I will resist the temptation to preach at this juncture, but here is a text that cries out for adequate exposition. Firstly, we note that Paul refers to his own proclamation of the Gospel to the Thessalonians as ”˜the word of God’, Paul has no doubt at all that he is speaking God’s very word to them, and you will notice he is not likely referring to pre-existing sacred texts from the OT. No, he is talking about the message conveyed about Jesus. Secondly, notice that he says that this preaching was by no means only, or even mainly his own words, or the words of human beings or human wisdom. What it really was was God’s living word. Notice however he uses the singular. The phrase is ”˜the word of God’ on par with previous things that could be called ”˜the word of God’ ranging from the utterances of the OT prophets, to the sacred texts of the OT themselves. But primacy here is given to the spoken word of God, not to something written””a Good News word of God. Thirdly, Paul says that this word of God (singular) had lodged in the lives of the Thessalonians and it was still’ at work in you who believe’. This word of God had taken up residence in the Thessalonian converts and was doing soul work in and on them. It was a living and active two edged sword penetrating their very being, just as the author of Hebrews was to suggest, and he also was not talking about a text, he was talking about an oral proclamation which penetrates the heart. If we ask the question, did any of the NT writers believe they were writing Scripture, it seems to me that the answer must surely be yes, because in the case of someone like Paul, he believed in the first place that he was speaking the very word of God to his converts, not merely his own words or opinions, and furthermore he saw his letters as just the surrogate for a speech he would have given in person had he been there. Letters are just the literary residue of discourses, with epistolary framework added since they must be sent from a distance.
It is no mere rhetoric, full of sound and fury but signifying little, to say that analyzing the NT orally, and rhetorically gets us back in touch with the original ethos and character of these oral texts. It remains to be seen whether more students of the NT will heed the call I am making here, change their dominant paradigms, get up from their computers at least for a while, and receive the living Word of God, about which our earliest NT document sought to persuade us. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Really good lecture! One wonders how an understanding of rhetorical criticism would affect our interpretation of the kerygma. Definitely going to do more research in this area.
As a teacher of the classics, including texts on rhetorical theory, and a come-lately instructor in New Testament Literature who has emphasized the “micro-rhetoric” of all texts and the “macro-rhetoric” of Galatians (according to Betz’s model), I think this is a superb lecture, full of valuable analysis and insight. I’m excited by it. I thinki Witherington is absolutely correct about he oral/rhetorical nature of NT texts: they WERE meant to be heard, and rhetoically trained persons like Paul made full use of the types of speeches in the construction of his arguments. I thank him for pointing out so many features that I had not yet picked up on. I had not recognized the epideictic character of Ephesians, for example. When I start taking my students through Paul’s letters in two weeks, I will be modifying my approach to draw from his points here.
I also appreciate Witherington’s comments on the sacredness of NT writings. I agree that Paul thought he was conveying “the word of God.” I think so in part because I’ve come to see that Paul was a mystic, and that his relationship (including his conversations) with Christ, was mystical and dialogical.
I look forward to reading the other lectures in his series, and his forthcoming book.
I forgot to say, thanks, Kendall, for making this available. Do post the others as they go on line.
I’m not a biblical scholar, but this is one of the most interesting things I have ever read ABOUT the Bible.The place of rhetoric in discourse in the Ancient World is something I’m a little with, but I never thought of it viv-a-viv the Bible. Also interesting is Witherington’s discussion that St. Paul saw himself as conveying to his hearers/receivers the Word of God, not the words of God; in other words His Person, the Logos. Question – how is all this(the techniques and uses of rhetoric) related to such passages as Paul’s warning of what happens to people who ignore or defy the words of God, such as falling into bad, or forbidden sexual practices?
#1 and 2. There are words here I do not know and don’t see in my dictionary. Kerygma, micro and macro rhetoric, epideictic. Please explain. Larry
Well, it’s always risky relying on Wikipedia as a source, but for quick-and-dirty definitions…
Kerygma
Epedeictic
Can’t help you with the others.
Larry, it’s Scholarly Language. I need to look it up too, but it’s a great article. We discussed this in seminary (Trinity), but we didn’t have time to go into it in depth, but I think it offers a lot of insight.