use their bodies in a way consistent with his articulated expectations. Since Paul's letters are persuasive documents from the Greco-Roman period, and in order to investigate how Paul's persuasive purposes shed light on his understanding of the relationship between the use of the body and his eschatological expectations, the future resurrection of the body not least, the major passages under review will be read in light of ancient Greco-Roman rhetorical convention.
H. D. Betz's commentary on Galatians is considered the landmark study that opened the door for rhetorical criticism of the Pauline epistles, and since Betz's work, numerous rhetorical analyses of Paul's letters have been produced.149 As the discipline of rhetorical criticism developed, two distinct schools of thought have emerged. The first takes rhetorical criticism to be an historical-critical method and aims to classify texts according to classical Greco-Roman rhetorical convention.150 With regard to the
study of Paul, historical rhetorical critics consider whether and how the apostle's letters conform to or deviate from customary practices in the first century with regard to the invention, arrangement, and style of speeches and letters. Primary sources for this historical endeavor are the standard ancient rhetorical handbooks, speeches, and persuasive letters. The second school of thought is known as “New Rhetoric”, and while advocates sometimes make use of classical rhetorical sources and categories, the New Rhetoric looks also to modern language theory and epistemology to evaluate the
Horrell, "Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation? Reflections on Contested Methodologies and the Future," in After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific
Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (ed. Todd D. Still and David G. Horell; New
York: T & T Clark, 2009), 6-20, especially 17. For a detailed analysis of Horrell's argument see Matthew P. O'Reilly, "Review of After the First Urban Christians, Todd D. Still and David G. Horrell (eds.)," RRT 19:3 (2012): 369-72.
149 H. D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). Cf. H. D. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on
Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
150 George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); Witherington, New Testament Rhetoric. Cf. Duane F. Watson, The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographic Survey (Blandford Forum: Deo, 2006), esp. 18-53, 121-172.
rhetorical force of biblical texts.151 Where historical rhetorical criticism classifies texts
according to ancient categories that could have been familiar to the biblical authors and their first readers, the New Rhetoric incorporates modern categories unknown to the first-century authors of the NT. This is not to say that one school of rhetorical criticism is to be preferred over the other. It is to say that, given the different uses of the rhetorical critical label, clarity as to which sort of rhetorical critical analysis is being conducted is essential.
The present study will draw primarily on the historical rhetorical methods developed by proponents of the first school of thought, though insights from the New Rhetoric will be included where they shed light on the historical questions driving this investigation. As an historical study, the rhetorical critical methodology will be
employed to consider Paul's discussion of the relationship between bodily practice and bodily resurrection in light of the rhetorical categories common in the first century Roman Empire, not least with regard to Paul's efforts to persuade his hearers to use their bodies in particular ways that accord with his expectations. Paul's discussion of the relationship between bodily resurrection and bodily practice will be analyzed as it relates to the rhetorical species of each letter, its place within the overall arrangement of material in classical rhetorical divisions, and the manner in which it contributes to the argumentative strategy and persuasive aims of each individual letter.
It must be said that this historical rhetorical method has not come without critics, often from within the larger discipline of NT historical criticism.152 For example, concern has been expressed over the use of oratorical convention to analyze written letters. This criticism often comes from advocates of epistolary criticism and claims that the analysis of written texts should not be conducted on the basis of oratorical convention.153 Epistolary critics point to ancient theorists who differentiate between the written word and speechmaking to substantiate the point that rhetorical convention is out of place in the analysis of Paul's written letters.154 Three points can
151 Chaïm Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation
(trans., John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969; reprint, 2008).
152 What follows draws heavily on Peter Lampe, "Rhetorical Analysis of Pauline Texts-Quo
Vadit? Methodological Reflections," in Paul and Rhetoric (ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe; New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 3-21, esp.10-17.
153 See the discussion in ibid., 12-17. For ancient epistolary theory see S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC 5; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); J. L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).
154 Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, "Oral Texts? A Reassessment of the Oral and
Rhetorical Nature of Paul's Letters in Light of Recent Studies," JETS 55, no. 2 (2012): 323-41, here 335-36.
be raised in response. First, evidence exists that rhetorical convention was sometimes integrated into the writing of letters in the ancient world. Speech structures have been identified in ancient letters, not least in letters that fall within the deliberative
species.155 Second, Paul's epistles do not function as mere letters; they were delivered as speeches upon their arrival at the recipient churches. This means that the letters were almost certainly composed with a view to their oral presentation for a specific rhetorical situation. Therefore, even though Paul's letters have typical epistolary features, their openings and closings for example, they cannot be said to have no oral component and their analysis on the basis of oral rhetorical convention should not be ruled out.156 Third, while Paul's letters do adopt (and adapt) some features of Greco- Roman letters, they also depart in significant ways from ancient epistolary convention. As a result, the comparison of Paul's letters to other ancient letters may yield limited insight.157 In light of these considerations, rhetorical criticism should be seen to be of enduring value because it provides a legitimate approach for analyzing the persuasive nature of the Pauline epistles that complements epistolary analysis.