Paul and the Terminology of Ancient Greek Rhetoric

2002 ◽  
pp. 29-44
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Vatri

In the ancient Greek rhetorical tradition asyndeton is often discussed in connection with vivid and emotional language. The primary effects of this figure of speech are those of multiplication and rapidity in the first place. Both effects stem from the iconic character of paratactic sequences and from the cognitive effects that the absence of connectives determines in the comprehension of such linguistic constructions. These properties of asyndeton make it a suitable ‘ingredient’ to be combined with other rhetorical devices in order to induce a variety of psychological effects in the audience or readership of a text. Asyndeton is often presented as a ‘catalyst’ that merely enhances the effects of other figures, but in some cases its very presence is recognized as central to the rhetorical characterization of a passage. The rhetorical effectiveness of asyndeton is boosted by appropriate ‘dramatic’ recitation (hypokrisis), as Aristotle and Ps.-Demetrius observe, and could be lost in plain oral delivery or solitary reading. Unsurprisingly, Greek rhetoricians preferentially draw examples of asyndeton from performing genres. In such contexts, iconic language may effectively produce an immersive experience and, as a consequence, be a powerful instrument of persuasion.


1954 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boaz Cohen

In a study entitled Letter and Spirit in Jewish and Roman Law I suggested that the antithesis γράμμα καὶ πνεῦμα (Letter and Spirit) coined by Paul was the equivalent to the Greek antithesis ῥητὸν καὶ διάνοια, which was a commonplace in ancient Greek rhetoric. After this article was printed, I discovered a passage in Origen which confirms beyond all doubt the correctness of my conjecture. This statement is found in his refutations of an argument advanced by Celsus. This pagan philosopher charged that there were many contradictions between the Law and the New Dispensation, which demanded an explanation. For instance, “Why did he give them laws by Moses that they were to become rich and powerful… Yet his son, the man of Nazareth, gives contradictory laws, saying that a man cannot come forward to the Father if he is rich or loves power.”


Communication ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pfau

The term “rhetoric” (rhetorike) was coined by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, and systematically elaborated upon by his successor Aristotle. On the basis of these foundational texts in particular, the term has been borrowed, abused, adapted, and transmuted by every culture from the ancient Romans onward to contemporary rhetorical studies and communication scholars. This bibliography conceives of rhetoric as a “metadiscourse,” or a language about language, one that has been used at various times, places, and circumstances in order to enable the production and interpretation of discourse. The Historiography of Rhetoric recognizes that “rhetoric” is a term that is simultaneously enriched, and burdened, by its long history of over two millennia, and the fact that it refers sometimes to practices of language and speech, and sometimes to theories about such practices. On Sophistic and Greek Rhetoric examines the social, political, and intellectual context in which the term rhetoric emerged and was invented. Foundational Primary Texts in Greek and Roman Rhetoric provides a cursory summary of the ancient Greek and Roman texts that have served as the foundation for rhetoric as a metadiscourse. Since the focus of this bibliography is rhetoric and communication, Medieval, Renaissance and Enlightenment Rhetorics provides the thinnest coverage, with an emphasis on some of the earliest texts on rhetoric in the English language. The coverage of the most recent century is itself divided into several sections. 20th Century Rhetoric in Philosophy, Composition, and English reviews some of the major figures outside of communication that helped to give shape to rhetorical studies’ emergence and development within the communications discipline. The next sections (Rhetorical Theory and Criticism from 1914 to the 1960s, Rhetorical Theory and Criticism in the 1970s and 1980s, and Rhetorical Theory and Criticism from the 1990s to the Present) trace some major developments in the fields of rhetorical theory and criticism from 1914 to the present. The distinction between rhetorical criticism, concerning the interpretation of rhetorical texts, and rhetorical theory, pertaining to theories about rhetoric, is not hard and fast insofar as most studies contain critical as well as theoretical aspects; but it will suffice for these purposes. Subsequent sections are organized around some of the emergent subfields and emphases that help to organize scholarship in rhetoric and communication studies (e.g., Rhetoric and Public Discourse, History of Rhetoric, Argumentation, Rhetoric of Inquiry, and Rhetorics of Resistance: Ideological Criticism and Critical Rhetoric). These categorizations may be somewhat imprecise, but will suffice for the purposes and constraints of this bibliographic project.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document