In Rhetoric at the Boundaries Bruce W. Longenecker explores the way in which New Testament authors used an ancient rhetorical device to effect smooth transitions, both large and small. His study demonstrates how recognition of this rhetorical technique proves decisive for New Testament interpretation. Longenecker accomplishes this by examining the evidence for chain-link interlocks in a variety of ancient sources, including the Hebrew scriptures, Jewish and Roman authors of the Graeco-Roman world, and the Graeco-Roman rhetoricians. He then applies the results of the survey to fifteen problematic passages of the New Testament. In each case, Longenecker establishes the presence of chain-link interlock and highlights the structural, literary, and theological significance of the rhetorical device for New Testament interpretation.
In Rhetoric at the Boundaries Bruce W. Longenecker explores the way in which New Testament authors used an ancient rhetorical device to effect smooth transitions, both large and small. His study demonstrates how recognition of this rhetorical technique proves decisive for New Testament interpretation. Longenecker accomplishes this by examining the evidence for chain-link interlocks in a variety of ancient sources, including the Hebrew scriptures, Jewish and Roman authors of the Graeco-Roman world, and the Graeco-Roman rhetoricians. He then applies the results of the survey to fifteen problematic passages of the New Testament. In each case, Longenecker establishes the presence of chain-link interlock and highlights the structural, literary, and theological significance of the rhetorical device for New Testament interpretation.
Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New Testament Chain-Link Transitions
315
Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New Testament Chain-Link Transitions
315eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
In Rhetoric at the Boundaries Bruce W. Longenecker explores the way in which New Testament authors used an ancient rhetorical device to effect smooth transitions, both large and small. His study demonstrates how recognition of this rhetorical technique proves decisive for New Testament interpretation. Longenecker accomplishes this by examining the evidence for chain-link interlocks in a variety of ancient sources, including the Hebrew scriptures, Jewish and Roman authors of the Graeco-Roman world, and the Graeco-Roman rhetoricians. He then applies the results of the survey to fifteen problematic passages of the New Testament. In each case, Longenecker establishes the presence of chain-link interlock and highlights the structural, literary, and theological significance of the rhetorical device for New Testament interpretation.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781602581210 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Baylor University Press |
| Publication date: | 11/01/2011 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 315 |
| File size: | 1 MB |
About the Author
Bruce W. Longenecker (Ph.D. University of Durham) is Graduate Professor of Religion and W. W. Melton Chair in the Baylor University Department of Religion. He is the author or editor of numerous books including The Lost Letters of Pergamum (2003), Luke, Paul and the Graeco-Roman World (2002), Narrative Dynamics in Paul (2002), The Triumph of Abraham's God (1998), 2 Esdras (1995), and Eschatology and the Covenant (1991).
Read an Excerpt
Rhetoric at the Boundaries
The Art and Theology of the New Testament Chain-Link Transitions
By Bruce W. Longenecker
Baylor University Press
Copyright © 2005 Baylor University Press
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-932792-24-9
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Tracing the Explanation of a New Testament Issue
1.2 Transitions as Key Rhetorical Components
1.3 The Focus of This Study: Chain-Link Transitions
1.4 The Contribution of This Study: Structure, Theology, History
1.5 The Triangulation of Evidence
1.6 The Character of This Study: Further Matters
1.1 Tracing the Explanation of a New Testament Issue
A plethora of structural patterns can be observed within New Testament texts. One of those patterns has consistently baffled New Testament interpreters. This itself is somewhat curious since the pattern (1) appears in a number of New Testament books and (2) usually occurs more than once in any given book. These two simple observations might well have caused interpreters to consider whether in fact the pattern would have been easily recognisable to those who wrote and first heard these texts. For the most part, however, interpreters have failed to pursue issues of this sort.
Curiosity on this score increases in view of two terse but suggestive references to this structural pattern in the works of Graeco-Roman rhetoricians, who commended the pattern to those interested in effective presentation of their ideas. Curiosity mounts even further in view of claims by interpreters of the Old Testament that the same pattern appears in the Hebrew Scriptures with some frequency, suggesting that the pattern had currency much earlier than the Graeco-Roman world of the New Testament. In fact, the pattern seems to be rooted in the oral patterning of the ancient world in general, rather than simply being a phenomenon of the Graeco-Roman world in particular.
Data of this kind have consistently been overlooked by New Testament interpreters. When New Testament passages animated by this particular structural pattern are revisited against this backdrop, they are not to be seen as involving problematical structural anomalies. Instead they are shown to be important structural landmarks, full of interpretative potential that has remained untapped and unexplored thus far in the guild of New Testament scholarship.
This, in a nutshell, comprises the interests of the study that follows. The particular structure that will be the focus of attention is a transitional feature, outlined briefly in 1.3 below. Initially, however, it is appropriate to highlight more generally the structural significance of transitions in relation to the interpretation of texts.
1.2 Transitions as Key Rhetorical Components
With the recent proliferation of methodological disciplines in biblical study, the examination of structural relationships in biblical texts has proved to be an important enterprise within various interpretative approaches. According to some practitioners of discourse analysis and rhetorical analysis, for instance, the discovery of textual structure aids interpretation by outlining textual cohesion and persuasive development, or by revealing a text's artistic and aesthetic qualities. Repeatedly, structural analyses have brought home the crucial interplay between the formal features of a text and the interpretation of its content.
In this regard, one of the most important structural features is the transition marker. A well-constructed transition oils the machinery of rhetorical persuasion, indicating that a new line of thought is beginning and occasionally giving some indication as to the content of the new topic and how it relates to what has gone previously. Transitional units often play a critical role in the process of interpreting a text. For instance, in his work on the structure of Hebrews, George Guthrie notes: "One of the most neglected topics in discussions on the structure of Hebrews is the author's use of various transition techniques." In an accompanying footnote Guthrie adds: "This neglect, perhaps more than any other factor, accounts for the tremendous diversity in current outlines of Hebrews." In Guthrie's view, then, undervaluing the import of textual transitions has the potential of skewing one's broader understanding of a text's flow. This coheres with George Kennedy's first rule of thumb when interpreting the New Testament through rhetorical criticism: the first step in textual analysis is the determination of rhetorical units, which are marked out as such within the text. Transitions at text-unit boundaries play a role in identifying precisely those rhetorical units.
Where text units meet, one can expect to find a transition from one to the other. This, at least, is the case for the most literary of texts, and it is usually the case for those that would aspire to be among that number. As Philip Tite notes, "[t]he transitional elements of a document are ... elements of ancient rhetoric. That is, rhetoric, as a form of persuasive argumentation, seriously took the transitional flow of the discourse into consideration."
The rhetoricians' marked interest in transitions should not be surprising. In helping to demarcate different rhetorical units within an orator's speech or the different text units within a literary work, transitions play a fundamental communicative role. Whereas the anonymous rhetorical handbook Rhetorica ad Herennium (ca. 85 BCE) speaks of there being five parts to rhetoric (invention, arrangement, style, delivery, and memory), the ancient rhetoricians seemed to think of transitional effectiveness as falling most naturally within the category of style. So, the rhetoricians spoke of the need to win over an audience by enhancing the "affective" component of communication. In this regard, Quintilian (95 CE) spoke of the need to charm and delight one's audience by one's style, so that they might surrender themselves to the case that is being made (Inst. 9.4.129). It is important for our purposes to note that Quintilian speaks about the affective function of style precisely when discussing a particular transitional construction, suggesting that transitions have a part to play in the charming and delighting of one's audience through stylistic means.
If transitions can be considered a subset within the category of rhetorical style, they also are related to other categories within the rhetorical taxonomy of Rhetorica ad Herennium. So, impressive transitions help to endear one's audience to one's case by assisting (1) in the demarcation of the arrangement of one's presentation, (2) in the ease of its delivery, and (3) in the ease of its retention by an audience (i.e., memory). Since transitions play a key role in these rhetorical parts in predominantly oral/aural contexts, it is crucial that their place and function within a speech or text is recognised if those presentations are to be properly appreciated.
1.3 The Focus of This Study: Chain-Link Transitions
It has been suggested above that transitional markers fall especially well (but not exclusively) within the category of rhetorical style. It is important, then, to heed Stanley Porter's advice about the need to relate a text's stylistic features to its substance:
[M]any studies of style (or ornamentation) have treated the individual [stylistic] elements in isolation and often as merely ornamental, in other words, as individual literary features that contribute little to the substance or content of a passage, but are included only for aesthetic value.... [But] so far as the ancients were concerned, stylistic matters were not simply for decorative value but were part of the way in which substance was conveyed.... More must be done to treat the stylistic features, not in isolation but in terms of their coordinated use within an entire passage, or even an entire book.
Furthermore, the question that A. H. Snyman asks of stylistic devices in general can be applied specifically to transitional devices within texts: "In what way do these devices promote the communication of [the author's] message and how do they contribute to the impact and appeal of his argumentations?"
In the chapters that follow, issues of this sort will be pursued in relation to one of the many transitional methods evident within ancient texts. Described by the first-century rhetorician Quintilian and the second- century rhetorician Lucian of Samosata, this technique involves the overlapping of material at a text-unit boundary in order to facilitate a transition. This interlocking transition technique (whose form and function are discussed in chapters 2-4 below) is likened by Lucian to the manner in which a chain is constructed, with its individual links overlapping in order to form a connected and continuous whole. This study most frequently makes use of Lucian's analogy in its nomenclature, referring to "chain-link transition," "chain-link interlock," "chain-link construction" or simply "chain link" when studying a New Testament passage in which this feature occurs. Occasionally I will refer to it as "text-unit interlock" or simply "interlock."
To date, no one has engaged in an in-depth study of the appearance and significance of this transitional feature within New Testament texts (not to mention texts of antiquity in general). So for instance, in his 1961 book on Lucian of Samosata and the New Testament, Hans Dieter Betz concerned himself with the religio-historical and paraenetic parallels between Lucian and selected New Testament texts (as his subtitle announced) without interesting himself in the rhetorical features that Lucian prescribed. Similarly, in his 1993 book comparing features of Quintilian and Luke, Robert Morgenthaler's attention focussed on features other than text-unit interlock. The most indepth study of chain-link interlock in the New Testament is a twelve-page study of Acts carried out in the mid-70s by Jacques Dupont. As will be shown in 10.2, however, 40 percent of Dupont's findings are skewed, and the 60 percent that have merit still fail to do justice to all occurrences of chain-link construction within Acts. Occasionally text-unit interlock is discussed in a paragraph or sentence pertaining to a particular passage. Almost as frequently, however, scholars find chain-link interlock in passages where interlock is not in fact apparent. My aims in this project, then, are (1) to give clarity to the form, character, and function of chain-link interlock, (2) to cite instances of its occurrence within selected Pauline, Johannine, and Lukan texts, and (3) to study the consequent structural, theological, and/or historical aspects that arise from such occurrences within New Testament texts.
1.4 The Contribution of This Study: Structure, Theology, History
It is hoped that the contribution of this book does not lie simply in the fact that a study of this topic has never been undertaken in any significant depth previously. Instead, the primary contribution lies in the broader implications that arise in relation to the identification of fifteen cases of chain-link interlock in the New Testament. In particular, as noted in the third aim above, the implications converge particularly in relation to three primary areas of interest: structure, theology, and history.
With regard to structural significance, it will be shown that several New Testament passages that have frequently been thought to involve structural clutter and disorder are in fact text-book cases of first-class style being animated by chain-link construction. The consequences of this are at least two-fold. First, the New Testament authors have not lost control of their arguments, as is commonly suggested by scholars in some of the passages studied here. An ancient rhetor who lost control of the structure of his argument proved himself to be a second-rate rhetor, thereby undermining the effectiveness of his own argument. For instance, with regard to Paul's letter to the Roman Christians, interpreters frequently either intimate or explicitly suggest that Paul has lost control of his argumentative structure at various places in the presentation. Rarely do those same interpreters entertain the consequent implication of this assessment-that structural deficiencies of this sort would have been perceived as damaging Paul's credentials as someone who deserves his audience's attention. It will be demonstrated in chapter 6 below that three of those instances of an apparently defective structure actually involve chain-link construction (6.2, 6.3, and 6.4). Consequently, since the passages themselves are not structurally defective, neither can these instances be interpreted as instances in which Paul lost control of his presentation.
Second, the recognition of chain-link interlock within certain passages offers interpreters a viable alternative to the oft-times extreme views concerning the compositional history of some New Testament texts. For instance, all too often perceived structural "anomalies" have been attributed to the interfering influence of later redactors or scribes who introduced irregularities into the original author's text. Most famously, R. H. Charles noted structural oddities in the book of Revelation and attributed them to the work of an "unintelligent" and "shallow-brained" redactor who suffered from "hopeless mental confusion" and was "profoundly stupid and ignorant." I. T. Beckwith, a contemporary of Charles, differed from him in attributing such passages to the text's main author, but thought that the text itself revealed the rather "irregular" mind of its author. What such views usually demonstrate, however, is simply the ignorance of scholars concerning the existence and function of non-linear chain-link interlock. This will be demonstrated in relation to passages from both the book of Revelation (7.1-7.3) and Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome (6.2, 6.4).
Moreover, it will be shown that the author of the Acts of the Apostles (i.e., "Luke") made fourfold use of chain-link interlock throughout its twenty-eight chapters. On the likelihood that those four transitions signal the start of major text-units, a relatively unique proposal regarding the structure of the Acts of the Apostles will be advanced (esp. 10.2 in relation to 9.1-9.4). Similarly, in relation to the book of Revelation, it will be shown that chain-link transitions hold together the central narrative concerning the eschatological outworking of God (7.6, 7.7, and 7.8), thereby enhancing the impression of structural and narrative coherence.
With regard to theological significance, it will be shown that chain-link interlock frequently plays a key role in an author's attempt to demarcate his theological itinerary and pathways. For instance, chain-link interlock offered the author(s) of the Johannine Gospel the opportunity to assemble a collection of primary themes in a condensed fashion at main structural junctions in that Gospel (8.1-8.9). Through the technique of chain-link interlock, prime structural ground draws to itself key Johannine themes in crystallised fashion, providing the interpretative lens through which to view the major text-units on either side of the interlock. In this manner, the principal chain-link interlock of the Johannine Gospel functions virtually as a condensed miniature of that Gospel. As will be shown in 8.4, it also serves to preclude certain literary and theological readings, while enhancing others.
In chapter 7, it will be seen that the book of Revelation incorporates chain-link construction in a manner that "democratises" the promulgation of apocalyptic mysteries among the "common" people of God (7.3, 7.5, and 7.8). In this way, the book of Revelation includes an implicit criticism of a popular tradition in which apocalyptic mysteries are thought to be unhelpful to those uninitiated into the group of the select few among whom such mysteries are properly handled and understood. For the author of the book of Revelation, knowledge of the intricate mysteries of God is relevant to the ordinary person of faith, whose life is to be impacted by the revelation of those mysteries. This point is accentuated by means of the formation of a new genre, with the book of Revelation embodying a generic hybrid (i.e., an apocalyptic epistle) that is created by means of the author's use of chain-link interlock.
A similar connection between a text's structure and its author's theological commitments will be evident in Luke's structuring of Acts by means of chain-link interlock. From that structure emerges a theology intent on bolstering confidence in the God whose power Luke depicts as promoting the inevitable advance of the Christian movement (10.3). The same construction also undergirds Luke's theology of scriptural fulfilment and promotes his confidence in the reliability of Jesus. So, too, while the identity of the "I" who speaks in Romans 7 has been extensively debated, it will be shown that Paul's use of chain-link construction in that chapter assists in the definition of this central character in Paul's theological presentation (6.2).
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Rhetoric at the Boundaries by Bruce W. Longenecker Copyright © 2005 by Baylor University Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Preface
1 Introduction
2 The Rhetoricians' Recommendations
3 Chain-Link Interlock among Other Ancient Rhetorical Devices
4 The Anatomy of Chain-Link Interlock
5 Ancient Examples of Chain-Link Interlock
6 Chain-Link Interlock and the Logic of Romans
7 Chain-Link Interlock and the Structure of the Apocalypse
8 Chain-Link Interlock and the Theology of the Fourth Gospel
9 Chain-Link Interlock and the Narrative of Acts
10 Chain-Link Interlock and the Interpretation of Acts
11 Conclusions
Works Cited
Index of Biblical and Ancient Sources
Index of Authors
What People are Saying About This
Longenecker has produced a stunning study which zeroes in on a surprisingly neglected literary and rhetorical phenomenon in the Bible—the chain-link or interlock construction (A-b/a-B). Longenecker traces the chain-link through non-Biblical literature to the Old and New Testaments, distinguishing it from other literary and rhetorical linkage techniques. His careful and convincing formalist investigation of the chain-link constructions will surely prove itself an indispensable resource for the exegesis of Biblical texts. A must-read for all serious biblical scholars.
Bruce Longenecker has identified a gap in our understanding of the structure of ancient texts: the chain-link transition. He carefully defines the form, function, and character of this transition within the Graeco-Roman rhetorical tradition, ancient texts, and the New Testament. This accomplishment would be splendid enough, but he also discusses the theological, structural, and historical significance of chain-link interlock. Longenecker provides a fresh and welcomed contribution to New Testament studies.