Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:31:10.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

C. Clifton Black II
C. Clifton Black II
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a study recently published in this journal, Lawrence Wills has identified, in a wide range of Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian literature, a recurring pattern that is sometimes characterized in those sources as a “word of exhortation” (λόγος παρακλήσεως: Acts 13:15; Heb 13:22; cf. Acts 2:40; 1 Macc 10:24; 2 Macc 7:24; 15:11; Apostolic Constitutions 8.5). Toward the end of his article, Wills suggests that the form of this word of exhortation may define a point on a larger rhetorical trajectory within Greco-Roman Hellenism, and that “we can perhaps go further and note the actual compositional techniques that have passed over from Greek rhetoric into Jewish and Christian oratory.” In this assessment Wills is, I believe, quite correct, and in this essay I wish to build upon, and at specific points to refine, his analysis of the form of Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian sermons.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wills, Lawrence, “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” HTR 77 (1984) 277–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Ibid., 298.

3 Ibid., 279.

4 Beyond Acts, Wills discerns the form in Hebrews, I Clement, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Peter, the Ignatian epistles, Barnabas, the old LXX version of Susanna, the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, Eusebius's Praeparatio evangelica, and Josephus's De bello Judaico.

5 Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 279 and passim.

6 Ibid., 281–82, 284–85.

7 Ibid., 280–85, 291.

8 Ibid., 296–99.

9 Ibid., 282, 285, 291, 292.

10 Ibid., 287. Wills's study intends to focus on the form of sermons that were preached “in house,” to members of confessing communities, as over against missionary sermons or speeches directed to outsiders (Ibid., 277, 280, 298–99).

11 Ibid., 299. Support for Wills's inference may be found in the standard works by Marrou, H. I., A History of Education in Antiquity (London/New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956) esp. 194–205Google Scholar, 284–91; and Clark, D. L., Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957).Google Scholar

12 Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 296. Cf. Ibid., 299: “I have found no explicit mention [in Greek rhetoric of the Hellenistic schools] of just this division into exempla, conclusion, and exhortation.”

13 Ibid., 297–98; cf. 293.

14 Thucydides and Plato are admired by later rhetorical theorists, not as innovators, but as touchstones of eloquence and argumentation. On Thucydides, see Cicero De optimo genere oratorum 5.15–6.16; Quintilian Institutio oratorio 10.1.73; on Plato, see Aristotle Rhetorica 1.9.1367b; 2.23.1398a; 3.7.1408b; 3.14.1415b; Cicero Opt. gen. 6.17; Quintilian Inst. 2.15.25–32; 5.7.28; 10.1.8; 12.2.22, and passim; cf. Cornificius (?) Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.2.3; 3.6.10; 4.37.49; 4.45.58.

15 Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 296.

16 See the discussions in Aristotle Rhet. 1.2.1358b; Cicero De inventione 2.3.12–13; 2.51.155–58, 176; 2.58.176–77; Cornificius Rhet. ad Her. 1.2.2; 3.2.2–3; 3.6.10–11; Quintilian Inst. 3.4.12–16; 3.7.1–28; 3.8.1–6; 3.9.1.

17 The distinction between judicial, deliberative, and epideictic discourse is not hard and fast, Quintilian (Inst. 3.4.16) admits that the lines between the different species of rhetoric are sometimes blurred: like judicial rhetoric, deliberative discourse often inquires about the past (Ibid., 3.8.6), and both species are frequently colored by epideictic concerns (Ibid., 3.7.28; 3.8.15). In both theory and practice, the identification of the species of rhetoric affords a relative, not an absolute, indication of the primary intentions of a speech.

18 This taxis of forensic discourse is a synthetic abstract of the similar presentations found in Aristotle Rhet. 3.13.1414a–18.1420b; Cicero De inv. 1.14.19–56.109; Cornificius Rhet. ad Her. 1.3.4–2.31.50; Quintilian Inst. 4.Pr.6–6.5.11.

19 Wills omits mention of the proposition and the often optional partition, refutation, and digression.

20 For discussion of the taxis of deliberative and epideictic address, see Cornificius Rhet. ad Her. 3.2.2–5.9; 3.6.10–8.15; QuintilianInst. 3.7.1 – 6; 3.8.6 – 15.

21 On the need for oratorical flexibility in response to the demands of a particular case or set of circumstances, see esp. Quintilian Inst. 5.10.103; 6.1.4–5; 7.2.22, 51; 7.10.11–13; 8.3.13–14; 9.3.101–2; 10.2.25–27.

22 Quintilian is representative of most classical rhetoricians in his willingness to distinguish, theoretically, between different parts of a speech while granting that, in practice, those parts will often overlap: see Inst. 4.2.4, 8; 4.2.79; 4.4.1, 2; cf. Cicero De Inv. 1.24.34; Comificius Rhet. ad Her. 2.30.47.

23 Quintilian Inst. 3.8.7; 4.1.5 - 6, 25 - 26, 72; cf. Aristotle Rhet. 3.14.1414b- 15.1416b; Cicero De inv. 1.15.20- 18.26; Cornificius Rhet. ad Her. 1.4.6–7.11.

24 See, e.g., Acts 1:1–5; 1 Pet 1:1–9; 2 Pet 1:1–4; 1 Clem. Pr.; 1.1–3.4; Ignatius Eph. Pr.; 1.1–3.2; Barn. 1.1 –8; T. Reub. 1.1 – 10; T. Levi 1.1–2; T.Naph. 15.7; JosephusBell. 1.1.1–12.30.

25 Indeed, even in those discourses in Acts where the speaker presumes a favorable hearing, good relations are cursorily cemented between him and his audience with the use of the introductory address,ἄνδρες δελφοί / Ἰσραηλῖται (1:16; 5:35; 15:7; cf. 20:18b–21).

26 For Wills's discussion, see “Form of the Sermon,” 278–80. My own analysis of Acts 13:13–41 is indebted to the work of Kennedy, George A., New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill/London: University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 124–25, though I have attempted both to develop Kennedy's suggestions and to document the congruence of this speech with classical canons.Google Scholar

27 Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 279.

28 Since the primary, practical impetus for the conceptualization of rhetoric was the presentation of cases in courts of law, classical theoreticians devoted considerable attention to the crafting of arguments (seeesp. Aristotle Rhet. 3.17.1417b–1418b; Cicero De. inv. 2.4.1–59.177; Cornificius Rhet. ad Her. 2.2–31.50; Quintilian Inst. 5.Pr.1–14.35). Aristotle went so far as to generalize the arrangement of any speech as consisting of only two necessary parts, the statement of the case and its proof (Rhet. 3.13.1414a–1414b); similarly, Quintilian opined that “any single [part of a speech] other than the proof may on occasion be dispensed with, but there can be no suit in which the proof is not absolutely necessary” (Inst. 5.Pr.5 [trans. Butler]; cf. 3.6.104). This classical emphasis upon argument and demonstration—with style and arrangement as means to these ends—should be borne in mind when we consider Judeo-Christian discourse.

29 It is also worth noting that the peroration of this speech exemplifies two other qualities that are urged by Quintilian: its final recapitulation is as brief as possible (Acts 13:38–39; cf. Quintilian Inst. 6.1.2), and it invokes the deity for persuasive effect (Acts 13:40, citing the oracle of Yahweh in Hab 1:5; cf. Quintilian Inst. 6.1.34).

30 Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 279.

31 Of course, the stimulation of belief can lead to a changed course of action, as Acts 13:43 attests: many in Paul's audience followed him and Barnabas. To identify Acts 13:16b–41 as an epideictic address is to suggest only that it ultimately seems to be aimed at belief, although action based on that belief could be a by-product of the effectiveness of rhetoric.

32 Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 284; cf. 279.

33 Thus Quintilian states that the most artful rhetoric is that wherein its artistry is concealed, thereby hoodwinking the listener who sits in judgment (Inst. 4.1.57; 4.2.58 – 59; 4.5.5; 9.4.147). Interestingly, such sleight of hand does not appear to violate Quintilian's unshakable conviction that the perfect orator must first be a good and honorable man (Inst. 1.Pr.9–20; 1.2.3; 2.2.1–8; 2.16.11; 2.20.4; 12.1.1–2.10; passim).

34 Aristotle Rhet. 1.2.1356a– 1356b; note also the counsels for careful disposition of the orator's strongest arguments for optimal persuasive effect in Cornificius Rhet. ad Her. 3.10.18 and Quintilian Inst. 5.12.4; 7.1.17.

35 As Kennedy has shown, with special reference to the beatitudes in the Matthean Sermon on the Mount (New Testament Interpretation, 49–50; cf. 17–18).

36 Rhet. 1.2.1355b; cf. 1.2.1356b; 2.20.1393ab; Cicero De inv. 1.34.57 – 41.77; cf. Quintilian Inst. 5.1.1–3; 5.10.1; 5.14.1; 8.5.9.

37 An example might be the convoluted assertion in 1 Pet 1:17–21, behind which lies a logical syllogism: a suppressed major premise (“Those with a proper regard for God and Christ will stand secure in faith, hope, and godly fear”), a stated minor premise (“The Christian exiles in Asia Minor confidently regard God as father and impartial judge, who raised from the dead Christ, their predestined, imperishable, and spotless ransom from futility”), and a conclusion (“The faith, hope, and reverence of the exiled Christians are secure and to be expected”). Admittedly, the reasoning implicit in 1 Pet 1:17–21 is not pellucid; however, I think this a more plausible reckoning of its argument than that of Wills, who (with due trepidation) parses this sentence into the exhortation of one sermonic cycle and the exempla and conclusion of another (“Form of the Sermon,” 289–90).

38 Thus Epistle of Jeremiah passim; T. Naph. 2.2–10; Acts 3:12–26; 13:17–33a, 38–39; 17:24–31; 1 Cor 10:1–14; Heb 2:14–18; 5:1– 10; 6:13–7:28; 8:1–7; 9:1– 10:18; 1 Pet 2:21–25; 3:18–22; 2 Pet 2:4– 10a; I Clem. 16.1 – 17; 20.1 – 12; 24.1–5.

39 For discussion of these, consult Aristotle Rhet. 1.5.1375a–1376a; Comificius Rhet. ad Her. 2.6.9; and Quintilian Inst. 5.7.9–25; 5.11.8, 32–44. Jewish and Christian arguments based on Scripture appear to be analogous to classical proofs from legal documents (cf. Aristotle Rhet. 1.15.1375ab; Cicero De inv. 1.12.17–18; Quintilian Inst. 5.11.32– 33).

40 Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 299, with reference to such passages as T. Naph. 8.1–2; 8.9–10; T. Jos. 10.1–2; 17.1–2; T. Benj. 2.5–3.1; 4.1a–b; 6.7–7.1; 7.5–8.1; 10.2–3; Josephus Bell. 5.362–415; 7.341–80; Heb 1:5–4:16; 8:l–12:28b; I Clem. 4.1 –13.1a; 37.2–40.1b; Ignatius Eph. 3.1–4.2; 5.1–3b; 7.18a–10.1 (discussed in Wills, “Form of the Sermon,” 281–85, 291, 295–96).

41 Cycle # 1: praise of Athenian government, games, warfare, and nobility (Thucydides 2.37– 40), followed by a conclusion (Athens is the school of Hellas: 2.41.1 –5a) and an exhortation (surviving Athenians should willingly suffer for the sake of the city: 2.41.5b); cycle # 2: praise of the Athenians slain in battle (2.42.1–4), followed by a conclusion (the nobility of their death befitted their city: 2.43.1) and three exhortations to a noble life among the survivors (2.43.1, 4); cycle # 3: sympathy with the parents of those who have fallen (2.44.1–2), followed by an exhortation to bear up in the hope of other children (2.44.3), based on the conclusion that new sons will provide for the city's future security and will dispel painful memories of old sons lost in war (2.44.3). Notice that multiple exhortations occur in one of these cycles—a phenomenon uncovered by Wills in some early Christian λόγοι παρακλήσεως (see “Form of the Sermon,” 282, 284, and 287 on, respectively, Heb 10:22–25,I Clem. 9.1, and Acts 20:28, 31).

42 Thus, e.g., the lengthy doctrinal (and nonhortatory) section in Heb 6:1–10:18 appears anomalous only if one is scrutinizing the epistle with an eye for “the word of exhortation.” The anomaly vanishes once it is remembered that the author explicitly aims, not only to exhort, but also to entrench present belief on the basis of a proper understanding of past events (the surpassing, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, the heavenly high priest, for the sins of many).

43 Anticipated by Aristotle (Rhet. 3.17.1417b), the primary questions at issue in a case—fact, definition, quality, and jurisdiction—were outlined by Cicero (De inv. 2.14.12–39.115) and Quintilian (Inst. 5.10.53; 8.Pr.8).

44 On “common” and “material” topics, see Aristotle Rhet. 1.3.1359a–8.1366a; 2.18.1391b–19.1393a; 2.23.1397a–1400b; Cicero De inv. 2.15.48–50; Quintilian Inst. 5.10.20–52.

45 The chief classical treatments of style include Aristotle Rhet. 3.2.1404b–7.1408b; Demetrius De elocutione passim; Comificus Rhet. ad Her. 4.8.11–55.69; Quintilian Inst. 8.1.1–11.1.93; 12.10.58–80.

46 For general discussions of these modes of persuasion and the oratorical duties germane to each, consult Aristotle Rhet. 1.2.1356a; 1.15.1377b–2.1.1378a; 3.1.1403b; Cicero De oratore 2.27.115; 2.43.183–85; idem Orator 69; Quintilian Inst. 3.5.2; 3.8.15–16; 6.2.9–20; 8.Pr.7; 12.10.58–59; Augustine De doctrina Christiana 4.27–33.

47 Wills. “Form of the Sermon,” 278–80; 287–88; cf. 277–7 8.

48 The most convincing demonstration of this is provided by the voluminous research of Kennedy, George, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963)Google Scholar, and idem, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 300 B.C.–AD. 300 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

49 This paper was presented to the members of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society in April 1987, at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. For their comments and criticisms, as well as those of Dr. Lawrence Wills, I wish to express my thanks.