Classical Rhetorical Analysis on Paul’s Character in His Speech at Miletus (Acts 20:18–35)

In his speech at Miletus (Acts 20:18–25), Paul talks about himself repeatedly. Such stress on the character of Paul inevitably raises some questions regarding the function of the emphasis. This article attempts to understand the function of the emphasis on the character of Paul in the Miletus speech. The method used to analyze the speech is the classical rhetorical method. Classical rhetoric follows the convention of ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric to examine how a speech persuades the audience to act according to what the speaker intends. In studying the Miletus speech, the writer will investigate several elements from classical rhetoric, such as the rhetorical invention, with particular discussion to ethos (character), pathos (emotion), and logos (the logic of the argumentation), the rhetorical species, the rhetorical arrangement, and the rhetorical effectiveness. The main argument of this article is that the emphasis on Paul’s character functions as the basis for the accountability of Paul’s ministry and the basis for his exhortation to the elders of the Ephesian church.

Quintilian in the Graeco-Roman Rhetorical Tradition

Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria (c.95 ce) provides a comprehensive statement on education based on the author’s belief that the study of rhetoric was essential both for the growth of the individual and also for serving the welfare of the state through effective leadership that united wisdom with eloquence. Quintilian’s Institutio is often identified exclusively as a work of Roman rhetoric. Viewing the Institutio as uniquely Roman is understandable. In the Institutio, Quintilian often used Cicero—the pre-eminent orator and rhetorician of the Roman Republic—as a model whose career illustrated the best features of Roman rhetoric and citizenship. However, viewing Quintilian’s Institutio as exclusively Roman distorts the influence that Greek rhetoric had on Quintilian’s work. Quintilian, and even his Roman model Cicero, were both influenced by Greek rhetoric, especially the contributions of Isocrates. Quintilian’s Institutio is better understood, and appreciated, as a ratio or system that was built upon a foundation of Hellenic rhetoric and a shining example of the Graeco-Roman rhetorical tradition. This chapter reveals a spectrum of Greek contributions in Quintilian’s Institutio ranging from isolated technical concepts to an overarching philosophy of civic rhetoric predicated on the officia or ‘duties’ of good, virtuous citizens eloquently applying rhetoric for social betterment. Quintilian’s use and command of Greek rhetoric is well demonstrated and his indebtedness to Greek sources for crafting his own ‘Roman’ rhetoric is evident throughout his Institutio.

GENESIS AND DEVELOPMENT OF STYLISTIC DEVICES CLASSIFICATIONS

Тhe article discusses the problem of a stylistic device, its innate features and the literary, aesthetic, imagery functions, the example to stylistic convergence is also given. Moreover the classifications of stylistic devices are also investigated. The theories of ancient scholars as well as modern researchers are analyzed and predominant features of the criteria for classification are generalized. The article discusses such antique theories as Aristotle’s initial views on Stylistics, observations of the Hellenistic Roman rhetoric system, researches of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the conclusions concerning the topic are also given. The article also deals with the review of the fundamental theories of modern researchers. I.R.Galperin’s, Yu.M. Skrebnyov’s, V.A.Kukharenko’s, Jochen Lüders’ classifications are investigated and the relevant conclusions are given. The research advances the idea of classifying the stylistic devices in the circle of language layers. The phenomenon of creation of the blended group of stylistic devices due to the mixture of the language layers in the process of creating a stylistic device is also observed in the article.

The Greco-Roman Rhetoric Background of Sophia in 1 Corinthians 1-4

It seems that the Corinthians appreciated rhetorical eloquence and had therefore esteemed their teachers according to their rhetorical abilities. This could be the root problem behind dissensions as they are confronted by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-4. This hypothesis is one among other proposals for the background behind the concept of sophia, however, it is both the oldest and the most recent one at the same time. It is assumed by most recent commentators and seems to make the most sense in the context of these beginning chapters of 1 Corinthians. Nevertheless, the concept of sophia in 1 Corinthians 1-4 allows for at least two senses: the means by which one knows God and persuasive speech. It is against the second understanding of sophia that Paul presents his theology of preaching in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 and it is this second sense that constitutes the cause of the dissensions in Corinth.

Sennacherib’s Successor: Titus and Anti-Roman Rhetoric in TgJon to Isa. 10:32

As recent research in the study of manuscripts has demonstrated, variations in the phrasing of a text not only reveal scribal error or play but also indicate how changes to a given passage in different manuscripts convey important interpretive traditions. In this article, I explore one such case in TgJon to Isa. 10:32. First, I examine how key features (or the lack thereof) in the biblical text of Isa. 10:32 led to certain lines of rabbinic interpretation as found in b. Sanh. 95b, which contains a midrashic story based on the biblical text. Second, I analyse a parallel account of this story as found in TgJon to Isa. 10:32, and I argue that a particular manuscript of this Targum (B. M. 2211) contains added layers of anti-Roman rhetoric through an allusion to Abraham and Nimrod. In this fashion, the variation in wording in this manuscript is indicative of a distinct interpretation from that found in the Talmud.

Introduction

This chapter argues that a more joined-up appreciation of the genealogical relationships so widely argued to exist between ancient and modern theories of narrative helps us to better understand both. It explores the ways in which literary theory both shapes and is shaped by its canon. Aristotle’s decision to take tragedy as his touchstone and to extend its poetics to explain all other kinds of (mimetic) poetry will have produced a very different model than if he had chosen Aristophanes’ absurdist comedy or Sappho’s lyric poetry instead. Twentieth-century narratology would have produced a very different set of theories if it had chosen Roman rhetoric or Hellenistic poetics as its starting point. In choosing Plato and Aristotle as its foundational touchstones, modern narratology is similarly moulded by these parts of its canon, its own structures patterned by those exhibited in its objects of study.

ROMAN RHETORIC AND ‘CORRESPONDENCE EDUCATION’: THE EPISTOLARY ‘VIVA VOX’ OF MARCUS CORNELIUS FRONTO

The idealized ‘viva vox’ of face-to-face instruction, expressed by Quintilian and Seneca, offers a thematic paradigm for examining Fronto's pedagogical ‘self-lettering’. Fronto's didactic letters facilitate the long-distance rhetorical education of Marcus Aurelius, but beyond their pragmatic role, they also function symbolically to promulgate Fronto's status and intimacy with the imperial court.

Rhetorical Ethos: an Attempt at Linguistic Pragmatic Perspective on Classical Rhetoric

Category: 1.01 Original scientific paper Language: Original in English (Abstract in English and Slovenian, Summary in Slovenian) Key words: rhetorical ethos, implicit meaning, early Roman rhetoric, authority, argumentation Abstract: The paper explores the possibilities of the interdisciplinary relationship between classical rhetoric and linguistic pragmatics. It presents one of the most popular rhetorical notions (i.e., rhetorical ethos) and its relation to implicit meaning (i.e., another popular notion of pragmatics). The primary objective is to analyze the rhetorical strategy of a speaker's favorable character presentation in the socio-cultural context of early Roman rhetoric. In the analysis, the Aristotelian and the socio-cultural viewpoint on rhetorical ethos is adopted and combined with Verschueren's model of linguistic pragmatics. Rhetorical ethos is further explored in terms of persuasive strategy in the context of different social roles of the orator in ancient Rome with a particular focus on the identification of ethotic strategies, which are related to the notion of authority. A case study based on the notion of types of implicit meaning is presented, focusing on the role of implicitness in the construction of rhetorical ethos in early Roman rhetoric.