[1] For rhetorical situation, we especially Wuellner, W., ‘Where is rhetorical criticism taking us?’ CBQ 49 (198,) 448–63.Google Scholar

[2] The most important of these handbooks are: Aristotle, , The Poetics and The Art of RhetoricGoogle Scholar; Pseudo-Longinus, , On the SublimeGoogle Scholar; Demetrius, , On StyleGoogle Scholar, (Cicero, ), Rhetorica ad HerenniumGoogle Scholar and Quintn, , Institutio Oratoria. All available in the CLC.Google Scholar

[3] Such as Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) 1198–1199Google Scholar and Blass-Debrunner-Funk, , A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1962) 240.Google Scholar

[4] See for instance Bullinger, E. W., Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated (London: 1898. Reprinted Grand Rapids/Michigan: Baker Book House, 1968) v–vi.Google Scholar

[5] Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill/ London: University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 37.Google Scholar

[6] Nida, E. A., Louw, J. P., Snyman, A. H., Cronjé, J. v.W., Style and Discourse, with special reference to the text of the Greek New Testament (Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa, 1983) 22–45.Google Scholar

[7] Especially 33–38.

[8] Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969).Google Scholar

[9] Kennedy, , New Testament Interpretation, 33–38.Google Scholar

[10] Ibid. 34.

[11] Ibid. 35.

[12] Rhetorical situation can also mean the rhetorical problem an author is found to be facing as the ‘overriding’ one. (Kennedy, , New Testament Interpretation, 36)Google Scholar. The problem is often visible at the beginning of a discourse and conditions the contents of the proem or the beginning of the proof.

[13] Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, , The New Rhetoric, 30–45Google Scholar. See also Wuellner, W., ‘Paul as Pastor. The function of rhetorical questions in First Corinthians.’ In: L'Apôtre Paul. Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère, ed. Vanhoye, A.. BETL 73 (Leuven University Press, 1986) 56–8.Google Scholar

[14] Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, , The New Rhetoric, 33–4.Google Scholar

[15 ] Kennedy, , New Testament Interpretation, 36.Google Scholar

[16] For a discussion of the complex notion of stasis we Lausberg, H., Elemente der Literarische Rhetorik (Munich: Hueber, 1963; 8th edition 1984) 21–4Google Scholar. Also Lanham, R. A., A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1969) 62–3. (under ‘Issue’).Google Scholar

[17] Kennedy, , New Testament Interpretation, 37.Google Scholar

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] For the distinction between the two categories, we Kennedy, , New Testament Interpretation, 23–30.Google Scholar

[21] The rhetorical situation may change in the course of the arrangement of the material. There is one single overall rhetorical situation of the Letter to the Romans, which bears on the rhetorical genre; but there is also a unified purpose to the rhetorical situation within Rom 8. 31–39, as over against the rhetorical situation of the letter as a whole. The two may be the same, but need not.

[22] Nida, et al. , Style and Discourse, 11–18.Google Scholar

[23] For a discussion of nuclear structures, see Nida, et al. , Style and Discourse, 93Google Scholar. For an analysis of the passage, see also Snyman, A. H., ‘Style and meaning in Romans 8:31–39’, Neot. 18 (1984) 97.Google Scholar

[24] For a description of the semantic relations, see Snyman, , ‘Style and meaning’, 98.Google Scholar

[25] These processes are discussed and illustrated in Snyman, A. H., ‘Toward a new classification of the figures (schémata) in the Greek New Testament’, NTS 32 (1986) 113–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the article on ‘Style and meaning’, 99–100.Google Scholar

[26] Newman, B. M. and Nida, E. A., A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans (London: United Bible Societies, 1973) 270.Google Scholar

[27] Some older translations have the present tense, but modern ones prefer the future. See for instance the new Afrikaans translation and the TEV.

[28] The shift in expectancy consists in the speaker or author answering his own question. See Snyman, and Cronjé, , ‘Toward a new classification’, 121.Google Scholar

[29] Perehnan, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, , The New Rhetoric, 154.Google Scholar

[30] Ibid. 163.

[31] Ibid. 157.

[32] Ibid. 158.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid. 157.

[35] Ibid. 157–8.

[36] Ibid. 157.

[37] Ibid. 160.

[38] Lyons, J., Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[39] Ibid. 310.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Costello, E. T., ‘Modality and Narration: A Linguistic Theory of Plotting’ (Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1975) 28.Google Scholar

[42] In an article ‘A Feature Analysis of the Modal System of English’, Lingua 32 (1973) 312.Google Scholar

[43] Costello, , ‘Modality and Narration’, 28.Google Scholar

[44] Ibid. 29–30.

[45] Wuellner, , ‘Paul as Pastor’, 66.Google Scholar

[46] Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, , The New Rhetoric, 158.Google Scholar

[47] Ibid. 157.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid. 158.

[50] Ibid. 163. Another way to strengthen the adherence of the audience to certain values or beliefs is the use of rhetorical questions. In his dissertation The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (SBL Dissertation Series 57, Chico C A, Scholars Press, 1981)Google Scholar, Stanley Stowers reviewed the role of rhetorical questions in ancient diatribes and came to the conclusion that their overall function was not ‘polemical’, but ‘educational’; they were used to evoke an audience's assent to values shared.

[51] Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, , The New Rhetoric, 33–4.Google Scholar

[52] See Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1955) 183Google Scholarand Käsemann, E., An die Römer. HNT (Tübingen: J C B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1974) 237Google Scholar. In his Semantic Discourse Analysis of Romans (Pretoria, 1979, 95–6) Louw, J. P. considers Rom 8. 31–39 as the culmination of an argument beginning at 1. 18 and dealing with the notion of δικαωσύνη έκ πίστεωςGoogle Scholar. The section 1. 18–3. 18 is the prelude to this central theme, 3. 19–4. 25 states the theme, while chapters 5–8 comment on it and conclude with the passage under discussion.

[53] On the two as of the peroratio, see Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarische Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (Munich: Hueber, 1960) 236–40Google Scholar and Brandt, W. J., The Rhetoric of Argumentation (New York: Bobbs-Merill, 1970) 68–9.Google Scholar

[54] Ibid.

[55] On the peroration of Paul's argumentation in Romans, See Wuellner, W., ‘Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans’, CBQ 38 (1976) 339–42Google Scholar. Wuellner, regards Romans 15. 14–16. 23 as the peroration of the letter, with the pathos section extending from 15. 30–16. 23.Google Scholar

[56] Wuellner, , ‘Paul as Pastor’, 60Google Scholar, referring to Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarische Rhetorik, 126–8.Google Scholar

[57] Ibid.

[58] The New Encyclopedia Britannica 15 (1975) 798.Google Scholar

[59] Ibid.

[60] Kennedy, , New Testament Interpretation, 37.Google Scholar

[61] Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, , The New Rhetoric, 513.Google Scholar

[62] Wuellner, W., ‘Where is rhetorical criticism taking us?’Google Scholar

[63] Booth, W., The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition, 1982) 441.Google Scholar