Udo Schnelle: Early Christianity and Culture

[DCHindley]

I've put together an annotated list of the important ancient works on rhetoric, garnered primarily from Kern's book, but annotated with details from Wiki or other web pages dedicated to these works.

Aristotle (fl. 384 – 322 BC, Greek):

Ῥητορική = Ars Rhetorica, "The 'Art' of Rhetoric" [trans. J. H. Freese, LCL 193, London: Heinemann, 1926.]
The Rhetoric consists of three books. Book I offers a general overview, presenting the purposes of rhetoric and a working definition; it also offers a detailed discussion of the major contexts and types of rhetoric. Book II discusses in detail the three means of persuasion that an orator must rely on: those grounded in credibility (ethos), in the emotions and psychology of the audience (pathos), and in patterns of reasoning (logos). Book III introduces the elements of style (word choice, metaphor, and sentence structure) and arrangement (organization). Some

Pseudo Aristotle, probably written by Anaximenes of Lampsacus (Greek):

Τέχνη ῥητορική = Rhetorica ad Alexandrum "Rhetoric to Alexander" [translated by E. S. Forster, Oxford, 1924]
As a complete Greek manual on rhetoric still extant from the fourth century BCE, Rhetoric to Alexander gives us an invaluable look into the rhetorical theory of the time. Aristotle did in fact write a work On Rhetoric at much the same time. The author claims to have based this treatise on the Techne of Corax and the Theodectea of Aristotle which may in fact refer to On Rhetoric seeing that Aristotle's work was not published until 83 BCE.

Cicero (86-44 BCE, Latin):

De Inventione "On Invention" 86 BCE [trans. H. M. Hubbell, LCL 386, London: Heinemann, 1949]
In 86 B.C.E., Cicero constructed De Invetione. It is speculated that Cicero wrote De Inventione, as well as Rhetorici libri, with all intents and purposes of to cover the five canons of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Unfortunately, Cicero failed to complete his goal, or the remaining books have become lost over time. Nonetheless, De Inventione was to become one of the most read classical treatises on classical rhetoric and becoming one of the traditional texts regarding speech as well as the writing processes for the five canons of rhetoric.

De Optimo Genere Oratorum "The Best Race of Orators" 46 BCE [trans. H. M. Hubbell, Cicero: De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica. London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1969. pp. 349–72]
Oratorum set the criterion for a well spoken individual. Cicero states that an eloquent man must “speak so as to teach, to delight, and to persuade.” According to Cicero, each of the three criterions has a specific importance in the field of rhetoric. One must speak so as to teach in order to find the truth, one must speak with delight in order to keep the mind captivated, and one must be able to persuade in order to get the truth across.

Topica "Topics" 44 BCE [trans. H. M. Hubbell, LCL 386, London: Heinemann, 1949]
Cicero’s final treatise on rhetoric discusses the connection between philosophy and rhetoric. He discloses his belief that there is a close ties that can be found between the two crafts. Cicero asserts that the bridge between philosophy and rhetoric is invention. Contrary to Aristotle’s Topic, Cicero creates closer correlations between rhetorical and logical argumentation. Brutus ultimately reveals that rhetoric can only be utilized when it is combined with other subject matter.

De Oratore "On the Orator" 55 BCE [(2 vols.), vol. 1 E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham; vol. 2 H. Rackham, LCL 348 & 349, London: Heinemann, 1942]
In 55 B.C.E., Cicero composed De Oratore. De Oratore is considered to be one of Cicero’s treatises that accurately express his views on rhetoric. With Aristotle’s Rhetoric circulating Rome shortly before its release, Cicero’s De Oratore is heavily influenced by Aristotle. De Oratore discusses the responsibility of the orator, it’s place within society, and discusses certain qualities an orator must obtain in order to be efficient. Like Phraedrus, the text also discusses what type of craft rhetoric really is and expresses the differences between the orator and the philosopher.

De Partitione Oratoriae "The Divisions (διαιpέσεις) of Oratory" 50 BCE [H. Rackham, LCL 349, London: Heinemann, 1942]
This is a short piece that gives Cicero’s perspective on the canon of arrangement and its structure.

Brutus "Brutus" 46 BCE [trans. G. L. Hendrickson, LCL 342, London: Heinemann, 1939]
Although fragmented, Brutus attempts to prove that Roman rhetoric is up to par with the Greeks by comparing the history of both Greek and Roman rhetoric. He further discusses the relevance of rhetors and specifies their qualifications (going so far as to even rank existing Roman rhetors. Also, within Brutus, Cicero argues against those who claim that he is nothing but a “Greekling,” by claiming that his rhetorical background is undoubtedly Roman.

Orator "Spokesman" 46 BCE [trans. H. M. Hubbell, LCL 342, London: Heinemann, 1962]
Orator sets out to define the qualifications of an ideal rhetor. Cicero reemphasizes that the ideal rhetor is not someone who has mastered one specific style of rhetoric, but a person that can adapt to any rhetorical setting. This treatise particularly conveys Cicero’s message that a rhetor or orator must be fluid in order to adapt from one situation to another. The ideal orator must master all canons of rhetoric in order to be a prominent rhetorician.

Pseudo-Cicero (ca 90 BCE, Latin):

Rhetorica ad Herennium: De Ratione Dicendi "Rhetoric for Herrenium: On the Theory of Public Speaking" [trans. Harry Caplan, LCL 403 (Cicero, Rhetorica ad Herennium), London: Heinemann, 1954]
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorica_ad_Herennium
The Rhetorica ad Herennium suggests that in a standard format for argument (widely followed today in any five part essay) there were six steps.
o Exordium, in which the writer uses relevant generalities, anecdotes, quotes, or analogies to capture attention and then connects them to the specific topic.
o Narratio, in which the author succinctly states what will be the argument, thesis or point that is to be proven
o Divisio, in which the author outlines the main points, or reviews the debate to clarify what needs to be discussed further
o Confirmatio, which sets out the arguments (often three) for the thesis that the author supports as well as evidence supporting them
o Refutatio, which sets out and refutes the opposing arguments
o Conclusio, which is a summary of the argument, describing the urgency of the viewpoint and actions that could be taken

Quintilian:

Institutio Oratoria "Institutes of Oratory" ca. 95 CE [(4 vols.), trans. H. E. Butler, LCL 124±7, London: Heinemann, 1920-2]
A twelve-volume textbook on the theory and practice of rhetoric ... Quintilian drew from a number of sources in compiling his work. This eclecticism also prevented him from adhering too rigidly to any particular school of thought on the matter, although Cicero stands out among the other sources. Quintilian also refused any short, simple lists of rules; he evidently felt that the study and art of rhetoric could not be so reduced. ... He organizes the practice of oratory into five canons: inventio (discovery of arguments), dispositio (arrangement of arguments), elocutio (expression or style), memoria (memorization), and pronuntiatio (delivery).

Pretty complicated stuff ...

DCH

[DCHindley]

To illustrate the utter chaos that exists among quite competent classicists when it comes to classifying any rhetorical methods/style Paul is thought to have presented in his works, here is a list of the analyses of several critics restricted to the book of Galatians:

Hans Dieter Betz (1975, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia, 16-24)
1.1-5: epistolary prescript
1.6-11: exordium
1.12-2.14: narratio
2.15-21: propositio
3.1-4.31: probatio
5.1-6.10: exhortatio
6.11-18: epistolary postscript (peroratio)

Bernard Hungerford Brinsmead (1982, Galatians: Dialogical Response to Opponents, 46-54)
1.1-5: epistolary prescript
1.6-10: prooemium
1. 12-2.14: propositio
2.15-21: propositio
3.1-4.31: probatio
5.1-6.10: refutatio
6.11-18: epistolary postscript

G. A. Kennedy (1984, New Testament Interpretation, 147-151)
1.1-5: salutation
1.6-10: proem
1.11-5.1: proofs
1.11 —2.21: first heading
1.11 -12: topic
1.13-2.14: narrative
2.15-21: epicheireme
3.1-5.1: second heading
5.1-6.10: injunctions
6.11-18: epilogue/postscript

Beno Standaert (1985, 'La rhétorique antique', Foi et Vie 84, 33-40; 1986, 'La rhétorique ancienne dans Saint Paul', L'Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style et conception du ministère, ed. A. Vanhoye, 78-92)
1.1-5: introduction épistolaire
1.6-12: annonce du thème
1.13-2.14: narratio
2.15-21: peroratio
3.1-4.31: refutatio
5.1-6.10: probatio-exhortatio
6.11-18: épilogue

Robert G. Hall (1987, 'The Rhetorical Outline of Galatians: A Reconsideration', Journal of Biblical Literature 106, 277-87)
1.1-15: salutation/exordium
1.6-9: proposition
1.10-6.10: proof
1.10-2.21: narration
3.1-6.10: further headings
6.11-18: epilogue

Joop Smit (1989, 'The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: Deliberative Speech', New Testament Studies 35, 1-26)
1.1-5: epistolary prescript
1.6-12: exordium
1.13-2.21: narratio
3.1-14.11: confirmatio
4.12-5.12: conclusio
5.13-6.10: interpolation
6.11-18: amplificatio

Richard Longenecker (1990, Galatians, arguments largely summarized from 1989, Walter G. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts, chapter 2)
1.1-5: salutation
1.6-10: exordium
1.11-2.14: narratio
1.11-12: thesis statement
1.13-2.14: autobiographical material
2.15-21: propositio
3.1-4.11: probatio
4.12-6.10: exhortatio
6.11-18: subscription

James Hester (1991, 'Placing the Blame: The Presence of Epideictic in Galatians 1-2', Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric, ed. D. F. Watson, 281-307; compare to his earlier 'Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11-2:14', Journal of Biblical Literature 103, 1984, 223-33)
1.1-5: epistolary prescript
1.6 -10: exordium
1.11-12: stasis
1.13-2.21: narratio
2.11-14: chreia
2.15-21: elaboration of chreia
3.1-4.31: probatio
5.1-6.10: exhortatio
6.11 18: epistolary postscript (peroratio)

Walter B. Russell III (1993, 'Rhetorical Analysis of the book of Galatians, Part 2', Bibliotheca Sacra 150, 436-37)
1.1-5: prescript/salutation
1.6-10: prologue/proem/exordium
1.11-6.10: proof/probatio/confirmatio
1.11-2.21: historical argument
3.1-4.31: experiential argument
5.1-6.10: causal argument
6.11-18: postscript/epilogue/conclusio

All this was summarized from Kern's book previously mentioned (with link), Rhetoric and Galatians (1998).

DCH

Betz	Brinsmead	Kennedy	Standaert	Hall	Smit	Longenecker	Hester	Russell
1.1-5: epistolary prescript	1.1-5: epistolary prescript	1.1-5: salutation	1.1-5: introduction épistolaire	1.1-15: salutation/exordium	1.1-5: epistolary prescript	1.1-5: salutation	1.1-5: epistolary prescript	1.1-5: prescript/salutation
1.6-11: exordium	1.6-10: prooemium	1.6-10: proem	1.6-12: annonce du thème	1.6-9: proposition	1.6-12: exordium	1.6-10: exordium	1.6 -10: exordium	1.6-10: prologue/proem/exordium
1.12-2.14: narratio	1. 12-2.14: propositio	1.11-5.1: proofs	1.13-2.14: narratio	1.10-6.10: proof			1.11-12: stasis	1.11-6.10: proof/probatio/confirmatio
		1.11 —2.21: first heading		1.10-2.21: narration		1.11-2.14: narratio	1.13-2.21: narratio	1.11-2.21: historical argument
		1.11 -12: topic				1.11-12: thesis statement
		1.13-2.14: narrative			1.13-2.21: narratio	1.13-2.14: autobiographical material	2.11-14: chreia
2.15-21: propositio	2.15-21: propositio	2.15-21: epicheireme	2.15-21: peroratio			2.15-21: propositio	2.15-21: elaboration of chreia
3.1-4.31: probatio	3.1-4.31: probatio	3.1-5.1: second heading	3.1-4.31: refutatio	3.1-6.10: further headings	3.1-14.11: confirmatio	3.1-4.11: probatio	3.1-4.31: probatio	3.1-4.31: experiential argument
					4.12-5.12: conclusio	4.12-6.10: exhortatio	5.1-6.10: exhortatio	5.1-6.10: causal argument
5.1-6.10: exhortatio	5.1-6.10: refutatio	5.1-6.10: injunctions	5.1-6.10: probatio-exhortatio		5.13-6.10: interpolation
6.11-18: epistolary postscript (peroratio)	6.11-18: epistolary postscript	6.11-18: epilogue/postscript	6.11-18: épilogue	6.11-18: epilogue	6.11-18: amplificatio	6.11-18: subscription	6.11 18: epistolary postscript (peroratio)	6.11-18: postscript/epilogue/conclusio

I see it does not fit so well, so I've attached a copy of the Excel file. Sadly, you can see they all seem to mix Greek with Roman rhetorical terms.

[outhouse]

Pretty complicated stuff ...

DCH

Agreed. One could develop his whole life's study around this and not be right.


Do you agree we should keep a rhetorical lens on Paul while using moderation?

[Clive]

Moderation? Paul is very clearly arguing for the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ "death where is thy sting" "glass darkly" using all the tricks of the trade.

The problem is why rhetoric has been played down, and are there not other rhetorical systems - Jewish, Persian, Egyptian?

If "I am the way, the truth and the life" one brings some very big guns onto the battlefield.

[Clive]

Is it really that complicated? We have probably experienced most of it in theatre, politics, film, law, religion, books and we do have examples from other cultures and times.

Orwell on plain English for example.

[Clive]

I have just seen a guide to how to write a PhD that covers most of this!

[Clive]

And looking at that table I do not see utter chaos but broad agreement!

[Clive]

I get the impression that the experts in this area are actually those with theatre backgrounds! https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5IK ... al&f=false

Victorian Women and the theatre of trance

[DCHindley]

Pretty complicated stuff ...

... One could develop his whole life's study around this and not be right.

Do you agree we should keep a rhetorical lens on Paul while using moderation?

By "with moderation," do you mean "without engaging in flame warfare"? I could get into that ...

DCH

[DCHindley]

And looking at that table I do not see utter chaos but broad agreement!

I'll believe that when I see someone has downloaded the spreadsheet ...

DCH