Page Proofs!

I just received my page proofs via email for my upcoming publication: Figuring Jesus: The Power of Rhetorical Figures of Speech in the Gospel of Luke, (Biblical Interpretation Series 107, Leiden: Brill, 2011).  It has an ISBN # and everything.  I feel like it is a real book now that it has an ISBN.  Now to proofing and indexing, woo hoo!

The Friday Figure

This week's Friday Figure comes from the first letter of John.  There are actually several figures at play here.

1John 2:12     I am writing to you, little children,
        because your sins are forgiven on account of his name.
1John 2:13     I am writing to you, fathers,
        because you know him who is from the beginning.
    I am writing to you, young people,
        because you have conquered the evil one.
1John 2:14     I write to you, children,
        because you know the Father.
    I write to you, fathers,
        because you know him who is from the beginning.
    I write to you, young people,
        because you are strong
        and the word of God abides in you,
            and you have overcome the evil one.

The first figure to notice is distributio.  According to the Rhetorica ad Herennium, distributio "occurs when certain specified roles are assigned among a number of things or persons."  Ps-Cicero then gives this example:

“The Senate’s function is to assist the state with counsel; the magistracy’s is to execute, by diligent activity, the Senate’s will; the people’s to chose and support it by its votes the best measures and the most suitable men.” (Ps-Cicero, Rhet. Her. IV.xxxv.47).

While the things that John writes are note strictly "roles" as set out by Ps-Cicero, they are attributes of these three different classes: Fathers, young people, and children.  John separates these classes to say something specific about each one.

The second figure to notice is pleonasm, which is the repetition of the same thought in different words (Quintilian, Inst. Or. 9.3.45-46).  John addresses each of the three groups twice, varying his thoughts and words only slightly, but essentially repeating the same material. 

The third figure to notice is anaphora, or the repetition of the same word as the first word in successive clauses (Quintilian, Inst. Or. 9.3.30).  Here we get two three fold repetitions, I write, I write, I write (γράφω, γράφω, γράφω),  and I wrote, I wrote, I wrote (ἔγραψα, ἔγραψα, ἔγραψα).  Notice even the variation of tense here, which once again uses the figure of pleonasm.

ἔκφρασις or description

ἔκφρασις (ekphrasis) or description is 12th on the list of the ancient progymnasmata.  According to Theon, ekphrasis is,

"descriptive language, bringing what is portrayed clearly before the sight." (Theon 118, Kennedy).

Theon goes on to state that there are ekphrases of persons, events, places, and periods of time.  Virtues of ekphrasis  are clarity and vividness according to Hermogenes (Hermogenes 23, Kennedy).

A good example of ekphrasis from the gospels would be the description of the transfiguration of Jesus.  Take Matthew's account:

Matt. 17:2 καὶ μετεμορφώθη ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔλαμψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, τὰ δὲ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο λευκὰ ὡς τὸ φῶς.  

And he was transformed before them, and his face shone forth as the sun, and his clothes became white as light."

This description, or ekphrasis by Matthew follows both of Hermogenes' virtues of ekphrasis.  His description is clear and vivid.  To accomplish this vividness, Matthew uses two similes: face shone forth as the sun, and his clothes became white as light.

Rhetoric For Sundays

Periodically on my blog I comment on church marquees.  I find them hilarious, but also endlessly frustrating in the banality of their messages, and sometimes in the fact that they often communicate messages that are harmful to Christianity in general.  Here is the latest that I saw on my way to church this morning.

 I mean really, do we really want to communicate that whatever comes in the afterlife is to be compared with a decent retirement package? 

And even more, this emphasizes the common evangelical misunderstanding that what really matters in this life is getting souls into heaven.  This life, what Jesus preached most about is of little meaning, only saving souls, getting them their "fire insurance," or in this case, their "retirement benefits." That is what really matters, right?

ηθοποιία, προσωποποιία or characterization and personification

ηθοποιία/προσωποποιία is the eleventh of the classical progymnasmata and is the exercise of characterization, or more specifically, for creating a fictional speech for a character.

Theon defines prosopopoiia as,

"the introduction of a person to whom words are attributed that are suitable to the speaker and have an indisputable application to the subject discussed." (Theon 115, Kennedy).

Key here are the two qualifications, namely that this speech should be "suitable to the speaker," and that the speech "have an indisputable application to the subject."

Theon then gives several examples, from very general to very specific.  For example, "What words would a man say to his life when leaving on a journey?  Or a general to his soldiers in a time of danger?"  Or, more specifically, "What words would Cyrus say when marching against the Massagetae?" 

As you can see, one can create a variety of persons and situations and then create a speech to be given by that person on that occasion. 

The Greek historian Thucydides, recording the way in which he reconstructed historical speeches, admitted that he took some liberties, and essentially recreated the speeches according to the rules laid out by the preliminary exercise of prosopopoiia. Thus, even in Greek History, it was acceptable to take some liberties in recreating historical speeches.  Thucydides writes:

And as for things that they each said by way of argument, either when they were about to go to war or when they were already at war, it was difficult to carry the precise details of the things that were said word for word in one’s memory. This was the case both for me, where I heard them myself, and for those who reported them to me from various sources; but they have been rendered in the way it seemed to me likely that each speaker would indeed have said what was needed concerning the present circumstances on each occasion, while sticking as closely as possible to the general ideas behind what was actually said. (Emphasis in bold is mine. Thucydides, Hist. 1.22.1-2).

There are many speeches in the New Testament.  Many have speculated about the speeches in Acts and to what degree Luke was reporting the actual speech, or rather, engaging in prosopopoiia, creating a speech in line with the character of the speaker and in line with the needs of the situation.

One good example of prosopopoiia in the gospels comes from Jesus' parable of the rich fool.  Jesus creates a speech for this rich fool, as the rich fool actually has a conversation with himself.  Here is the relevant section from Luke 12:

Luke 12:17 And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’
Luke 12:18 Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.
Luke 12:19 And I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’

 Creating this speech in character creates a liveliness to the parable.  The implied question behind this parable for which the Lukan Jesus creates a speech is, "what would a rich man say if he had a surplus crop."  Then comes this speech where the rich fool has a conversation with himself. 

Political Rhetoric

It has been a banner week for the word rhetoric.  If one listens to the news or browses news stories on the internet, it seems that rhetoric is the buzz word of the day.  All of this in the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Arizona, apparently directed at congress woman Gabrielle Giffords, but hitting 18 other people in the process, killing 6 so far.  In the wake of this horrific tragedy, the rhetoric is flying.

From the left, there are accusations that this shooting was promoted by right wing inflammatory rhetoric.  From the right, there are defenses against these accusations, and accusations of equally inflammatory rhetoric from the left. 

From a Google news search for "rhetoric," here are a sampling of of the headlines:

A Time to Cool the Rhetoric

Leahy: 'Seething rhetoric' has gone too far

Polls: Shooting spree not due to rhetoric

Extremist Rhetoric, Violence, and American History 

Maybe we should stop with the rhetoric for a moment and actually find out why Loughner went on this rampage.  Let the rhetorical jets cool, don't turn this tragedy into a political battleground, at least not until we know more about what happened and why it happened.  Once that is established, and the truth be made known, then by all means, let the rhetoric fly in defense of the truth, but out of common decency, let's let those who have lost loved ones grieve, and those still fighting for their lives, actually have some peace. 

 

 

σύγκρισις or comparison

σύγκρισις is the 10th of the ancient progymnasmata and is the exercise in comparison.  Theon writes:

"Syncrisis is the language setting the better or worse side by side.  There are syncrises both of persons and things." (Theon, 112, Kennedy).

As with the exercises of encomium and invective, the topic lists derived from those exercises are also used for syncrisis.  For example,  there are external goods such as place of birth, occurrences at birth, nurture, upbringing, education. Goods of the body (health, strength, etc.).  Then there are internal goods such as goods of the mind (intellect, wisdom), virtues (justice, bravery).  Then there are actions and deeds (to which I would also add speech).  Finally, there is the manner of death and what happened after death. Whereas with encomium and invective, the student merely listed the goods or ills of a single person or thing.  With syncrisis, the student compares two subjects with regard to these topics.

Syncrisis can take many forms, comparing good with good (double encomium), good with bad (encomium/invective), and bad with bad (double invective).  One can also come to a number of conclusions.  For example, with a double encomium, one could find the two equally good, or might praise both, but find one slightly better.  Likewise, with a double invective, one might find the subjects equally bad, or that one is slightly more diabolical than the other.

I have dealt elsewhere with syncrisis in the Stephen episode in Acts 6-8.  Another example of syncrisis can be found in the book of Hebrews.  In chapter 3, the author of Hebrews compares Jesus to Moses as follows:

Heb. 3:3 Yet Jesus is worthy of more glory than Moses, just as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself.
Heb. 3:4 (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.)
Heb. 3:5 Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that would be spoken later.
Heb. 3:6 Christ, however, was faithful over God’s house as a son, and we are his house if we hold firm the confidence and the pride that belong to hope. 

Here, the author of Hebrews engages in a syncrisis between these two biblical figures, Jesus and Moses.  The comparison is a double encomium in that Moses is not found to be bad.  No, indeed, Moses was a faithful servant over God's house.  Yet, even though Moses is good, Jesus is better, not as a "servant" over God's house, but as a "Son."  Thus, the author of Hebrews has composed a double encomium syncrisis finding both subjects laudable, but finding Jesus superior as a Son.