Title of Essay

The Challenge of Hearing the New Testament with additional focus on Rhetorical Criticism

Commentary:

Just didn’t get there with this one. Only 75% and really deserved to not get a Distinction. I have started a new and quite challenging job and I just have been behind the 8 ball all semester. Not connecting the way I would like.

Introduction

In Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, one of the authors tells the story of a seminary trip to Greece and Turkey and standing on what few stones remain of Laodicea. He says he finally understands the meaning behind Jesus’ challenge in the Revelation as to hot and cold water.  Importantly, he notes, “In whatever place and whatever age people read the Bible, we instinctively draw from our own cultural context to make sense of what we’re reading.”[1] This is a key element to understanding why we find reading ancient texts like the New Testament challenging, but it’s not only culture.  Joel Green notes that biblical texts, like conversations, are open to ambiguity, misunderstanding, are subject to differing perspectives and challenges such as background “noise”; however at least with conversations, we can ask clarifying questions.[2]  Any text brings some level of complexity leaving it to the reader to interpret the text.

Culture and Context Affects our “Hearing”

Paul writes “For I do not understand my own actions.  For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.  Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good….” (Rom 7:14-25[3])  At a surface reading, Paul illustrates the complexity of his wrestling with sin, but readers find the passage verging on incomprehensible until they take the time to really unpack it.  To this day, even the identity of the “I” used in the text is debated[4].  As Green notes, between communicator and receiver, lie context, medium and the message itself.[5]  Many Christians immediately resonate with the surface perception of the passage in Romans because of our own experience with sin.  Janke du Plessis speaks of the spiritual reality that Christians experience that Paul is touching on in this passage but notes the specific context and specific audience of the passage and the way that Paul engages the readers in their shared common experience of sinfulness.[6]  This shared experience greatly enhances our capacity to understand even this complex passage but even some simple passages defy easy understanding.

Brevity or Length

2 John is the second shortest letter in the New Testament, and this might be why we struggle to understand the situation behind the letter.[7]  On the surface the letter is loving and caring correspondence and yet it is pointed and intentional in dealing with an apparent issue of association.  Is the letter addressed to an individual or a group?  Why are only some of the lady’s children living in truth?  Who are the deceivers?  The overlaps between 1 John and 2 John might also actually lead to some “referential fallacy”.[8] 

It is not our purpose to discuss the meaning behind 2 John or for that matter Romans 7, but to note that, whilst we might be familiar with receiving a letter and we might even resonate as with Romans 7, 2 John at some level is quite alien because we are only hearing one side of the message.  We can infer meaning, but we have no real reference points and that makes the challenge of “hearing” in this brief letter extremely difficult. 

Green notes on the other hand that the size of the book of Revelation brings its own challenge because we are not capable of holding the whole of the book in the forefront of our minds and therefore we need to understand the book in a linear fashion, one passage after another.[9]  We tend towards a linear reading and this leads us to think about the writer’s message in a linear fashion which gives us paradoxes such as whether Jesus was baptised after John went to prison (Luke 3:18-22).[10] 

Practice versus Technique

The language of the New Testament is selective in part because there is assumed shared experience and knowledge between the writer and his primary audience (eg 1 Cor 11:30; Jas 5:6).[11]  Green notes that we tend to gravitate towards technique in our approach to understanding the New Testament potentially because of the rationalism of Descartes and Newton whereas he urges simply getting familiar or practised in reading Scripture and suggests that those who are practiced will use a variety of methods for interpreting and understanding texts.[12]  He notes that technique in a practiced reader becomes preconscious.[13]

Behind, In or In Front Of the Text

Green suggests that technique can be categorised as three approaches.[14]  The first is “behind the text”, where the reader uses the history and context to unpack meaning in the text; the second is “in the text”, where the reader studies the qualities, architecture, consistency and texture of the text and; the third is “in front of the text”, where the reader orients towards the perspective, community and the effect of the text on the reader.[15]  Green asserts however, that these methods are “ideals” and that most readers apply a combination of the approaches.[16]

Green enumerates various critical approaches as “lenses” to assist with understanding the New Testament including Rhetorical Criticism on which we will now focus.[17]

What is Rhetoric

Generally, we speak of rhetorical speech as being manipulative and bombastic with little substance whereas, rhetoric in New Testament times was a form of argumentation designed to persuade readers of “the truth of their beliefs”.[18]  Clifton Black in discussing Rhetorical Criticism describes it as the “norms of persuasive discourse that pervaded the Greco-Roman world”.[19]  Given the Greco-Roman context of the New Testament, it is unsurprising that rhetorical criticism is a meaningful way to engage with New Testament writers.  Regardless of the educational status vis a vis formal rhetorical study of New Testament writers, it is clear that this form of discourse was ubiquitous and audiences would have applied a rhetorical lens to the message they received.[20]

George Kennedy proposes a method of rhetorical criticism that can be summarised in six steps, identify an inclusio or opening and closure; defining the situation; identifying the problem; identifying a unifying discourse or structure; analysing the style of discourse; critiquing the effectiveness of the pericope.[21]  James Muilenburg proposed pericopal analysis considering “the authors intention, historical context and distinctive blending of form and content” as supplementary to form criticism, which assisted Kennedy in the formation of his method.[22]  New Rhetoric considers the “social aspect of language,… [as] an instrument of communication and influence on others” emphasising the social and practical thrust “in front of the text” influencing the reader in their social context motivating action.[23]  Black asserts that the New Rhetoricians have yet to arrive at a “discernible procedural consensus”.[24]

A Critical Analysis of the Method

Black asserts that rhetorical and historical criticism are complementary rather than contesting because both attempt to “triangulate (1) the intent of an author (2) in the formulation of the text (3) that forms or informs a reader.”[25]  Where the method falls down is in a tendency to get caught up in the absolute argument or in forcing rhetorical structure on texts that resist it.[26] The method provides a forum for exchange among scholars in reasoned argument.[27]  Black concludes that “rhetorical criticism holds some promise for bridging biblical scholars’ older, historical concerns and there newer, literary interests.”[28]

2 John – A Case Study

Duane Watson asserts that Kennedy’s model of Rhetorical Criticism may be used to understand 2 John.[29]  He uses Kennedy’s model to analyse the text. 

Rhetorical Unit and Inclusio

The letter conforms to the ancient letter genre and is a complete rhetorical unit.[30]  The opening of the letter establishes that the letter is offered in love based in the common truth (2 John 1-2) and concludes with the complete joy of face-to-face communion (2 John 12-13).

The Situation

The situation consists of an exigence, an audience and constraints.[31]  The exigence underlies all three Johannine epistles and is linked to specifically “the secessionists who seceded from the Presbyter’s church” (the “anti-Christs” in 1 John 2:18-19).[32]  The Audience are either a church community[33] or potentially an individual lady[34].  The major constraint is that secession from truth is to lose eternal reward and the Presbyter constrains his audience to this truth (2 John 8-9).[35]

The Question, Style and Stasis

2 John is a deliberative designed to advise and dissuade the audience regarding “a particular course of action” (2 John 10-11) based on the future likely attendance of the secessionists.[36]  The rhetoric is about the Christology of the Secessionists (2 John 7).[37]

The Structure

The epistle consists of an Exordium (v4), the Narratio (v5) the Probatio (vv 6-11) the Peroratio (v12) and begins and ends with an Inclusio (v1-3; 13) with the closing as an Epistolary Closing as Peroratio.[38]  Van der Watt suggests both chiasm and parallelism are in the letter in verse 6.[39]

The Effectiveness of the Pericope

Watson argues that the deliberative rhetoric starts with creating goodwill before making a case for faithfulness to the commandment to love while constraining the audience from alienating themselves from relationship with God.[40]  The letter is brief and to the point which may be indicative of a strong relationship between the Presbyter and his audience.[41]

This brief analysis shows how a rhetorical criticism lens can be applied to a letter such as 2 John to aid in understanding the letter as a persuasive text.

Conclusion

Any communication between two parties requires interaction to ensure clarity.  The gap of nearly two thousand years and the fact that in much of the New Testament, readers are only party to one side of the communication, makes “hearing” the message of the New Testament writers significantly more difficult than in everyday communication.  Familiarity with the text and applying analytical frameworks including Rhetorical Criticism can alleviate some of the barriers to understanding the message.

Bibliography

Black, C Clifton. “Rhetorical Criticism and the New Testament.” Proceedings 8 (1988): 77–92. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9affa7a5-b493-3357-b376-00924a027a7a.

Du Plessis, Janke L. “The Fundamental Idea of Paul’s ‘I’ in Romans 7:14-25 and Christian Spirituality as a Lived Experience.” In Die Skriflig 57.1 (2023): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v57i1.3001, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=d152cf13-a194-35be-b631-9d47a91dcf07.

Green, Joel B. Hearing the New Testament : Strategies for Interpretation. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6376593.

Richards, E. Randolph, and Brandon J O’Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Illinois USA: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Van der Watt, J G. (Jan Gabriël). “The Situation in 2 John: A Worried Presbyter.” Journal of Early Christian History 5.2 (2015): 132–56. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=1c67511a-fbfc-3ce5-9355-3a0fcf9c02a3.

Watson, Duane Frederick. “A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John According to Greco-Roman Convention.” New Testament Studies 35.1 (1989): 104–30. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=aa74e2da-34a4-3a11-bd18-a320264bb956.

---

[1] E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (Illinois USA: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 8.

[2] Joel B. Green, Hearing the New Testament : Strategies for Interpretation (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010), 13, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6376593.

[3] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version) copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved

[4] Janke L Du Plessis, “The Fundamental Idea of Paul’s ‘I’ in Romans 7:14-25 and Christian Spirituality as a Lived Experience,” In Die Skriflig 57.1 (2023): 1, https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v57i1.3001, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=d152cf13-a194-35be-b631-9d47a91dcf07.

[5] Green, Hearing the NT, 12.

[6] Du Plessis, “Paul’s ‘I,’” 1.

[7] J G. (Jan Gabriël) Van der Watt, “The Situation in 2 John: A Worried Presbyter,” Journal of Early Christian History 5.2 (2015): 132, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=1c67511a-fbfc-3ce5-9355-3a0fcf9c02a3.

[8] Van der Watt, “Situation in 2 John,” 133.

[9] Green, Hearing the NT, 14.

[10] Green, Hearing the NT, 15.

[11] Green, Hearing the NT, 16.

[12] Green, Hearing the NT, 18.

[13] Green, Hearing the NT, 19.

[14] Green, Hearing the NT, 20–25.

[15] Green, Hearing the NT, 20.

[16] Green, Hearing the NT, 21.

[17] Green, Hearing the NT, 21–23.

[18] Green, Hearing the NT, 175.

[19] C Clifton Black, “Rhetorical Criticism and the New Testament,” Proceedings 8 (1988): 77, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=9affa7a5-b493-3357-b376-00924a027a7a.

[20] Green, Hearing the NT, 176.

[21] quoted in Green, Hearing the NT, 178–80.

[22] Green, Hearing the NT, 177.

[23] Green, Hearing the NT, 180–81.

[24] Green, Hearing the NT, 188.

[25] Green, Hearing the NT, 192.

[26] Green, Hearing the NT, 193.

[27] Green, Hearing the NT, 193.

[28] Black, “Rhetorical Criticism,” 81.

[29] Duane Frederick Watson, “A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John According to Greco-Roman Convention,” New Testament Studies 35.1 (1989): 104, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=aa74e2da-34a4-3a11-bd18-a320264bb956.

[30] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 105.

[31] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 105.

[32] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 105.

[33] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 105–6.

[34] Van der Watt, “Situation in 2 John,” 136.

[35] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 106–7.

[36] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 109.

[37] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 109; Van der Watt, “Situation in 2 John,” 134.

[38] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 129.

[39] Van der Watt, “Situation in 2 John,” 141.

[40] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 129–30.

[41] Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 130.