Overview

For the last fifty years, biblical studies have become increasingly interested in rhetoric. It is difficult to find a current New Testament commentary that does not employ rhetorical analysis, and pastors need to have a basic understanding of rhetoric when using commentaries in their preaching and teaching. Many are already familiar with micro-rhetoric, which refers to identifying devices such as inclusio, chiasm, or alliteration, but are likely less familiar with macro-rhetoric, or using Greco-Roman speech labels to analyze New Testament books. Ben Witherington III, a professor of New Testament interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary and author of a New Testament socio-rhetorical commentary series, gives his case for interpreting the New Testament through classical rhetoric in his book, New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament. (I am reviewing the original edition published in 2008, although a second edition was recently released).  

The debate over analyzing the New Testament through Greco-Roman rhetoric is complex. This book is an introduction, not a comprehensive scholarly treatment, which has the benefit of making it a manageable length. Witherington is a proponent of the classical school of thought, which seeks to prove that New Testament authors were trained in classical rhetoric and consciously used it, and thus the New Testament can legitimately be analyzed through ancient speech labels. A basic orientation involves the following:  

• The parts of Greco-Roman speeches include the exordium (the introduction), the narratio (the background), the propositio (the thesis or case), confirmatio (the proofs), refutatio (the refutation of other proofs), and peroratio (the conclusion and final appeal).   

• The species of Greco-Roman speeches include deliberative (persuading people to do something), judicial (determining what is just and unjust), and epideictic (praising or inspiring) rhetoric.  

• The techniques of Greco-Roman speeches include using logos (content), pathos (emotion), and ethos (the relationship between speaker and hearer).
    

Witherington contends that “all of the cultures of the Bible were essentially oral cultures, not text-based cultures” (1); thus, New Testament epistles were not really letters but “discourses, homilies, and rhetorical speeches of various sorts that creators could not be present to deliver to a particular audience” (3).   Witherington supports the case that the New Testament world “was a rhetorically saturated environment,” by arguing that basic education in rhetoric was already present in schools all over the Mediterranean world, while basic education in writing was only beginning to become prominent (5). So he concludes, “Analyzing the majority of the NT on the basis of epistolary conventions—many of which did not become de rigeur nor put into a handbook until after NT times—while a helpful exercise to some degree, has no business being the dominant literary paradigm by which we examine the Pauline, Petrine, Johannine, and other discourses in the NT” (5).  In contrast, Witherington believes that reading the New Testament epistles through the lens of classic rhetoric will help to cast light on the structure of what has been written: “One of the real benefits of rhetorical analysis of the so-called epistolary literature of the NT is that if we can find the proposition and peroration of a discourse, understanding the many and sometimes convoluted arguments that follow the proposition becomes much easier as we know the point and purpose of the discourse” (21).   

Witherington delves into the complex debate on how much Paul would have been educated in Greco-Roman rhetoric. Based on Paul’s upbringing in Tarsus, which happened to be an important center of Greek rhetorical education, as well as the evidence from Nicolaus of Damascus and Josephus of rhetorical education taking place in Hellenized Jerusalem, Witherington concludes that Paul would have received instruction in rhetoric. Witherington concedes that Paul did adapt conventional Greco-Roman epistolary writing techniques for his own purposes. However, since he was giving his messages from a distance, it was as if he were preaching to them without actually being there: “In ever so many ways, rhetors were the ancient equivalent of preachers or evangelists, and this too is yet another reason why a Paul would want to be truly adept at rhetoric” (122). Witherington analyzes Galatians, Philippians, 2 Corinthians in terms of rhetorical speech labels. As Witherington moves on to the Pastoral Epistles, he notes the predominance of paraenesis and enthymemes, a way of giving reminders and encouragement instead of full-fledged arguments—like “preaching to the choir.” To Witherington, all these factors indicate there is a strong case to be made that Paul had a background in formal rhetoric and certainly lived in a world that was saturated by it. 

Witherington gives ten reasons why understanding rhetoric matters, mainly focusing on how interpreters will misunderstand the text or make false conclusions if they do not recognize the major themes of the text, how the text works, and the rhetorical devices present in the text. This is the classical school’s great strength: it emphasizes the environment in which the original hearers would have received the original texts. As Witherington states, “While by no means the only essential tool for interpreting the NT, historically oriented rhetorical criticism is certainly one of the most essential tools if we are to hear and understand the NT documents as their authors intended them to be heard and understood” (235).  

Is Witherington convincing in arguing that the entire New Testament should be read through the lens of rhetoric? Yes and no. It all gets to the limited purpose of a methodology. The classic school is certainly convincing in that rhetoric was part of ancient education and ancient culture: there is sound historical evidence that it was. Whether or not Paul and others consciously employed these techniques and intended that we interpret the Bible according to them is an open question. 

An additional issue is the definition of rhetoric. If we are talking about rhetorical structure or devices, then yes, there is a strong case to be made; if we are talking about rhetorical philosophy, then it is a different story. Duane Litfin, for example, has argued that the philosophy of ancient rhetoric, which sought to accomplish a specific pre-determined result in the audience based on the skills of the rhetor, is opposed to Paul’s purpose as a herald, which is to faithfully proclaim the message and entrust the results to the Holy Spirit.  

This leads me to favor a functional approach to rhetoric. We can analyze the rhetorical function of a particular New Testament text, which may be very similar to the rhetorical function of a particular Greco-Roman speech with the same label, without seeing the need or profitability of conclusively determining the extent Paul and others were consciously using Greco-Roman rhetoric. We do not know if the authors themselves would have applied rhetorical labels to their writing. 

However, this does not negate the benefit of studying rhetoric to understand how New Testament authors communicated and, just as importantly, how we can communicate the same way today. For these reasons, Witherington is worth a read to orient yourself to the debate on ancient rhetoric in New Testament studies.