In: Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker (eds.), Rhetorical
Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference.
Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8;
PubPage Below: 27
Argumentative Textures in Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation
Visiting Professor,
A major challenge for interpretation of New Testament literature lies in the multiple ways in which argumentation occurs in the twenty-seven compositions that constitute the corpus. There is no one way in which argumentation proceeds in the NT. The thesis of this essay is that NT literature exhibits a highly creative rhetorical process at work during the first century, which creates multiple modes of argumentation. This process is characterized by centripetal (inner-directed) rhetorical movement that, at one time and another, places wisdom, miracle, prophetic, suffering-death, apocalyptic, or pre-creation discourse at the center; and centrifugal (outer-directed) rhetorical movement that, at one time and another, drives each rhetorical mode of discourse out into the other five rhetorical modes and into the literary modes of biographical history, epistle, and apocalypse. [1]
The major challenge is to describe not only the literary process at work in first century Christianity, but also the rhetorical process. At present, the dominance of the literary paradigm in biblical studies works against this type of rhetorical analysis and interpretation. In order to see the rhetorical process at work, it is necessary to keep in mind that literary discourse is a particular kind of rhetorical discourse, a kind that has been written according to certain literary conventions. Rhetorical discourse is much broader than written discourse, since it emerges at the moment that sound from the mouth of a human moves another person toward action, or toward a new configuration of feeling, attitude, belief, or understanding. [2]
In his essay entitled “Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation,” Paul Ricoeur discusses five kinds of discourse in the Hebrew Bible: prophetic, narrative, prescriptive, wisdom, and hymnic discourse. [3] In each instance there
PubPage Below: 28
are two or more entire books in the HB that contain one kind of discourse. Ricoeur does not list them, but it is easy to see the literary home of prophetic discourse in the major and minor prophets; the literary home of narrative discourse in Genesis through Exodus 19, Joshua through 2 Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah through 1-2 Chronicles, and perhaps Ruth; the literary home of prescriptive discourse in Exodus 20-40, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy; the literary home of wisdom discourse in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job; and the literary home of hymnic discourse in Psalms and Songs of Solomon. It is important to see that the NT presents all of these modes of discourse in the context of three basic literary forms: five biographical histories (Gospels and Acts); twenty-one epistles; and one apocalypse. One might apply two of Ricoeur’s kinds of discourse to one or more books in the NT, namely, narrative for the Gospels and Acts and wisdom for the Epistle to James. But it becomes evident quite soon in the investigation that a somewhat different discursive process obtains for the NT than for the HB. It also becomes clear that Ricoeur’s view of discourse is poetic rather than rhetorical. Ricoeur does not show us the rhetorical nature of HB discourse. Rather, he is guided by a literary poetics that identifies all of religious discourse as poetry rather than history. [4] The perspective in this essay is that a literary approach to early Christian discourse is too limited. Early Christians used HB discourse as one major resource within Mediterranean discourse to create their new form of discourse. Through a highly creative process of rhetorical invention during the first century, early Christians interwove Mediterranean wisdom, miracle, prophetic, suffering-death, apocalyptic, and pre-creation discourse into the fabric of three basic literary forms: biographical history, epistle, and apocalypse.
Walter Brueggemann makes
a substantive contribution to this discussion in his Theology of the Old
Testament, [5] where he presents a rhetorical theology of the HB in
terms of: (1) core testimony; (2) countertestimony; (3) unsolicited testimony;
and (4) embodied testimony. The core testimony of
PubPage Below: 29
(d) Yahweh fully uttered (267-303). The countertestimony
of
After the NT period, second and third century Christian literature built upon the literary forms of biographical history (Gospels and Acts), epistle, and apocalypse in the NT. [6] In this context, however, a new configuration of major rhetorical discourses began to emerge. Karen Jo Torjesen displays five major discourses that emerged in second and third century Christian literature. The five modes of discourse she exhibits, which include both analytical categories and community settings, suggests the manner in which NT literature functioned as a rhetorical resource for the development of new discourses in the centuries after the NT period. Torjesen’s analysis reveals five kinds of discourse: (1) Jesus as divine wisdom (sophia), exhibiting the context of worship; (2) Jesus as victor over death, exhibiting the context of martyrdom; (3) Jesus as divine teacher (didaskalos), exhibiting the contexts of catechetical instruction and Christian schools; (4) Jesus as cosmic reason (logos) exhibiting the context of the Christian scholar’s study; and (5) Jesus as world ruler (pantocrator), exhibiting the context of the basilica. [7] From the perspective of NT discourse, Jesus as victor over death and the powers is a merger of miracle, suffering-death, and apocalyptic discourse; Jesus as divine teacher (didaskalos) is an elaboration of paraenetic wisdom discourse; Jesus as cosmic reason (logos) is an elaboration of pre-creation wisdom discourse; and
PubPage Below: 30
Jesus as world ruler (pantocrator) is a merger of apocalyptic and pre-creation wisdom discourse.
In other words, socio-rhetorical investigation has yielded six major rhetorical modes of discourse in NT literature: wisdom, miracle, prophetic, suffering-death, apocalyptic, and pre-creation. These modes intertwine with one another in different ways in different writings in the NT. A major task for rhetorical interpretation is to describe the centripetal-centrifugal interaction of these rhetorical discourses in the five biographical histories, twenty-one epistles, and one apocalypse that constitute the NT writings. It is not acceptable to limit the investigation of argumentation simply to the NT epistles, or only to include investigation of speeches attributed to Jesus, Peter, Stephen, and Paul in the biographical historical writings. In order for rhetorical interpretation to attain its appropriate place in biblical interpretation, it must describe the centripetal-centrifugal rhetorical movement in every NT writing.
Everyone will be aware that I am describing a very large project. The question at the moment is how to begin. This essay gives a preview of some of the argumentative features in each of the six major modes of rhetorical discourse. This approach will leave many legitimate questions unanswered, but it will be a major start. It will give a glimpse of some of the results that have emerged, even though the essay will fall far short of a fully articulated statement of the results of socio-rhetorical investigation of argumentation in the NT.
As a result of limitations of space in this essay, my procedure will exhibit only three analytical steps with selected passages either in NT literature or in literature that preceded the NT:
(1) Identification of rhetorical topics in the context of elaboration analysis;
(2) Analysis of rhetorical topics in rationales, conditional clauses, and adversative clauses;
(3) Enthymemic analysis.
These analytical steps lead to primary insights about the nature of Rule/Case/Result reasoning in each kind of rhetorical discourse. [8] These insights begin to suggest the rhetorical effect of the centripetal-centrifugal interaction of all six kinds of rhetorical discourse in the NT.
PubPage Below: 31
Argumentation in Early Christian Wisdom Discourse
Wisdom discourse during the Hellenistic period regularly has a triple focus: (1) the relation of the created world to God; (2) the relation of humans to God; and (3) the relation of humans to one another as a result of the relation of God to the created world and to humans. [9] Reasoning about God occurs by means of analogy from human relationships to God. Thus, the primary Rule underlying wisdom discourse is that God is Father and Mother of all created things – which means that God is beneficent and just. Human social relationships and well-being set the stage for the primary topics of wisdom discourse: parent/child, patron/client, host/guest, friendship, limited goods, honor/shame, life/death. Therefore, specific enthymemes and syllogisms regularly presuppose general wisdom about one of these topics as its Rule or Major Premise, like: “Hosts must provide food and hospitality for their guests.” Cases and Results emerge from the specific situations envisioned in the discourse. Since a well-ordered, beneficent, and just world (both divine and human) is the overall context for wisdom discourse, argument from analogy works interactively among all spheres of the universe (God, the heavens, the cosmos, plants, animals, and humans).
The special argumentative power of wisdom discourse is its ability to generalize on the basis of one or more situations. In other words, it thrives on inductive-deductive reasoning. On the basis of one or more specific situations, it offers one or more generalized principles. But on the basis of one or more generalized principles, it may offer any number of specific examples or analogies. These examples and analogies may be brief meshalim, or they may be expanded into a short story like a narrative parable, or even a very long story – which we might call a didactic or wisdom narrative.
The Rhetorica ad Herrennium and the Progymnasmata have taught us that the major forms of argument in wisdom discourse are: thesis, rationale, con-
PubPage Below: 32
trary, opposite, analogy, example, and authoritative judgment. [10] These forms of argument are so inherent to wisdom discourse that one finds them already in Ancient Near Eastern literature, many centuries before the Hellenistic period. In the terminology of socio-rhetorical interpretation, the presence of many assertions supported by rationales in wisdom discourse gives it a rich enthymemic texture. Enthymemes occur repetitively in wisdom discourse in the context of arguments from the contrary, opposite, analogy, example, and authoritative judgment.
An
excellent place to see wisdom argumentation in the context of early Christian
biographical history is Luke 11:1-13. [11] When Jesus recites the Lord’s Prayer to his disciples
in response to their request in 11:1, he introduces the topics of father, holiness,
Jesus’ recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and his rhetorical elaboration of it give this wisdom discourse a rich enthymemic texture. The prayer and its elaboration contain four rationales and one conditional construction. All of the rationales concern social relationships among people:
PubPage Below: 33
(1) 11:4: for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us;
(2) 11:6: for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him;
(3) 11:8: I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of the shamelessness [of the petitioner] the father will rise and give him whatever he needs;
(4) 11:10: For every one who asks receives, and one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
The first three rationales concern forgiving indebtedness, hosting a friend, and giving bread to a friend because of his shamelessness at asking in the middle of the night. The fourth rationale begins and ends with social actions: asking and receiving, and knocking on someone’s door to have it opened. The topic in the middle concerns individual personal action: seeking and finding. The conditional construction at the end of the elaboration moves from social action among parents and their children in the protasis to God the Father in the apodosis:
A key to the progression of the enthymemes appears when one sees both parts of the five enthymemes in which the rationales and the conditional construction play a role.
(1) Result: [Father,] forgive us our sins,
Case: for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us (11:4).
(2) Result: Friend, lend me three loaves of bread;
Case: for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him (11:6).
(3) Result: I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, he will get up and give him whatever he needs,
Case: because
of the shamelessness [of the friend who petitions at
(4) Result: And I tell you, Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Rule: For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened (11:9-10).
(5) Case: If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,
Abductive Rule:
how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask
him (
PubPage Below: 34
The beginning and ending enthymemes (1 and 5) present reasoning that sets actions between humans in a dynamic relation to actions between God and humans. Enthymemes (2) and (3) ground the argumentation in the social dynamics of host/guest relations, friendship, and honor and shame. Enthymeme (4) functions as a bridge from human social relations to relations between God and humans, since “asking” can be performed both with other humans and with God. This unit of text gives excellent insight into the manner in which argumentation in wisdom discourse regularly works, setting up an interplay between social relations among humans and the relation of humans to God.
An excellent place to see wisdom argumentation in the context of an early Christian epistle is James 2:1-13. Wesley H. Wachob has investigated this passage with a full form of socio-rhetorical analysis and interpretation. [14] The topics in this passage concern partiality, faith, rich/poor, judging, evil thoughts, kingdom, promise, loving God, honor and shame, law, and mercy.
As Wachob has demonstrated, James 2:1-13 contains the following pattern of rhetorical elaboration:
Introduction 2:1-4
1. Theme 2:1
2. Reason 2:2-4
Probatio 2:5-11
3. Argument from example 2:5
a. with opposite 2:6a
b. and social example 2:6b-7
4. Argument with judgment, based on the written law, in four parts: 2:8-11
a. Proposition based on the written law 2:8
b. Argument from the contrary 2:9
c. Rationale for judgment based on law 2:10
d. Confirmation of the rationale with written testimony 2:11
5. Conclusion 2:12-13
There are four rationales in this unit of text:
(1) 2: For if there should enter into your synagogue a gold-fingered man in bright clothes and a poor man in shabby clothes also enters, 3: and you look favorably upon the man wearing the bright clothes and say: “You sit here honorably”; and to the
PubPage Below: 35
poor man you say: “You stand there or sit by my feet”; 4: have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil calculations?
(2) 10: For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.
(3) 11: For the one who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.”
(4) 13: For judgment is without mercy to the one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
The first rationale is a conditional construction that concerns the social arrangement of rich and poor people in the formal context of a synagogue. The second rationale concerns the relation of humans to the Torah, which had become a specific manifestation of wisdom by the first century BCE (Sirach), and it contains an adversative clause: “but fails in one point.” The third rationale features a recitation of two statements in the Torah. The fourth rationale addresses the relation of mercy to judgment, which became a major topic in prophetic discourse. Thus, in this epistolary context, topics concerning the relation of humans to one another and to God are being taken specifically into the context of discussion of the Torah and the relation of the Torah to the prophets.
In addition to the conditional
construction in the rationale in 2:2-4 and the adversative clause in the rationale
in
(1) 6: But you have dishonored the poor.
(2) 8: If you really fulfil the royal law according to the scripture: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do honorably.
(3) 9: But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
(4) 11: Now if you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
All of these constructions concern actions among humans, and they refer to God through the medium of scripture or law. The topics are honor, the poor, law, scripture, love, neighbor, partiality, sin, adultery, and murder.
The passage has such a rich argumentative texture that every portion of it works together to form four successive enthymemes or syllogisms. James 2:1-4 presents a Result/Case enthymeme:
PubPage Below: 36
Result: 1: My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.
Case: 2: For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,
3: and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while you say to the poor man, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,”
4: have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
Wachob has reconstructed the underlying syllogistic reasoning of the first four verses accordingly:
Rule (unstated): Unjust judgings are incompatible with the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.
Case: Acts of partiality are unjust judgings (2:4).
Result: Acts of partiality are incompatible with the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ (2:1). [15]
James 2:5-9 present a complex Rule/Case/Result syllogism filled with contrary, adversative, and conditional constructions:
5: Rule: Listen, my beloved brothers [and sisters]. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?
6: Case: But you have dishonored the poor. Do not the rich oppress you, and do they not drag you into courts?
7: Do they not blaspheme the honorable name that was pronounced over you?
8: Result: If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do honorably.
9: But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
In the midst of this syllogism, Wachob has shown, James 2:8 evokes positive syllogistic reasoning in and of itself:
Rule [unstated]: People who fulfil the royal law are people who do honorably.
Case [unstated]: People who love their neighbors as themselves are people who fulfil the royal law.
Result: 8: People who love their neighbors as themselves are people who do honorably. [16]
PubPage Below: 37
James 2:10-11 present a Rule/Case/Result syllogism that fulfills the expectations of an epicheireme:
Rule: 10: For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it (the whole law).
Case: 11: For the one [who gave the whole law] who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.”
Result: Now if you do not commit adultery but you do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law (= you have become guilty of the whole law). [17]
The final two verses, James 2:12-13, present a Result/Rule/Case syllogism that also fulfills the expectations of an epicheireme:
12: Result: Thus you should speak and thus you should do as those who are to be judged under the law of freedom.
13: Rule: For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy;
Case: but [for one who has shown mercy], mercy triumphs over judgment. [18]
All twelve verses, then, present
detailed, syllogistic reasoning that correlates the relation of humans to one
another with the relation of humans to God. As is characteristic of Hellenistic
wisdom discourse, Torah is perceived to be God’s wisdom in written form. The
final verse (
Argumentation in Early Christian Miracle Discourse
Miracle discourse places human personal afflictions, ailments, and crises in the position of major topics, rather than human social relationships. [20] A major
PubPage Below: 38
Rule underlying miracle discourse is: “All things are possible with God.” A primary form of miracle discourse is the presentation of a Case. In these instances, the rhetorical force of the discourse as argument lies in the stasis of fact presupposed for the Cases it narrates. The Cases concern individual or group affliction, ailment, or crisis. Generalized miracle discourse regularly presents a “summary” of one or more Cases – e.g., Mark 1:32-34:
32: Case: That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons.
33: And the whole city was gathered together about the door.
34: Result: And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons.
[Rule: Jesus was able to heal people with various diseases or possessed with demons.]
The Results are the restoration of a person or a group to well-being. The unexpressed Rule is that it was possible for Jesus to heal people who were sick with various diseases or possessed with demons. The Cases, naturally, are the individual people who came to Jesus or were brought to him.
While miracle discourse is closely allied with prophetic discourse in the HB, during the Hellenistic period it becomes a close ally of wisdom discourse. [21] By this time, people who engage in miracle discourse regularly reason that if God brought order, well-being, and justice into existence at the beginning of time, then God can restore order in the human and cosmic realm when some kind of disorder emerges as a malfunction in those realms. The shift of major topics from human relationships (wisdom discourse) to human afflictions, ailments, and crises (miracle discourse) shifts the emphasis from the nature of God simply as beneficent and just to the nature of God as “powerful” enough to be beneficent and just in unusual circumstances. Thus, power, rather than beneficence and justice, lies at the center of miracle discourse. The issue, then, becomes the “fact” of God’s power. The circumstances of many people living in the human realm of the created order suggest that God is not powerful enough to activate beneficence and justice everywhere. A common topic in miracle discourse becomes “belief.” Does a person believe that God miraculously removes illness and crisis, and, if so, what are
PubPage Below: 39
the conditions in which God does this? This inner reasoning within miracle discourse makes it both conditional and analogical: if certain incredible things happened in the past to correct circumstances of crisis, then a similar thing could happen to a person hearing the story, if the right conditions were present. The right conditions may be the presence of a healer or miracle worker, the appropriate articulation of a prayer, or the right manifestation of faith or hope within the petitioner. Where unusual affliction, oppression, and crisis exists within the human realm, God “may” exercise God’s power to restore order and well-being. Thus, miracle discourse works both conditionally and inductively by analogy to other situations that are perceived to be in some way similar.
The interwoven stories of the Woman who Touched Jesus’ Garment and Jesus’ Raising of Jairus’ Daughter are a good place to see both the conditional and analogical dynamics of miracle discourse. The Markan account will serve well in this regard. The overall sequence of Mark 5:21-34 presents the following topics: death, touching to restore, being saved (made well), receiving life, faith (or belief), fear, rising up, and coming to life. [22]
In contrast to the wisdom
discourse we analyzed in the previous section, where rationales were frequent,
there are only two rationales in Mark
28: For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well.”
A key to the formulation is that the woman does not show doubt in her conditional statement. She asserts in her mind that “if” she is able to touch even his garments, she will be healed. The second rationale concerns the condition for not making a tumult and weeping over the twelve year old daughter of Jairus:
39: The child is not dead but sleeping.
This second rationale contains an adversative formulation, which is one of six adversative formulations beginning with “but” or “yet” in this span of narrative:
(1) 25: And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years,
26: and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.
(2) 31: And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’“
(3) 33: But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth.
PubPage Below: 40
(4) 36: But ignoring what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.”
(5) 39: And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.”
(6) 40: And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was.
One of the major characteristics of miracle discourse is its inner oppositional nature, which gives it the dynamics of epideictic rhetoric. An underlying rhetorical dynamic of NT miracle stories is opposition between disorder and order, unhealed and healed, false healers and true healers, and unbelief and belief. The overall dynamics of a miracle story present praise of the miracle worker, which often includes ridicule or blame of people who will not believe or who could not themselves correct the situation. One of the places in miracle discourse where these dynamics appear is in adversative constructions. In (1), physicians receive ridicule and blame for not being able to heal the woman, but for wasting all her resources and making her even more ill. This sets the physicians in opposition to Jesus, whom the story praises for healing her. No. (2) reveals that there is opposition even between Jesus and his disciples over the access of Jesus’ power to people who throng around him. No. (3) exhibits the contest between the woman and Jesus. Jesus has the power to heal within him; the woman needs the power to come into her. She fears to confront Jesus directly, so she comes up from behind and touches his garment. In this adversative formulation, she is forced to reveal the manner in which she activated his power for her healing. In (4), Jesus stands in opposition to people who ridicule Jairus for bothering Jesus, because his daughter had died. In (5) Jesus counters “death” with “sleeping,” and in (6) he opposes people who ridicule him for thinking he can restore the child to life.
The presence of the two rationales in the context of the six adversatives creates a syllogism followed by an enthymeme. The syllogism is as follows:
27: Case: She came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.
28: Rule: For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well.”
29: Result: And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. [23]
PubPage Below: 41
The narrative sequence creates a context in which Jesus’ comment to the woman creates an enthymeme:
34: And he said to her,
Case: “Daughter, your faith has made you well;
Result: go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”
[Rule: Faith that makes a person well brings peace and healing of disease.]
It
is common for miracle discourse to accumulate its implications to a point where
a healer, a healed person, or a person who has been delivered safely from a
crisis will present enthymemic argumentation about the working of God’s power.
An unexpressed Rule functions in Jesus’ speech in Mark 5:34 whereby faith is
considered to be a special condition in which God’s power works to heal. In
Mark
23: And Jesus said to him, “If you can!
Rule: All things are possible to him who believes.”
24: Case: Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”
25: Result: And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again.”
26: And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse; so that most of them said, “He is dead.”
27: But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.
After this syllogistic reasoning,
in
23: but believes that what he says will come to pass.
The conditional construction is:
25: forgive, if you have anything against any one.
The adversative clause makes belief a primary condition in which God exercises power in unusual circumstances, and the conditional clause invites wisdom discourse that concerns social relations (forgiving people when you have something against them) centripetally into the miracle discourse.
PubPage Below: 42
The overall unit produces a Rule/Case/Result syllogism:
Rule: 22: And Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God.
Case: 23: Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’
(Condition: and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass,)
it will be done for him.
Result: 24: Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer,
(Condition: believe that you have received it,) and it will be yours.
25: And whenever you stand praying,
forgive, (Condition: if you have anything against any one;)
so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” [24]
Traditional topics of miracle discourse fill the content of the Rule and Case, and the Result centripetally invites topics of prayer and forgiveness, which are characteristic of early Christian wisdom discourse.
Miracle discourse in the context of epistle may take the form of instructions concerning how to pray for healing. James 5:14-17 is an instance. The unit contains a focus on the following topics: sickness, prayer, anointing with oil, name of the Lord, faith, being saved (healed), being raised up, sin, forgiveness, righteousness, power, rain, fruit. Again there are no rationales in this discourse. Also, in this instance there are no adversative clauses. Rather, there are two conditional constructions:
(1) 14: Is any among you sick?
Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15: and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up;
(2) 15: if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
The rhetorical effect of
PubPage Below: 43
sages of the church together and prayer (wisdom discourse). Then the conditional construction embedded in the apodosis moves entirely into wisdom discourse as it talks about committing sins and being forgiven.
As in the instance of
James 2:1-13 discussed in the previous section, so in James
14: Case: Is any among you sick?
Rule: Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
15: Result: and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
16: Rule: Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.
Argument from Example in Ancient Testimony:
Rule: The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
17: Case: Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain,
Result: and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.
Case: Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain,
Result: and the earth brought forth its fruit.
In a context where the Rules are wisdom instructions concerning what to do to attain healing, argument from examples in ancient testimony become Cases governed by the Rule that the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. When miracle discourse moves centrifugally into wisdom discourse, individual healers may evoke general premises on the basis of their attributes and actions.
Miracle
discourse, then, has a close affiliation with wisdom discourse during the Hellenistic
period. One can see this in Sirach 45:3 (Moses); 45:19; 48:4-5 (Elijah); 48:12-13
(Elisha). The emphasis is that God either grants certain individuals the ability
to perform miracles “by their word” (Sirach 45:3) or God’s word performs the
miracles (48:5). One sees this emphasis especially in three healing stories
in the NT (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10; John
PubPage Below: 44
discussed below. Harold W. Attridge has shown in an excellent manner in a paper for this conference how to begin a socio-rhetorical analysis of the miracle story and its elaboration in John 5. [25] Again, in John a major issue is the intertwining of miracle discourse with pre-creation discourse.
Willi Braun has shown how miracle discourse can be used to establish a setting for wisdom discourse about eating at banquets. [26] Eating at banquets is a major topic for wisdom discourse, as can be seen in Sirach 31:12-32:13. [27] In Luke 14, Jesus heals a man with dropsy on the sabbath in the house of a leader of the Pharisees as a way of beginning an argumentative discourse about distribution of wealthy benefits to the poor. Miracle discourse plays a centripetal role in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts (biographical history). Only miracle discourse is limited to a centripetal role in one literary mode in the NT, and in this instance it is biographical history.
Argumentation in Early Christian Prophetic Discourse
Prophetic discourse is a close ally of both wisdom and miracle discourse, since it presupposes that God’s word has the power to create and destroy. Prophetic discourse moves beyond either creation or miracle discourse by focusing on special people or groups God has chosen to take leadership in the production of righteousness within the human realm on earth. [28] In other words, prophetic discourse combines the emphasis on the relation of the created world to God, humans to God, and humans to one another as a result of the relation of God to the created world and to humans (wisdom discourse) with the emphasis on the power of God’s word to confront malfunction in the human and cosmic realms (miracle discourse). The special emphasis in prophetic discourse lies in God’s active role of choosing certain people and groups for special tasks and blessings.
The presupposition within most prophetic discourse is that people whom God previously selected to produce righteousness in the human realm have
PubPage Below: 45
followed a path of unrighteousness. Therefore, God is choosing someone else (either an individual person or a group) to receive God’s blessings and calls new leaders to accept the responsibility for righteousness in the human realm.
A major Rule that underlies prophetic discourse moves beyond an assertion that God is beneficent and just (wisdom discourse), or that God has the power to do all things (miracle discourse), to a twofold assertion that (1) God has chosen certain people to be especially responsible for righteousness in the world, and (2) if they fulfill their responsibility they will be specially blessed, but if they fail to fulfill it they will experience negative consequences. The Cases are the individual people and groups that are chosen by God or who do not participate in righteousness. The Results are blessings on those who are chosen and fulfill their responsibility, and woes to those who do not fulfill a responsibility of righteousness.
Like both wisdom and miracle discourse, prophetic discourse often features epideictic rhetoric. The polarities in prophetic discourse are a combination of the good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness of wisdom discourse, and of the ailments and distresses versus healing and restoration in miracle discourse. Thus, prophetic discourse naturally moves centrifugally out into wisdom and miracle discourse, wisdom and miracle discourse naturally move centrifugally into prophetic discourse, and prophetic discourse may work in close alliance with one or both of them.
Two basic categories of topics regularly are the focus of prophetic discourse: (1) God’s action of blessing correlated with the opposite result of woe if people do not participate in God’s system of righteousness; and (2) people’s righteousness or unrighteousness based on a combination of their state of being and the acts they perform.
A good place to see prophetic discourse is in the beatitudes at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:3-12 and in the woes to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. In Matthew 5:3-12, the topics that emphasize God’s action of blessing are: blessed, receiving the kingdom of heaven, being comforted, inheriting the earth, being satisfied, obtaining mercy, seeing God, being called a child of God, and receiving a heavenly reward. The topics that emphasize people’s state of being and the acts they perform are: poor in spirit, mourning, being meek, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, being merciful, being pure in heart, being a peacemaker, being persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and being persecuted like the prophets. These topics contain a mixture of personal attributes of righteousness, righteous action toward other humans, right actions and attitudes toward God, and rewards in the future for being righteous.
PubPage Below: 46
In Matthew 5:3-12, there are ten rationales in a context of no adversative or conditional statements:
(1) 3: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(2) 4: for they shall be comforted.
(3) 5: for they shall inherit the earth.
(4) 6: for they shall be satisfied.
(5) 7: for they shall obtain mercy.
(6) 8: for they shall see God.
(7) 9: for they shall be called sons of God.
(8) 10: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(9) 12: for your reward is great in heaven,
(10) 12: for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.
The topics in the first
nine rationales concern states and acts of righteousness, and the nature of
blessing that will come as a result of them. The tenth rationale compares those
who are righteous now with the prophets in ancient
(1) 3: Result: “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
Case: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(2) 4: Result: “Blessed are those who mourn,
Case: for they shall be comforted.
(3) 5: Result: “Blessed are the meek,
Case: for they shall inherit the earth.
(4) 6: Result: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
Case: for they shall be satisfied.
(5) 7: Result: “Blessed are the merciful,
Case: for they shall obtain mercy.
(6) 8: Result: “Blessed are the pure in heart,
Case: for they shall see God.
(7) 9: Result: “Blessed are the peacemakers,
Case: for they shall be called sons of God.
PubPage Below: 47
(8) 10: Result: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
Case: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(9) 11: Result: “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
12: Rejoice and be glad,
Case: for your reward is great in heaven,
Rule: for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.
The rationales in the first eight enthymemes present the Case, which describes the state or action of people that determines the kind of reward they receive. Prior to each Case is a Result, which describes the kind of blessing they will receive. What is left unexpressed for each Case is the Rule that “God has chosen people in various states of righteousness and people who perform certain acts of righteousness to receive special blessing.” The ninth instance is a Result/Case/Rule syllogism, and it reveals an important shift in the Rule that we also observed when miracle discourse moved centrifugally into wisdom discourse.
In prophetic discourse, “the story of God’s chosen people” may supply the “Rules” in addition to “God’s specific choosing of certain people and groups.” To put it another way, not only “God’s word that chooses and directs” but also “the story of God’s people” begins to become “God’s word” (Rule) in prophetic discourse. For comparison, in wisdom discourse God’s word (Rule) can be found in contexts of order in the created human realm (father and son, host with guest, friend with friend), the created natural realm (birds, flowers, trees), and in the nature of God (beneficence, justice). In miracle discourse, God’s word (Rule) can be found in the conditions (belief, prayer) God establishes for enacting his power in unusual circumstances. When people become “examples,” either in wisdom or miracle discourse, they may evoke a Rule that governs how a person must imitate their action. Prophetic discourse focuses especially on God’s acts of choosing in the Rule. However, these “acts” by God extend naturally to “all of God’s acts of choosing individuals and groups in the past.” This movement increases the uses of “God’s acts” as Rules.
While blessing is one side of prophetic discourse, “woes” are the other side. Matthew 23 is an excellent example of this other side. To make the analysis manageable in the context of this paper, we will only analyze Matthew 23:1-15, rather than the entire chapter. The topics in this unit of text are: practice, observe, preach, burdens, deeds seen by men, phylacteries, fringes, love, honor, feasts, seats, salutations, market places, rabbi, brethren, father, heaven, masters, Christ, greatest, servant, exalting oneself, humbling oneself, kingdom of heaven, proselyte, child of hell.
PubPage Below: 48
There are eight rationales in Matthew 23:1-15:
(1) 3: for they preach, but do not practice.
(2) 5: for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,
6: and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues,
7: and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men.
(3) 8: for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
(4) 9: for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
(5) 10: for you have one master, the Christ.
(6) 13: because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men;
(7) for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.
(8) 15: for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
In the context of these rationales, there are two adversative clauses:
(1) 3: but they do not practice.
(2) 4: but they themselves will not move them [heavy burdens] with their finger.
These adversatives reveal things those who have been chosen have “not” done, thus not fulfilling their responsibility for righteousness.
Rule/Case/Result analysis yields the following sequence:
1: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
(1) [Rule: People must follow the teaching of the leaders God has chosen to sit on Moses’ seat.]
2: Case: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3: Result: so practice and observe whatever they tell you,
Contrary Result: but not what they do;
Contrary Case: for they preach, but do not practice.
4: They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
(2) 5: [Rule: God chose the scribes and Pharisees to do all their deeds to be seen by God.]
Contrary Result: They do all their deeds to be seen by men;
Contrary Case: for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,
6: and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues,
7: and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men.
(3) 8: Result: But you are not to be called rabbi,
Case: for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
[Rule: God has chosen one teacher for you and made you all brethren.]
PubPage Below: 49
(4) 9: Result: And call no man your father on earth,
Case: for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
[Rule: God in heaven has chosen you to be his children.]
(5) 10: Result: Neither be called masters,
Case: for you have one master, the Christ.
[Rule: God has chosen one master, the Christ, for you.]
(6) 11: Result: He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;
12: Case: whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
[Rule: God has chosen to humble the exalted and exalt the humble.]
13: Result: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
Case: because you shut the kingdom of heaven against people;
for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.
[Rule: God has chosen the scribes and Pharisees to open the kingdom of heaven to people and to enter it themselves.]
15: Result: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
Case: for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
[Rule: God has chosen the scribes and Pharisees to make people into children of heaven.]
In each Result/Case enthymeme, the unexpressed Rule is that God has chosen either specific people or groups of people to fulfill a particular role in the production of righteousness in the human realm on earth. The Rule in prophetic discourse, then, naturally moves beyond a generalized sentence characteristic of wisdom discourse into a specific circumstance or event in which God has chosen certain people to be leaders or representatives of righteousness.
An example of prophetic discourse in an epistle occurs in 1 Corinthians 9:16-17. The topics are: preaching the gospel, boasting, necessity, one’s own will, reward, and being entrusted with a commission.
There are three rationales in this unit of text:
(1) 16: For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting.
(2) 16: For necessity is laid upon me.
(3) 17: For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward.
Two of these rationales contain a conditional construction. In addition, there is a woe-saying containing a conditional construction and an adversative clause containing a conditional construction, which makes a sequence of four conditional constructions:
PubPage Below: 50
(1) 16: if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting.
(2) 17: Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!
(3) 17: if I do this of my own will, I have a reward.
(4) 17: if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission.
All of this produces an argumentative elaboration containing a Case/Result/Rule syllogism followed by a Result/Case enthymeme containing a Case/Result argument from the Contrary:
(1) 16: Case: For if I preach the gospel,
Result: that gives me no ground for boasting.
Rule: For necessity is laid upon me [by God’s choosing of me].
(2) 16: Result: Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!
17: Case: For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward;
Contrary Case: but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission.
[Rule: God chose me and entrusted me with a commission to preach the gospel.]
The key to the dynamics of this passage lies in the perception that the nature of the discourse is prophetic. The presupposition for the Rules is that at some time in the past God has chosen Paul to perform a particular task in the production of righteousness in the human realm on earth. In each instance, then, the Rule is not simply a general characterization of the nature of God or a general presupposition about the relation of humans to one another and to God. Rather, the Rule presupposes a specific act of choosing by God as an event in the past for a particular purpose.
Prophetic discourse contains a combination of topics of wisdom and miracle discourse, with a new dimension in the Rule that God chooses certain individuals and groups to receive special blessings and to exercise special responsibilities for righteousness on earth. Thus, when prophetic discourse is in a centripetal position, or when it moves centrifugally into wisdom or miracle discourse, specific acts of choosing by God regularly fill the content of the Rules in the argumentation. Prophetic discourse plays a centripetal role in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts (biographical history), Galatians, 2 Peter (epistle), and Revelation (apocalypse). In this literature especially, one sees the Rules, Cases, and Results of God’s choosing of certain individuals and groups for the production of righteousness in the human realm.
PubPage Below: 51
Argumentation in Early Christian Suffering-Death Discourse
Suffering-death argumentation has a significant history both in the HB and in general Mediterranean discourse. [29] In the context of wisdom, miracle, and prophetic discourse, socio-rhetorical investigation has yielded three kinds of suffering-death argumentation in the NT. One is basic wisdom argumentation about suffering and death: the one who, choosing righteousness, suffers unjustly receives God’s approval. A second is Christian prophetic discourse about suffering and death: one who suffers fulfilling God’s calling is following the example of Christ. A third is Christian atonement argumentation about suffering and death: Christ’s sinless death removes the sins of those who choose Christ as specially chosen mediator of God’s redemption.
The special power of suffering-death discourse lies in its naming of rejection, abuse, or death as the result of actions by fellow members of one’s society, or perhaps by neighbor inhabitants. When suffering-death discourse uses specificity, it takes the form of narratio and has the power of fact told by an eyewitness. When it takes a more generalized form in Christian discourse it becomes creedal, articulating special forms of belief about God and Christ.
1 Peter 2:18-25 presents three kinds of suffering-death argumentation in a sequence. 1 Peter 2:18-20 presents a basic suffering-death argument in the form of wisdom discourse. Some of the topics of argumentation concern the relation of humans in different social locations: slaves/masters, submission, honor, receiving credit, kindness, gentleness, doing wrong, patiently enduring, doing right, and receiving God’s approval. Into these topics characteristic of wisdom discourse are embedded the special topics of enduring pain and suffering unjustly. Thus, the topics exhibit a discussion of suffering and death from the perspective of wisdom discourse.
In this suffering-death argumentation there are two rationales containing two conditional constructions and one adversative construction. All of these specifically concern suffering:
PubPage Below: 52
19: For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly.
20: For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently?
But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval.
The entire context produces a Result/Rule/Case syllogism.
18: Result: Slaves, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing.
19: Rule: For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly.
20: Case: For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently?
But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval.
The Rule and the Case directly concern suffering, and they work from a generalized conditional statement to a more specific conditional statement and an adversative construction that tests the reasoning through an argument from the contrary. The Result is a wisdom sentence directly concerning relations of humans to one another. Thus, the reasoning about suffering in 1 Peter 1:18-20 leads to instruction in the mode of wisdom discourse.
1 Peter
(1) 21: For to this you have been called,
(2) because Christ also suffered for you.
The entire unit presents a Case/Rule/Result syllogism:
21: Case: For to this you have been called,
Rule: because Christ also suffered for you,
Result: leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
In this instance the Rule is the action of Christ. This is a natural feature in prophetic discourse, where the actions of God or the model of specially selected individuals or groups establish the Rule for the reasoning. The Case concerns the specific ones called by God for special activity. Once again, the Result has the nature of wisdom instruction, but in this instance it focuses specifically on the “example” cited in the Rule. Rather than wisdom about
PubPage Below: 53
action based on a general principle from basic social relations, the wisdom emerges from the action of a specific individual chosen by God to enact righteousness in the human realm, namely, Christ.
1 Peter 2:22-25 presents suffering-death discourse in the mode of Christian atonement argumentation. Its topics are: committing sin, guile, being reviled, suffering, threatening, trusting, being judged justly, bearing sins, dying to sin, living to righteousness, wounds, being healed, straying like sheep, and returning to one’s Shepherd and Guardian.
1 Peter 2:22-25 contains one rationale:
25: For you were straying like sheep.
In addition, it contains two adversatives:
23: but he trusted to him who judges justly.
25: but have now returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
The first adversative explains the manner in which Christ countered natural inclinations to return evil with evil in the context of suffering and death. The second adversative explains how the wounds of Christ have reversed the sinful circumstances of those focused on Christ as the mediator of God’s beneficence.
The syllogistic argumentation in the sequence is as follows:
22: Case: He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.
23: When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.
24: Rule: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,
that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.
Result: By his wounds you have been healed.
25: Case: For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
In Christian atonement argumentation, the actions of Christ are the primary Case (the one who suffered and died maintaining integrity with a righteous life), and the responses of people to Christ are the secondary Case. The Rule that governs the Results is a principle that lies within a mysterious process God has devised whereby the righteous action of a particular person whom God has chosen can bring the benefits of righteous life to a group of people God has chosen to bless. In other words, in contexts where suffering-death discourse moves into a centripetal position in Christian literature, there is a potential for suffering-death discourse to move beyond wisdom and prophetic argumentation into an assertion of vicarious atonement. The key lies
PubPage Below: 54
in the Rule, where it is a principle
within God’s prerogatives that one specially chosen by God can, by acting righteously
in a context of suffering and death, “bear” the sins of others in his or her
own body. The result is an extension of miracle discourse into atonement discourse:
By his wounds you have been healed (1 Peter
Suffering-death discourse plays a centripetal role in the four Gospels and Acts (biographical history); 1 Thessalonians, 1-2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Hebrews, and 1 Peter (epistle); and Revelation (apocalypse). Luke’s passion narrative appears to present suffering-death discourse in a mode especially characteristic of wisdom discourse. In 1 Thessalonians 1-3, Paul presents suffering-death discourse especially in a mode characteristic of prophetic discourse. Mark 14-15 presents suffering-death narrative in a mode that evokes Christian atonement argumentation. A challenge lies before socio-rhetorical interpretation to produce specific commentary on the centripetal-centrifugal rhetorical movement of suffering-death argumentation in this literature.
Argumentation in Early Christian Apocalyptic Discourse
The special power of apocalyptic discourse lies in its reconfiguration of all time (past, present, and future) and all space (cosmic, earthly, and in personal bodies) in terms of holy and profane, or good and evil. The specificity and concreteness of apocalyptic discourse lies in revelation to specific people, display of very detailed descriptions of beings (God, beasts, evil personages, good personages), display of places (bountiful gardens, beautiful cities, places of punishment, places of worship, altars, temples, walls), and display of procedures (programmatic destruction of portions of the earth, specific procedures of torture, specific processes of journey of the righteous soul into
PubPage Below: 55
heaven and then into the paradise of jubilation, specific processes of journies through the heavens and throughout the cosmos). [30]
In the context of specific descriptions of all kinds, rationales appear that summarize the attributes of God, the actions of God in the past, the nature of God’s action in the present, and the nature of God’s action in the future. Also, the rationales tell the evil actions of humans in the past, present, and future. The effect of these rationales is to make God’s actions in all time (past, present, and future) and all space (heaven, earth, Sheol, etc.) into the Rule that governs Cases and Results. In other words, the rule is not limited to God’s giving of Torah (wisdom discourse), God’s intervention in particular unusual circumstances (miracle discourse), God’s choosing of particular individuals or groups (prophetic discourse), or God’s giving of a particular effect of healing from sin through suffering and death (suffering-death discourse). Rather, the Rule in apocalyptic discourse evokes all of God’s actions at all times. All past, present, and future events (human and divine) are “God’s story” that creates a universe where righteousness is preserved and unrighteousness is destroyed. The Cases feature “the identification” of those who are righteous and those who are evil. The Results feature the manner in which the righteous will be preserved and the unrighteous will be destroyed. The overall result of apocalyptic discourse, then, is that “the entire biblical story” becomes “scripture”: God’s “Word” that produces the Rules for being preserved or destroyed. This means that the story of God in the HB is simply the beginning of God’s story. God’s story continues into the present and into the future. Thus, apocalyptic discourse authorizes post-biblical interpretations of the present and the future as “scripture,” since all of God’s ongoing story is “Rule.”
1 Enoch 100:1-6 exhibits well a syllogistic structure in which God’s actions in the past, present, and future become the Rule which functions as the major premise governing the nature of the Result for the Cases:
100:1 Result: And in those days in one place the fathers together with their sons shall be smitten
And brothers one with another shall fall in death
Till the streams flow with their blood.
PubPage Below: 56
2 Case: For a man shall not withhold his hand from slaying his sons and his sons’ sons,
And the sinner shall not withhold his hand from his honoured brother:
From dawn till sunset they shall slay one another.
3 And the horse shall walk up to the breast in the blood of sinners,
And the chariot shall be submerged to its height.
4 Rule: In those days the angels shall descend into the secret places
And gather together into one place all those who brought down sin
And the Most High will arise on that day of judgement
To execute great judgement amongst sinners.
5 And over all the righteous and holy He will appoint guardians
from amongst the holy angels
To guard them as the apple of an eye,
Until He makes an end of all wickedness and all sin,
And though the righteous sleep a long sleep, they have nought to fear.
6 And (then) the children of the earth shall see the wise in security,
And shall understand all the words of this book,
And recognize that their riches shall not be able to save them
In the overthrow of their sins.
1 Enoch 100:4-6 present the Rule that governs the reasoning in 100:1-3. The major premises for judging all actions of humans on earth reside in the events that will occur “in those days” (100:4-6). The Rule speaks about righteousness as well as judgment. If the Case in 100:2-3 were about one or more righteous people, the Result in 100:1 would talk about the preservation of them through resurrection or some other means. Thus, the Rule in the syllogistic reasoning of apocalyptic discourse contains all of God’s actions in the past, present, and future.
In a context where all events become “God’s story,” argument from analogy moves beyond its role of similarity among all spheres throughout the universe (wisdom discourse) or among events where God’s power has intervened in an extraordinary manner (miracle discourse) into a role of imagery that exhibits the nature of good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness. Apocalyptic discourse describes people through analogy with dragons, locusts, cows, bulls, bears, eagles, etc. Analogy is part of “seeing,” and “seeing, interpreted by a heavenly being, is knowing.” The sensory-aesthetic region of the head is central, with special emphasis on seeing and hearing. Seeing is not simply believing, as it is in miracle discourse, but seeing is knowing. This is a link apocalyptic discourse has with wisdom discourse (where seeing and hearing also are knowing). Wisdom discourse places first emphasis on hearing, which starts a process of “learning to see God’s ways.” Apocalyptic uses hearing as a medium to get people to look beyond the human realm into the heavenly realm, where
PubPage Below: 57
seeing incredible things becomes “knowing the story of God.” In this context, “knowing” is understanding the deepest consequences of good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness. Thus, one sees “a person in the form of a beast” (Revelation 13) in contrast to “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1).
Apocalyptic discourse shares with wisdom discourse the belief that God created the earth and heavens and all that are in it. Apocalyptic discourse, however, emphasizes dramatic scenes of seeing and hymns of praise to God. In these contexts, rationales often appear, either making declarations about God or assertions about time. Revelation 4:2-11 presents a scene that shows the relation of apocalyptic discourse to wisdom discourse at the same time it exhibits the remarkable differences.
The topics in Revelation 4:2-11 are: God, thrones, holiness, worship, singing, and creation.
The entire unit of text contains one rationale:
11: for thou [God] didst create all things,
and by thy will they existed and were created.
The topic of the rationale is God’s action of creating all things. The rationale does not limit itself to the action of creation, however, but extends into the will of God and the existence of things into the present and future. Its rhetorical form, is “abbreviation of narrative.” The rationale could be expanded to recount any number of God’s acts of creating and exercising divine will over the things and beings that exist in it.
There are no conditional or adversative constructions in Revelation 4:2-11. The presence of the rationale, however, provides a clue for its overall syllogistic structure.
4:2: Case: a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne!
3: And he who sat there appeared like jasper and carnelian, and round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald.
4: Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads.
5: From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder, and before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God;
6: and before the throne there is as it were a sea of glass, like crystal. And round the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind:
7: the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle.
PubPage Below: 58
8: Result: And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing,
“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is