Two-Minute Tutorial on Classical Rhetoric

In his introductory text, The Letters of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), Charles Cousar comments, "In the investigation of literature that is written to persuade, such as the Pauline letters, rhetorical matters are indispensable" (45). The things Paul says, the way he says them and the effect his words have on those who hear them are all bound together by the term "rhetoric." Here is a quick sketch of some of those "indispensable rhetorical matters."

Online Resource | Gideon Burton, an English professor at Brigham Young University, has prepared a thorough introduction to the terms of classical and renaissance rhetoric. Check it out at Silva Rhetoricae (The Forest of Rhetoric).

Logos, Ethos, Pathos

How does someone convince you of something? In his Rhetoric (book 1, chapter 2), the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BCE) distinguished three modes of persuasion or proof in speaking or writing.

Logos | Speakers use words, arguments, logic. Part of the way we are persuaded by someone is through the words they use and the way they use them. They "make sense" to us.

Ethos | The words of a speaker are important, but it's not enough for a speaker simply to stay on message. Persuading is more than a matter of message, or logos, alone. If you have ever listened to someone and decided, "I just don't believe him," the lack of persuasion may have to do with ethos (Greek for "character"). Our perceptions of the character of the speaker influence how and whether the speaker's message persuades us.

Print Resources | For more on the topic of rhetoric in the New Testament, read Charles Cousar's chapter, "The Rhetoric of Paul's Letters," in The Letters of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996) 36-45, and Benjamin Fiore's article, "NT Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5:715-19.

Pathos | The effect of a speech also has to do with the emotional state of the audience. "Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile," observes Aristotle. TV commercials about cotton as "the fabric of our lives" or Folger's coffee as "the best part of waking up" are effective primarily by stirring our emotions. Audience emotion is as much a mode of persuasion as the content of a speech or the character of the speaker.

When you are figuring out how an argument within one of Paul's letters, or elsewhere in the New Testament, is working, try sketching out how each of these modes of persuasion is present in the argument.

Legislatures, Courtrooms & the Oscars

We also have Aristotle to thank for a three-fold definition rhetoric (see his Rhetoric book 1, chapter 3).

"Come now, let us reason together."

Deliberative Speech

While the sentence, "Come now, let us reason together," is actually a quote from God (Is. 1:18) and not Aristotle, it works to describe what Aristotle means by deliberative rhetoric. This is the form of speech used by legislative bodies or by friends who are discussing the best way to complete a shared project. "Let's get groceries before we wash the car, so we won't have to backtrack," you say. You have used deliberative rhetoric to exhort someone toward a future course of action. When your roommate says, "Yes, but if we buy ice cream, it could melt before we get home," the two of you have constructed a tidy piece of deliberative discourse.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury…"

Forensic Speech

Forensic or judicial rhetoric is the kind of speech used in court. While deliberative rhetoric attempts to persuade toward a future course of action, forensic rhetoric aims to convince hearers about something that has happened in the past. When God says to Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?," God is putting Job on the witness stand, as it were, engaging in forensic rhetoric.

"I'd like to thank the Academy."

Epideictic Speech

The word "epideictic" means, "fit for display." This kind of speech happens at public ceremonies, like farewell parties or when you accept your Oscar. You praise members of your guild for having dared to honor such an edgy performance as your own. Then you blame producers for putting all their money into Lethal Weapon 18, rather than taking a chance on more noble art, such as your movie. Conferring either praise and blame is the goal of epideictic rhetoric.

Summing up…

Here's a quick look at features of the three kinds of speech Aristotle describes.

Premises and Conclusions

One of the best ways to begin figuring out how a Pauline argument is working is to sort out (1) what Paul is basing his argument on and (2) what part of his argument is material that follows from that premise.

Features of a Premise

 A premise is often something that the speaker and hearers already agree on. When Paul says, "We know that…" he is setting up his premise. He will say something that you agree with, in hopes of getting you to agree also with the next thing he says.

A premise serves as a basis for something more. It doesn't do much on its own. It's the sort of thing you might say, "Yeah, so?" to in order to get someone to tell you what they are concluding from the thing they just told you.

The words, "whereas," or "since" are clues that you are about to read something that serves as the premise for an upcoming conclusion.

Features of a Conclusion

A conclusion is the place to which the argument leads.  Finding the conclusion of an argument is much like finding the climax or turning point of a story. When you ask a speaker to "cut to the chase," you're asking them to jump ahead to the end of the story, or to tell you the conclusion of their argument.

Words like "therefore," or "so then," signal a conclusion.

Just because something is a conclusion does not mean it is a convincing conclusion. Consider the famous example from introductory philosophy courses:

Premise #1: God is love.
Premise #2: Love is blind.
Premise #3: Ray Charles is blind.
Conclusion: Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

Being able to find the premises and conclusions of an argument does not mean you agree with the argument.  In this example, everything is labeled correctly, yet many people would agree (likely even Mr. Charles himself) that the conclusion does not follow from the premises on which it is based.

What's Next: Following an Argument

The next introductory page for Tracing Action & Argument offers four steps for orienting yourself within a New Testament argument and following what the author is saying.

Next: Tracing an Argument