Words Well Spoken: George Kennedy's Rhetoric of the New Testament

Chapter 10: Moving an Audience: One Aspect of Pathos in the Book of Revelation

163 Chapter 10 Moving an Audience One Aspect of Pathos in the Book of Revelation Greg Carey If not the most mystifying member of the New Testament, the Revelation to John is a strong contender for that position. Any level-headed study that helps us better to understand the Johannine Apocalypse is to be embraced. The reader should rejoice to receive Greg Carey’s lucid inquiry into the persuasive role of pathos in Revelation. Here is a model of scholarship, proceeding with care and circumspection , which builds on previous research while opening onto the exegetical landscape a new vista. That perspective fosters deeper appreciation of one of the classical modes of persuasion, its adaptation for genres other than public speeches, and its potential for both illuminating and altering the social world of early Christians and the ambient world with which they experienced painful tension. By paying patient attention to the multiple “voices” that issue from Revelation, Carey’s own voice continues to command our attention. How does one track the varieties of New Testament rhetorical criticism that have flourished since the publication of George A. Kennedy ’s New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism?1 In a recent dictionary article David E. Aune attempts this venture, helpfully diagnosing two major distinctions within the field: (1) some practition­ ers emphasize classical Greco-Roman categories, while others draw upon more “modern” rhetorics; (2) some stress rhetorical structures and classifications, while others focus on “style and development of argumentation.”2 Methodologically speaking, one might say that those who incline toward Greco-Roman categories and rhetorical structures demonstrate a methodological affinity for form criticism, while those who employ modern and postmodern rhetorics with an appreciation for argumentative flow gravitate toward narrative criticism.3 Coincidentally or not, Kennedy’s introduction of Greco-Roman rhetoric arrived at about the same time that biblical scholars were Black Watson Rhetoric final.indd 163 8/27/08 9:02:10 AM 164 Greg Carey encountering postmodern (or linguistic) sensibilities. We do not have the space here to pursue this complex development in a systematic way, yet it remains the case that some New Testament scholars began reading modern and postmodern literary theorists who appealed to the rhetorical traditions of antiquity. These theorists may not have used the specific conventions of Aristotle, Quintilian, or Cicero, but they did emphasize the ancients’ awareness that language performs. In other words, one reads texts not simply as depositories of ideas or as static examples of aesthetic skill; rather, one reads texts as interventions in public or communal life. Unfortunately, scholars reading antique rhetoric rarely conversed with those sampling literary theory. The recent history of scholarship confirms this dichotomy. Students of Revelation will recognize these distinctions in the scholarly literature. Some interpreters have appropriated Greco-Roman rhetorical categories, often citing or depending upon Kennedy’s work,4 though to my knowledge no monograph-scale work has adopted those categories as a primary rubric for Revelation’s interpretation. On the other hand, perhaps Revelation’s most influential rhetorical analyst, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, most often dons contemporary literary and ideological lenses for her work, rarely citing ancient rhetorical theorists.5 In this respect some of the most widely appreciated rhetorical studies of Revelation follow her lead.6 The full-time rhetorician Stephen D. O’Leary, also influential among Revelation’s interpreters, occasionally employs Greco-Roman categories, though his rhetorical approach draws much more profoundly from the rhetoric of Kenneth Burke.7 In my view, Greco-Roman categories have exercised far less influence on Revelation’s interpretation than have more contemporary or “literary” rhetorics. The problem with Revelation, of course, lies in its generic complexity . Revelation is neither a deliberative, judicial, nor epideictic speech; it is an apocalypse, one of many similar works from Jewish and Christian antiquity. Revelation calls itself an apocalypse (1:1), yet it also claims status as prophecy (1:3; 19:10; 22:7, 10, 18-19). Like all apocalypses, Revelation takes a narrative form; however, by presenting itself as directly addressed to seven Christian communities in Asia Minor, Revelation also draws upon epistolary conventions. How does one adapt the known canons of Greco-Roman rhetoric to the interpretation of such a book as Revelation, with its interwoven apocalyptic , prophetic, and epistolary textures? Black Watson Rhetoric final.indd 164 8/27/08 9:02:11 AM Moving an Audience 165 Kennedy’s work defies such simple taxonomy, holding greater promise than...