|
From
Epicheiremes to Exhortation:
Prof.
Fred Long
Recent rhetorical studies of the New Testament literature have attempted to describe the enthymematic texture of Christian discourse. Neglected, however, is a consideration of the epicheireme properly understood as an expanded or complete enthymeme as discussed by Cicero, the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium, and Quintilian. Although there was some disagreement as to the exact number of components, essentially the complete rhetorical syllogism or epicheireme or ratiocinatio (Cicero) consisted of five parts: A major premise with its proof, the minor premise with its proof, and the conclusion. A certainly flexibility was allowed in the actual performance of the argument. In 2 Corinthians 10 Paul explains that he "destroys arguments (logismous)" and discloses an general evaluation of his letters as "weighty and strong" (vv. 4-5, 9-10). These comments are made in the context of Paul's attempt to explain his rationale for his moral instruction and expectations of the Corinthians. Given Paul's own comments, we should not be surprised that many of Paul's letters exhibit a rigorous and fairly consistent epicheirematic argumentation with slight variations. My research (which is still on going) thus far has located extensive epicheirematic argumentation in 1 Thess 4:13-5:11; 1 Corinthians 4-5, 8; Romans 6-7; and Luke's portrayal of Paul's Areopagus Speech (Acts 17) and speech to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20). This finding in Acts is particularly intriguing, since Luke's portrayal is probably either due 1) to his first hand experience of Paul's speeches through hearing or obtaining written or oral notes and/or 2) to Luke's employment of prosopopoieia. Within all of these sections, there is a fairly consistent pattern of a pair of premises and proofs (often with gar) followed by a conclusion (often with an inferential particle). Noteworthy is the fact that a large majority of the conclusions reached contain a direct exhortation to moral living arising out of the preceding argument (1 Thess 4:18; 5:6, 11; 1 Cor 4:5, 16; 5:4-5, 8, 13; 8:13; Rom 6:11-12; Acts 17:29; 20:31, 35) or an indirect appeal to live morally (Rom 6:4, 21-22; 7:4). Another facet of my research involves attempting to locate such "heavy and strong" moral argumentation in other predecessors or contemporaneous writers, including the orators, moral philosophers, and Jewish apologists. So far, I have found epicheirematic argumentation in a critical section in Dio Chrysostom's 46th Oration and in the beginning of Plutarch's "On Inoffensive Self-Praise." But, it is notable that such writers lack the argumentative rigor or heaviness that Paul displays and they are also less interested with moralizing conclusions. This research is ongoing. I also hope to reflect on the significance of such findings as they may have a bearing on understanding 1) the pedagogical and social setting of Paul's letters, 2) the nature and extent of Paul's rhetorical training, and 3) the theological and moral reasoning and rationales of Paul, and 4) the use of such epicheirematic analyses for developing an ethics and theology of Paul.
|
