Good Sam New Barr #2 (Rhetoric, Luke-Acts, and the Good Samaritan)

Rhetoric, Luke-Acts, and the Good Samaritan

by David L. Barr

Abstract

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. It exists wherever people try to persuade each other of anything--from advertising to religion, from dating to diplomacy, from the courtroom to the coffee shop. Few people today give much attention to the formal points of rhetoric, but it was a basic part of education in the ancient world.

While the Good Samaritan story is not a speech that would conform to classic patterns of composition, it is a persuasive story. As such it uses both rhetorical devices and rhetorical organization.

The first and most basic insight of rhetorical studies is that writings are meant to persuade. Even stories are told from a particular point of view. Rhetorical analysis will always ask, of what is this writing trying to persuade me?

Summary

In ancient Greece there were three public forums in which a citizen could be called on to speak: the court, the council, and the celebration. While these three types of rhetoric were distinct in theory, they could blend together in practice. They shared much, including the use of common rhetorical devices. Among the more powerful devices were stories designed to sway the listeners to one’s point of view. Other devices included repetition, word plays, metaphors, hyperbole, synecdoche, metonymy, antithesis, and rhetorical questions. Such figures served primarily to call attention to a point of emphasis or to maintain the audience’s attention.

While the Good Samaritan story is not a speech that would conform to classic patterns of composition, it is a persuasive story. As such it uses both rhetorical devices and rhetorical organization. One way to analyze it is as follows:

Introduction:A lawyer stood up to test Jesus

Proposition:What must I do

Rationale:You shall love

Proposition two:Who is my neighbor

Opposite:Priest & Levite

Example:Samaritan

Conclusion:The one who showed mercy

Exhortation:Go and do likewise.

Ancient hearers would have been trained, either by formal education or long practice, to pick up on these rhetorical devices and the persuasive organization of this story. The first and most basic insight of rhetorical studies is that writings are meant to persuade. Even stories are told from a particular point of view. Rhetorical analysis will always ask, of what is this writing trying to persuade me?

Full Article

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and it exists in as many venues as people try to persuade each other of anything—from advertising to religion, from courtship to diplomacy, from the courtroom to the coffee shop. Few people today give much attention to the formal characteristics of rhetoric, but it was a basic part of education in antiquity. In this essay we will review the three basic forms of rhetoric, look at the structure of rhetorical arguments, list a few of the many rhetorical devices, and consider how attention to rhetoric might enhance our understanding of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Rhetoric developed in a culture that was primarily oral and thus received its basic shape from the spoken word, especially the public spoken word. In ancient Greece there were three public forums in which a citizen could be called on to speak: the court, the council, and the celebration, each one giving rise to a distinctive kind of rhetoric.

In court one would be called on either to defend oneself from another citizen’s complaint or to launch such a complaint. In the beginning, there were no lawyers to act in one’s stead in court. The way of speaking that evolved from the court setting is commonly called judicial rhetoric; I will for simplicity call it the rhetoric of dispute, with the understanding that it involves both defense and prosecution. The stakes were high in such circumstances: fines, banishment, or even death. And any complaint not upheld could result in the plaintiff suffering the penalty that would have fallen to the defendant. Decisions were reached by majority vote. Because every male citizen was able to cast a vote, juries of several hundred were common. In such circumstances it behooved one to know how to persuade an audience to see things from one’s point of view.

This rhetoric of dispute was the most highly organized kind of rhetoric. One began with a stirring introduction designed to gain the audience’s sympathy, proceeded to tell the story of the dispute from one’s own point of view (narration), and then after a brief statement of the points in dispute (proposition), proceeded to prove one’s own case and rebut the opponent’s (argument). One concluded with a stirring appeal to the audience and a summary conclusion designed to win their votes. Four major kinds of argument were used in the attempt to prove the case: Refutation (also called Opposite—showing the fallacy of the opposite opinion); Analogy (comparison with everyday things); Example (usually from history); Citation (of earlier authorities).

The second type of rhetoric, the rhetoric of deliberation, was characteristic of the citizen’s participation in the council, or what we might call the legislature. Originally the council consisted of all citizens of a city or district, and one needed to be able to speak well in order to influence the city’s future. Whereas the rhetoric of dispute focused on what had been done or not done in the past, the rhetoric of deliberation focused on what ought to be done in the future. It used many of the same techniques, organization, and forms of argumentation as the rhetoric of dispute, but was more flexible. Typically the deliberative speech would begin with an introduction, state the proposition to be considered, present the rationale for the proposition (a generalization), present arguments for the proposition (Opposite, Analogy, Example, Authority), and come to a suitable conclusion and exhortation.

The third type of rhetoric was characteristic of celebrations and other public events. This rhetoric of demonstration was the most flexible of the three types as it sought to demonstrate something about the present: the excellence of virtue or the folly of vice. Perhaps the most frequent example of the rhetoric of demonstration was the funeral oration, wherein the speaker sought to demonstrate the excellence of the departed. The opposite of the funeral eulogy was known as the invective: a demonstration of the worthlessness of the person spoken about. Politicians made much use of the invective. Such demonstrations were often little more than a string of example stories, lists of virtues/vices, maxims, and pronouncements sandwiched in between a stirring introduction and conclusion.

While these three types of rhetoric were distinct in theory, they could blend together in practice; they could even be intermingled in one work. They shared much, including the use of common rhetorical devices. Among the more powerful devices were stories designed to sway the listeners to one’s point of view, repetition, word plays, metaphors, hyperbole, synecdoche, metonymy, antithesis, rhetorical question, chiasmus, and so on. Such figures served primarily to call attention to a point of emphasis or to maintain the audience’s attention.

While the Good Samaritan story is not a speech that would conform to the patterns of composition outlined above, it is a persuasive story. As such it uses both rhetorical devices and rhetorical organization. One way to analyze the unit is as follows:

Introduction:A lawyer stood up to test Jesus…

Proposition:What must I do…

Rationale:You shall love…

Proposition two:Who is my neighbor…

Opposite:Priest & Levite

Example:Samaritan

Conclusion:The one who showed mercy…

Exhortation:Go and do likewise.

Thus the double story seems consciously constructed to make a point, because the logic of the frame story and the logic of the parable are perfectly integrated. By substituting proposition two (who is my neighbor) for the abstract proposition one (what must I do to inherit), the author achieves two results. First, the initial question is taken out of the realm of abstract argument; and second, the Samaritan story is transformed from a mere example of merciful living into a parable of the meaning of the Law.

The most obvious rhetorical device in this segment is the use of repetition and variation on words. Thus it begins with “What must I do” followed by Jesus’ response, “Do this and live.” It concludes with the lawyer admitting that the neighbor was “the one doing mercy” (literal) and Jesus’ exhorting, “Go and do likewise.” Thus the Samaritan story is surrounded by this emphasis on doing. Within the Samaritan story, verbs of coming/going carry the rhetorical weight. In Greek, these verbs are all built on the same root (-elthon) meaning “to come or go.” The robbers went away; the priest went by opposite; the Levite went by opposite; the Samaritan came and went toward the injured man and finally promises to come back to the inn to make further payment as needed. Some of the rhetorical force of this is lost in English where come and go are two different verbs; the Greek is more analogous to saying move-toward and move-away. The rhetorical effect on the audience is something deeper than the mere logic of the action.

Ancient hearers would have been trained, either by formal education or long practice, to pick up on these rhetorical devices and the persuasive organization of this story. We can gain an increased measure of their understanding of the story by exploring these features. The first and most basic insight of rhetorical studies is that writings are meant to persuade—even stories are told from a point of view. Rhetorical analysis will always ask, of what is this writing trying to persuade me?

The two most useful works on rhetoric in New Testament studies are:

Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Studies in Religion ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. The best simple introduction.

Mack, Burton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Guides to Biblical Scholarship New Testament Series. Fortress Press, 1990.