Using New Testament Greek (David A. Black)-Part X

What is rhetorical criticism and how can it be used in GNT exegesis?

Black writes: "Rhetorical analysis is essentially an attempt to clarify our understanding of the biblical text through a study of its literary techniques. Ancient authors often employed these techniques in order to assist readers to understand the message of the text or to persuade them of the truth of the presentation. As the art of reading a text, rhetorical analysis involves close attention to the scope of a given passage (its beginning and end), the discovery of figures of speech (e.g., simile and metaphor), the observation of compositional techniques (e.g., parallelism and chiasmus), and judgments about the relationship of form to meaning. Hence the interpreter should always allow for the possibility that the rhetorical dimension of the text will bear directly on exegetical questions."

Hence, one can see that rhetorical criticism (analysis) covers much ground: there are many ways that one could examine the Bible from a rhetorical perspective. First, I will consider tropes, also known as figures of speech or rhetorical devices.

Paul utilizes a trope in 1 Thessalonians 4:17: ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.

This verse contains pleonasm (Greek, πλεονασμός). One source defines pleonasm as "the use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense (as in the man he said)" (see Merriam-Webster): a synonym of pleonasm is redundancy. Vide David A. Black (Linguistics for Students of NT Greek, page 136)--he defines pleonasm as "the use of more words than necessary, as in 'He was appointed temporarily, for the time being.' "

Compare Ephesians 3:21, Colossians 2:13 and Philippians 1:23 for examples of this trope.

Under the entry for ἅμα in BDAG, we also read that ἅμα σὺν (1 Thessalonians 4:17) is evidently pleonastic: cf. the Latin una cum and 1 Thessalonians 5:10 which seems to be a clear example of pleonasm, maybe even more distinctly than the former verse in Thessalonians.

David J. Williams (1 and 2 Thessalonians) adds that the whole phrase ἅμα σὺν "is emphasized by placing it early in the sentence" prior to the verb ἁρπαγησόμεθα in 4:17 (Williams, page 85). He notes that ἅμα "reinforces" σὺν here.

For a potential use of pleonasm in the Gospels, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260447?casa_token=bUUCkHIh13cAAAAA%3AaF08QG9k3a5LB_SjmsNpaff6zjYStNa4KPL6Mo9Sl5VTaEXzzJZ7pN-qMluDm1Vt-psjGSlbV7HWRa04RNUB1EjjIwnB_AOqxCBr5O4gkEClAg_oqEc&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Gregory K. Beale argues that pleonasm occurs in Revelation 2:7, 17 with the occurrence of Τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ; one thing that indicates αὐτῷ is pleonastic is the fact that some MSS omit it. See Beale, The Book of Revelation, 235-236.

For more on pleonastic participles (also called redundant or appositional participles), vide https://bible.org/article/participle

Next I want to discuss metaphor. John Sanders made a comment upon which I'd like to piggyback:

"When God is said to be a husband, father and friend, these metaphors depend on the reality of God's being a personal agent" (The God Who Risks, page 26).

The point I want to extract from Sander's comment is that when the Bible proclaims that God is a husband, father or friend, it is employing metaphorical language. God doesn't have a corporeal and female wife and Jehovah is not a friend to any human in the same way that human friends are (Exodus 33:11; Numbers 12:8; James 2:23). The same principle applies to my relationship with Jehovah as Father (Matthew 6:9; James 1:17) or when it comes to his relationship with Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:26)--God's figurative wife.

Having said the foregoing, however, I want to make it clear that I think it is still possible to speak literally (i.e., non-metaphorically) about certain spiritual realities. A medieval thinker named Duns Scotus set forth the possibility that humans possess the resources to speak univocally about God and creatures. The late William Alston did work in our time on this same question: he insisted that it's possible to speak literally about God, yet much of our theological speech remains metaphorical.

One example of metaphoricity in the Bible might be Colossians 1:15. πρωτότοκος is possibly a metaphor: (1) For according to Scripture, Christ was not really born since God is not a man and does not have a wife, but he was created since John calls him, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ (Revelation 3:14). Even if Trinitarians don't want to accept that Christ was created, I would submit that they don't think God sired a Son. Moreover, God's bringing forth a heavenly male Son should not be appealing to non-Trinitarians. Keep in mind that the created angels in heaven are called "sons" in the Hebrew Bible.

2) The verb "born" and its derivatives or cognates is used metaphorically in the Hebrew Scriptures to portray the divine act of bringing forth contingent entities. Psalm 90:2 refers to the "birth" of mountains actually created by God. Isaiah 66:7-8 depicts Zion giving birth to sons and a land in one day, id est, in a moment. But the context shows that Jehovah is the one who causes Zion to bring forth sons in a figurative sense: he too produces the land that suddenly issues forth.

In the prophecy's fulfillment, God is responsible for the repatriation of Judah as he causes the land to teem with people. By returning Judah to her homeland, Jehovah "creates" a new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17ff); nevertheless, the prophet likewise employs birth imagery to delineate this event which is clearly metaphorical. Revelation employs similar tropes (Revelation 12:1-6).

Another trope or rhetorical device that I will discuss briefly is chiasmus: the chief interest for me is how Bible writers deploy chiasmus.

Definition of chiasmus: "inversion of the second of two parallel phrases, clauses, etc. ( Ex.: she went to Paris; to New York went he)"

(Webster's New World College Dictionary)

Others describe chiasmus as literary crisscrossing that may assume the rhythmical form ABBA (“But many that are first / Shall be last, / And many that are last / Shall be first”; “Beauty is truth, truth beauty”).

See https://www.poetryfoundation.org/learn/glossary-terms/chiasmus

Compare Matthew 7:6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Colossians 3:3-4; 2 Peter 3:8.

It appears that John 14:1 employs chiasmus or literary inversion--notice the syntax, πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε.

Another example of rhetorical usage is 1 John 2:12-14, which is D.A. Black's example for doing rhetorical criticism.

Further Reading:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476993X07083629

https://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/at/article/view/1647

https://www.academia.edu/9686371/Chiastic_Structures_in_Hebrews_A_Study_of_Form_and_Function_in_Biblical_Discourse

https://archive.org/details/chiasmusinnewtes0000lund

STEP Bible Textual Notes for Revelation 20:5

Revelation of John 20:5

οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη.] (Byz) (ς) WH

omit] ‭א 2030 2053 2062 2377 al syrph Victorinus-Pettau Beatus


οἱ] A 1611 itgig WH NR CEI Riv TILC NM

καὶ οἱ] 046 051 1006 1841 1854 2050 (2329) Byz itar vgmss syrh copbo

οἱ δὲ] pc ς ND Dio Nv


νεκρῶν] A Byz ς WH

ἀνθρώπων] pc


ἔζησαν ἄχρι] A Byz WH

ἀνέζησαν ἄχρι] pc

ἀνέζησαν ἕως] pc ς

See https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp|reference=Rev.20.5&options=GNHVU