An Introduction to the Methods based on Ancient Oratory in the Rhetorical Criticism of the Holy Book and the Challenges Facing their Application in Studies on the Epistle to the Hebrews

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in Persian Language and Literature, University of Tehran

2 Professor of Persian Language and Literature, University of Tehran and Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies

Abstract

In the recent decades, rhetorical criticism has been recognized as a method for the assessment of the letters in the Holy Book and many critics have applied this critical approach in studying Christian epistles. Apart from the communicative structure of the epistles – which is, naturally, fit for rhetorical analysis – another reason for the application of rhetorical criticism in studying the letters seems to be the fact that in their composition, the Christian epistles have been influenced by the principles of ancient oratory. Nowadays, some scholars believe that due to the influence of the instructions of oratory teachers, the principles of letter-writing in the ancient times were regulated in a special style and this has caused similarities between orations and letters in ancient times. Even though this view is not completely accepted in academic circles, it has motivated some scholars to attempt rhetorical analyses of the epistles of the Holy Book following the principles of ancient oratory. The present article first introduces the most important methods that, based on the principles of ancient oratory, have emerged in the rhetorical criticism of the Holy Book and, then, assesses the existing challenges in applying these methods in studies on the rhetorical criticism of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
 
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

هاکس، ج. 1349. قاموس کتاب مقدس، تهران: کتابخانه طهوری.
Aristotle. 2007. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, Trans. G.A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP.
Aune, D.E. 1987. TheNew Testament in Its Literary Environment, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.
Buck, D.E. 2002. The Rhetorical Arrangement and Function of OT Citations in the Book of Hebrews: Uncovering Their Role in the Paraenetic Discourse of Access, Ph.D. diss. Dallas Theological Seminary.
Cicero, M.T. 1954. Rhetorica ad Herennium, Trans H. Caplan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Conley, T. 1991. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Cornelius, E. M. 2000. “Rhetorical Criticism and the Hermeneutics of the New Testiment”. in die Skriflig, 34(2): 253-274.
Croft, A. J. 1965. “The Functions of Rhetorical Criticism”. inSchwartz, J. & Rycenga, J.A. (eds.). The Province of Rhetoric. New York: Ronald Press Company. p: 403-414.
Hughes, F. W. 2000. “The Rhetoric of Letters” in K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler. (eds.). The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis?. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 194-240.
Isaacs, M. E. 2002. Reading Hebrews and James: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Macon: Smyth & Helwys.
Kennedy, G. A. 1984. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism,Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Kuntz, J. K. 1982. “The Contribution of Rhetorical Criticism to the Understanding of Isaiah51:1-16.” in David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (eds.). Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, (19): 140-71. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Maxey, L .Z. 2002. The Rhetoric of Response: A Classical Rhetorical Reading of Hebrews 10:32-12:13,  Ph.D. diss. Claremont Graduate University.
Murphy, J. J. 1974. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A history of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance, London: University of California Press.
Porter, S. E. 1993. “The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature.” inS. E. Porter and T. H.Olbricht (eds.). Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference,Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 100-122.
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 Heidelberg Conference,Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 3-15.
Quintilian, M.F. 1959. Institutio Orataria, Trans. H. E. Butler. Leob Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stowers, S.K. 1986. Letter writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Thuren, L. 1990. The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter: With Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions. Abo: Abo Academy Press.
Vickers, B. 1988. In Defence of Rhetoric, London: Oxford University Press.
Vorster, J. N. 1991. The Rhetorical Situation of the Letter to the Romans: An Interactional Approach. Ph.D. diss. University of Pretoria.
Walker-Jones.W. 2003. Hebrew for Biblical Interpretation, Atalanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Watson, D. F. and Hauser, A. J. 1994. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method, Biblical interpretation Series 4. Leiden: Brill.
Watson, D.F. 1988. “A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question.” Novum Testamentum 30: 57-88.
__________. 1997. “Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles since 1978.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5: 175-207.
White, J. L. 1972. The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-body in the Non-literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle, Montana: Scholars Press.
Wuellner, W. 1987. “Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?” Catholic Bible   Quarterly 49: 448-463.
 
Literary Theory and Criticism
Volume 2, Issue 1 - Serial Number 3
Serial 3
January 2018
Pages 129-149

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics