, speaker, dis-
course, and audience. What rhetorical criticism maintains is that all com-
munication has these argumentative appeals. There is no communication
without all three elements of ethos, logos, and pathos.53 If one cannot separate
content (meanings) from its presentation (context/form), there is no longer
any necessary distinction between philosophy and rhetoric, or at least any
prioritizing of logos, cum content, over persuasion.54 Rhetorical criticism
encourages the exposure of the various kinds of argumentation or persuasive
techniques.
The use of the aptum and the three modes of persuasion are only two
ways in which rhetorical theory suggests interpretive strategies or ways into
the text. The structure or arrangement of texts can be contrasted with the
disposition of rhetorical arguments such as the basic pattern of exordium,
narratio, conjirmatio, and conclusio.55 The effect of texts also can be evaluated
against the genres or species of rhetoric: judicial, deliberative, and epi-
deictic.56
What is meant by rhetorical criticism? It is the attempt to analyse,
interpret, read a literary unit (text if you please) by analyzing the text in
terms of the three relationships of the aptum set within the context of a
defined rhetorical situation, variously conceived, in order to uncover the
argumentative or persuasive effect a text creates. Simply put, it examines
the way discourses are constructed and operate to create certain effects.

CONCLUSION: THE WAR CONTINUES

It becomes apparant why the war. Historical-criticism cannot simply assimil-
ate the alternative understanding of text, meaning, and truth which lies at
the heart of rhetoric as presented in the above proposal. In the above
presentation of rhetorical criticism, texts are not historical artifacts, but
dynamic, creative, powerful performances at every reading. Likewise, mean-
ing and truth is not bound to an historical frame-of-reference, or to a
 DENNIS L STAMPS 277

transcendent hermeneutical model which locates them outside the text's

performance and in the individual's intersubjectivity, or which locates them
in a theological realm known as God with a capital G. The truth and power
of the text becomes its performance to effect social identification and
transformation at each reading of the text.
For one side the war is left undeclared, assimilation is the apparent
strategy. For the other side, the war goes on, and the simple refusal by the
other side to consider the issues raised by the nature and scope of rhetonc
in texts only prolongs the battle. Unfortunately for the New Testament
guild, just when they thought they had won the war against literary

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

criticism, the enemy reconfigured itself into a larger and ubiquitious critical
practice which takes the critic beyond literary theory to post-structuralism,
beyond hermeneutics to post-hermeneutics, beyond rhetoric restrained to
rhetoric reinvented.57

REFERENCES
1
The theory for using the term, 'rhetonc', 'James Muilenburg, 'A Study in Hebrew
as a meta-label can be found in, Terry Rhetonc: Repetition and Style', Vetus
Eagleton, Literary Theory An Introduction Testamentum Supplement 1 (1953) 9 7 - m ,
(Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1983), especially and "The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40—66',
pp. 194-217, also Dick Leith and George in The Interpreter's Bible (New York,
Myerson, The Power of Address Explora- Abingdon, 1956) 5, 381-773
tions in Rhetoric (London, Routledge, 1989) 6James Muilenburg, 'Form Cnticism and
pp 114-48, 204-40 The application of Beyond', Journal of Biblical Literature 88
'rhetoric' to a wide variety of discourses (1969) 1-18
is exemplified in, John S Nelson, Allan 7
Ibid., p. 9
Megill, and Donald N McCloskey, eds , "Ibid, p. 18
The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences (Madi-'Walter Brueggemann, 'At the Mercy of
son, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin
Babylon A Subversive Rereading of the
Press, 1986)
2
Empire', Journal of Biblical Literature n o
George A Kennedy, New Testament Inter- (1991) 18
pretation through Rhetorical Criticism 10 Amos N Wilder, Early Christian Rhetonc
(Chapel Hill, North Carolina, University The Language of the Gospel (Cambndge,
of North Carolina Press, 1984). A record
Mass, Harvard University Press, 1971
of the 'tidal wave' of publications since
reprint) p. 2
Kennedy is partially documented in,
Duane F. Watson, 'The New Testament "Ibid., 12
p xx
and Greco-Roman Rhetonc: A Biblio- Robert W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic,
graphy', Journal of the Evangelical Theolo- and Word of God (New York, Harper and
gical Society 31 (1988) 465—72 Row, 1966)
13
3
A good example of this phenomenon is, J M. Robinson and J B Cobb, Jr , The
Chnstopher Tuckett, Reading the New New Hermeneutic, New Frontiers in Theo-
Testament (London, S.P.C K , 1987) logy 2 (New York Harper and Row,
4
The relationship between meaning and the 1964)
14
practice of biblical interpretation is chron- See for example, William A. Beardslee,
icled in, Robert Morgan with John Bar- Literary Criticism of the New Testament
ton, Biblical Interpretation (Oxford, (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1969), and
O.U.P., 1988) R. A. Spencer, ed., Orientation by Dtson-
278 RHETORICAL CRITICISM
cntation: Studies m Literary Criticism and The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism
Biblical Literary Criticism, Pittsburgh (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1988).
26
Theological Monograph Series, no. 35 See the discussion in, Morgan, Biblical
(Pittsburgh, The Pickwick Press, 1980) Interpretation, pp. 4 4 - 2 0 0
27
" H a n s Dieter Betz, Galatians A Comment- For example, Burton L Mack, Rhetoric
ary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Gala- and the New Testament, Guides to Biblical
tia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, Fortress Scholarship (Minneapolis, Fortress Press,
Press, 1979), and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. A !99o)> 2nd the articles cited in fh. 20
28
Commentary on Two Administrative Letters Lambrecht, p . 248.
of the Apostle Paul, Hermeneia (Philadel- "Ibid
30
phia, Fortress Press, 1985) C. Clifton Black II, 'Rhetorical Questions
" K e n n e d y , p p . 10, 12 T h e N e w Testament Classical Rhetoric,
17
W i l h e m Wuellner, ' W h e r e is Rhetorical and Current Interpretation', Dialog 29

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

Criticism Taking Us?' Catholic Biblical (1990) 69
31
Quarterly 49 (1987) 4 4 8 - 6 3 , but even in Mack, p . 17.
32
this article there is an endorsement o f the Kennedy, p p 158-59
33
w o r k of G A. Kennedy as a foundation Wuellner, 'Hermeneutics', p 38
34
for expanding the notion o f rhetorical Kenneth Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives
criticism (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall,
18
T h e fullest statement o f Wuellner's 1950) p p 4 9 - 5 9 .
35
definition o f rhetorical criticism is articu- J a n Botha, ' O n the "Reinvention" of
lated in, 'Hermeneutics and Rhetorics Rhetoric', Scriptura 31 (1989) 18-22
36
From " T r u t h and M e t h o d " to " T r u t h and C h . Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca,
P o w e r " ' Scrtptura S 3 (1989) 1-54 The New Rhetoric' A Treatise on Argumen-
" W u e l l n e r , 'Hermeneutics', p 38 tation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell
20
See the critical comments of, C Clifton Weaver (Notre D a m e , University o f
Black II, 'Keeping U p with Recent Stud- N o t r e D a m e Press, 1969) p . 4
37
ies X V I . Rhetorical Criticism and Biblical Eagleton, p . 205
38
Interpretation' The Expository Times 100 See Wuellner, 'Hermeneutics and Rhet-
(1989) 256—57, and Jan Lambrecht, 'Rhet- orics', also H . Geissner, ' R h e t o n k u n d
orical Criticism and the N e w Testament' Hermeneutik', Rhetonk 4 (1985) 85-100
Bijdragcn 50 (1989) 245-48 39
Ibid. p p . 2 9 - 3 8 .
21 40
Brian Vickers, In Defense of Rhetoric David E Klemm, Hermeneutical Inquiry,
(Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1988) pp. 9 - 1 3 Volume II The Interpretation of Existence,
22
Walter J. O n g , Orality and Literacy The American Academy o f Religion Studies in
Technologizing of the Word, N e w Accents Religion 44 (Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1986)
(London, Methuen, 1982) pp 1-6.
23 41
Funk, p p 237,-49. Michael J H y d e and Craig R Smith,
24
Lambrecht, p 246 T h e issue of the liter- 'Hermeneutics and Rhetoric: A Seen B u t
ary quality of the N e w Testament writings Unobserved Relationship', The Quarterly
in relation to the culture and class of its Journal of Speech 65 (1979) 348, 354
42
day is still debated, F Gerald D o w n i n g , 'A Mikhail Bakhtin, Speech Genres and Other
Bas Les Anstos T h e Relevance of Higher Late Essays, University o f Texas Press
Literature for the Understanding o f the Slavic Series, 8, trans. Vern W . McGee
Earliest Christian Writings', Novum Testa- (Austin, University o f Texas Press, 1986)
mentum 30 (1988) 212-30 P 144
25 43
T h e term 'meaning' is an ambiguous term Wuellner, 'Hermeneutic', p 23
44
in the theory o f interpretation T h e rela- Brueggcman, p . 18
45
tionship between interpretive method and J u r g e n Habermas, ' O n Hermeneutics'
a concept of meaning is detailed in, Edgar Claim to Universality', in Kurt Mueller-
V. McKnight, Post-Modem Use of the Bible Vollmer, e d , The Hermeneutics Reader
 DENNIS L STAMPS 279
(Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1986) pretation: De-Centenng Biblical Scholar-
pp. 294-319. ship', Journal of Biblical Literature 107
46 (1988) 3-17
The relationship of discourse (verbal and
49
textual) to social reality is a complex Wuellner, 'Hermeneutics', p. 33.
50
debate. An interesting contribution to H. Lausberg, Handbuch der Literanschen
the debate is, Michael McGuire, 'The Rhetorik, 2 Vols (Nunich, M Hueber,
Structural Study of Speech', in Ray E. i960) 1,54-flT and 258, see also Wilhem
McKerrow, ed , Explorations m Rhetoric Wuellner, 'Paul's Rhetoric of Argumenta-
(Glenview, IL, Scott Foresman and tion in Romans', Catholic Biblical Quarterly
C o m p a n y , 1982) pp 1-22.
38 (1976) 342
51
47 An analysis of these various interpretive
G Kress and R Hodge, Language as Ideo-
perspectives are explored in McKnight, op
logy (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul,
I
at.
979)> snd F Jameson, The Political Uncon-

Downloaded from http://litthe.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 12, 2015

52
Kennedy, pp 15-16
scious, Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act " V i c k e r s , pp 148-213
(London, Methuen, 1981) 54
Wuellner, 'Hermeneutics', pp 24—33.
48
An advocacy and example of this stance " K e n n e d y , pp 2 3 - 5 , and Mack, pp 4 1 - 3
is admirably put forth by, Ehsabeth " I b i d . , pp. 19-20.
57
Schussler Fiorenza, 'The Ethics of Inter- Wuellner, 'Where', pp. 448-50, 460-63