Tracing Kairos: the Modern Applicability of St. Augustine Kelly D

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2008 Tracing Kairos: The Modern Applicability of St. Augustine Kelly D. Israel

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

TRACING KAIROS: THE MODERN APPLICABILITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE

KELLY D. ISRAEL

A Thesis submitted to the Department of English in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2008

The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Kelly D. Israel, defended on April 16, 2008.

______Kristie S. Fleckenstein Professor Directing Thesis

______Elaine Treharne Committee Member

______Kathleen Blake Yancey Committee Member

Approved:

______R.M. Berry, Chair, English Department

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract v

1. AN IMPOSSIBLE APPLICABILITY 6

2. A RHETORICAL SITUATION ACROSS TIME 14

The Modern Rhetorical Situation 14 A Redefinition 19 Synthesizing the Modern and Medieval: A Rhetorical Situation for All Times 26 Framework of Analysis 27

3. THE RHETORICAL SITUATION OF ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 28

On Christian Doctrine 28 Exigence 30 Audience 33 Constraints 39 Rhetor 40 Ethics 43 Conclusion 45

4. THE RHETORICAL SITUATION OF JESUS AMONG OTHER GODS 46

Jesus Among Other Gods 48 Exigence 49 Audience 51 Constraints 53 Rhetor 55

iii

Ethics 55 Conclusion 59

5. DETERMINING AN IMPOSSIBLE APPLICABILITY 60

Exigences 60 Audiences 62 Constraints 63 Rhetors 65 Ethics 65 Conclusions 66

WORKS CITED 68

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 71

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to test the applicability of ancient texts to contemporary concerns. More specifically, it seeks to determine the relevance of Christianity’s forefathers today. This thesis examines the rhetorical situation of Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine and that of Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias to determine if the two bear similarities when tested by one framework of analysis, which is derived herein by an analysis of the concept of the modern rhetorical situation and of the classical concept of kairos.

CHAPTER I: AN IMPOSSIBLE APPLICABILITY

“We would do well to remember, however, what Augustine said: ‘We are never to judge a philosophy by its abuse’” (Jesus Among Other Gods, viii).

Attempting to defend Christianity against its foes, Ravi Zacharias, a twenty-first century Indian-born Christian author, speaker, and apologist, grapples with the fate of Christianity in a world that questions and sometimes rejects morality and absolute truth. In his Doctrina de Christiana, Saint Augustine, a fifth century Christian theologian who lived in the Roman Empire, grapples with the difficulty of interpreting scripture and encourages and defends the use of rhetoric, a pagan art, to explicate and advance the fledgling faith of Christianity. Separated by more than 1600 years, these two theologians, one postmodern and one early Medieval, attend to theological issues plaguing the faithful during their respective eras.

In his work, Zacharias cites Augustine for insight and authority when speaking on Christian issues, and he is certainly not alone in this practice. Given the challenges confronting not only Zacharias but also any Christian theologian in this postmodern era, it is often desirable to call upon Christianity’s forefathers, such as Augustine, to achieve specific postmodern rhetorical goals. So, regardless of the differences between today and the early Middle Ages, Augustine is employed as a rhetorical and religious authority by many modern theologians, including Zacharias. However, vast historical, temporal, and cultural disparities suggest that Augustine’s work may have little relevance to contemporary Christian theology as a whole. Thus, while Augustine is lauded as a pioneer of Christian apology and is cited as an authority of Christian doctrine, and while, undoubtedly, his works have historical value and his views were relevant to his contemporaries, the question concerning the legitimacy of his authority in a postmodern world almost sixteen centuries later needs to be addressed since it seems almost impossible to apply the medieval to the postmodern. So does using his work to gain insight into postmodern theological problems have any benefits besides the name value of a famous saint, or is Augustine an impossible applicability so many centuries later?

It is this seemingly “impossible applicability” that I explore in this thesis. The question that defines the project is as follows: Does Augustine constitute a valid authority for twenty-first century theological controversies? Answering this central question depends upon answering a second question: Does Augustine’s fifth century rhetorical situation align with that of a twenty- first century theologian? If the web of factors motivating Augustine is congruent with that which motivates Zacharias, as an exemplary representative of a twenty-first century apologist, and if the elements of their rhetorical situations are similar, then justification exists for applying Augustine’s insights to postmodern theological conflicts even amid historical and cultural disjunctures. Therefore, in this project, I assess Augustine’s twenty-first century authority—his power to speak through the centuries to postmodern audiences—by investigating his rhetorical situation to determine if it aligns with that of one contemporary theologian, Ravi Zacharias1.

In order to achieve this goal, I will focus on the rhetorical situation that gave rise to Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine and compare that situation to the one from which Zacharias’s work, Jesus Among Other Gods, emerges. On Christian Doctrine was the most suitable of Augustine’s text for a variety of reasons. Not only does it already deal with the subject of rhetoric, but it contains systematic, intellectual appeals, aligning it with the style of Jesus Among Other Gods. It also has evangelism as its end goal, as does Jesus Among Other Gods. I have chosen Zacharias for this study as my exemplary twenty-first century Christian representative for several reasons. Rather than addressing spiritual or emotional matters, such as addiction problems or marital woes that are largely unique to the individual, his overarching purpose is to confront an issue, the position of Christianity in a postmodern world, that plagues the entirety of the Christian sect in the twenty-first century. The far-reaching nature of his goal makes him similar to Augustine, who also addressed a concern that he felt affected Christianity as a whole. Also, though he perhaps has a lesser degree of fame than other prominent Christians such as Billy Graham or Charles Stanley, Zacharias is a world-renowned apologist. He has been a citizen of three different countries, travelled abroad for over thirty years, and has been a lifetime

1 Although Catholic Augustine is Catholic and Zacharias a Protestant, they still offer a fruitful site of study. Denomination differences are outweighed by doctrinal similarities. Thus, despite their different methods of prayer and preferred liturgy, both men worship the same omnipotent creator-God, a member of the Holy Trinity, and believe in the saving power of belief in Jesus, the sinless, incarnate Son of God. Alignment in these major areas compensates for any minor differences in domination and worship styles.

student of theology. His travel and studies have given him expansive knowledge of world cultures and religions and the opportunity to experience first-hand a wide variety of attitudes towards Christianity. Therefore, he can authoritatively speak on Christianity’s world position and world reputation. Zacharias also shares a similarity with Augustine in that he was not born a Christian but converted later to the faith. From among Zacharias’s body of work, I chose to examine Jesus Among Other Gods for several reasons. It is representative of his body of work as a whole in that it appeals to logic and intellect when making the case for the validity of Christianity. While being a good example of Zacharias’s customary approach to evangelism, it shares similarities with On Christian Doctrine in that it has evangelism as its ultimate goal despite dealing with different subject matter.

The value of this study lies in finding increased applicability in texts that are centuries old. Augustine’s work, which is not only read less as the decades progress but read with less depth, is nonetheless continuously lauded in Christian circles as foundational to the faith. Augustine’s insights were undoubtedly valuable in the sense that they helped inspire early believers and launch Christianity towards becoming a world religion, but it also seems that a writer of such devotion, intellect, and persuasive power, no matter what the time period, could have something relevant to say to modern Christians. It could prove useful to them to learn the insights and strategies Augustine found expeditious when encouraging or instructing believers or persuading nonbelievers. An analysis of Augustine’s rhetorical situation and a comparison of it to that of a postmodern representative exigence can help answer the question of his current applicability and highlight ways in which rhetoricians and theologians might return to Augustine for insights into questions of the Christian faith in an era in which it is increasingly besieged.

Not only does this study have value from a Christian perspective, but, since On Christian Doctrine is in part a defense of the use of rhetoric (which was considered by the Church to be a pagan art) by the Christian, it also has value from a rhetorical standpoint. While expanding and contributing to our understanding of the theory of the rhetorical situation, thus giving us more insight into the cause of true rhetoric and helping us better understand how rhetoric is generated across time and culture, it helps to uncover a more effective use of Augustine's rhetorical strategies and theories, which can perhaps give modern Christians new avenues of use for rhetoric in the postmodern Christian sphere.

Key to determining Augustine’s potential applicability to postmodern Christian theology are two analytical moves. First, I research current work on the nature of the rhetorical situation and examine historical research on the roots of that modern construct in classical rhetoric (which was the basis for Augustine’s education), particularly focusing on the concept of kairos as a proto-rhetorical situation. From this research, I synthesize a modified definition of rhetorical situation. Second, I take that construct and use it to identify and characterize the particular rhetorical situation of On Christian Doctrine as well as Jesus Among Other Gods. I engage in a rhetorical analysis that involves analysis from secondary sources as well as textual analysis of the two primary sources.

In modern times alone, Augustine has been the subject of exhaustive study. Scholars, historians, and theologians have examined the fascinating historical context (the fall of the Roman empire) surrounding his writing, his unique position as a Christian studying in a pagan tradition, and his current status as early apologetic and Christian theologian. The scholarship pertaining to Augustine that specifically informs my project deals with two areas of study: Augustine’s particular cultural context and his rhetorical context. The cultural context and educational schools of thought that influenced his scholastic training provide the information necessary for me to deduce his vision of a rhetorical situation. Particularly important is the work of Albert Outler, who discusses what he calls the “transvaluation” of Augustine’s classical education, which was influenced by Plato as well as the Sophists. Outler contends that Augustine saw himself in a conflicting place as both an heir to a classical, pagan tradition and a Christian one, clarifying Augustine’s impetus for his discourse: the clashing of his pagan education with his Christian beliefs. Augustine, who was an avid student of rhetoric, did not wish to be forced to choose between his studies and Christianity, and he sought in On Christian Doctrine to defend the use of rhetoric in Christianity. So not only did his work emerge from a particular rhetorical situation, but it deals, at least in part, specifically with the use of rhetoric by Christians.

A portion of my research revolves around my primary text, On Christian Doctrine, for Augustine. A goal of this project is to analyze On Christian Doctrine to track the ways in which it functions as the embodiment of what Augustine envisioned as his rhetorical situation, as someone who simultaneously plays two roles: one as a scholar in the pagan tradition of Cicero

and another as a devout Christian disciple. Keith V. Erikson calls On Christian Doctrine a “metaphysical guide to scriptural “truths” (105) in his essay “The Significance of ‘Doctrina’ in Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana.” He argues that it is not only a defense of rhetoric in the Christian sphere but was also intended to make use of rhetoric (a pagan idea that was nonetheless near to Augustine’s heart) to communicate Christian virtues and truths. Augustine, Erikson writes, wished “to view rhetoric not as a Greek paganism but rather as a legitimate means by which the Word of God could be shared” (106), and thus allow rhetoric to be a merger of two cultures with an ultimate goal to promote Christianity. Similarly, William E. Wiethoff points out Augustine’s emphasis on the importance of rhetoric in his essay “The Merits of De Doctrina Christiana.” Wiethoff argues that Augustine’s purpose was to defend the use of rhetoric (and therefore a portion of his classical education) and assert that even the necessities of life (such as Christian teachings) should be presented in pleasing language as to make them more accessible. This view is shared by Floyd D. Anderson in his “De Doctrina Christiana: The Convergence of Athens and Jerusalem .”

Textual analysis for Augustine, however, poses a potential problem because I will be using a translation of my primary text. Since my reading of On Christian Doctrine for this thesis, and thus for all of my claims, comes from R.P.H Green’s English translation, I acknowledge the potential drawbacks of translations such as the possible loss of nuance and original intended meaning. The meaning of this translation, however, has not been distorted to the degree that my assertions have no value. Lauren G. Leighton vehemently defends the use of translations in her article “Translation as a Derived Art.” She concedes that inaccuracies are indeed inevitable since an absolute “literalism” is impossible in translations, and she writes that “change is an unavoidable constituent of the process of translation, but indirection must not always lead away from the creation of the same impression as the original” (448). Leighton goes on to assert that “the process [of translation] should lead to a text which has the same effect on its new readers as the original had on its readers” (449). So even if there are slight inaccuracies between the original work and the translation, the overall effect and message remain intact. She is adamant that translations can be trusted to retain individual meaning, and she writes that “a translator is a magician who conjures up a perfect reproduction of the original or an alchemist who discovers the true alloy or the form and meaning of the original” (446). John Sturrock, in

his essay “Writing Between the Lines: The Language of Translation,” asserts that a translation is “a text in its own right.” He also writes that “the commonest defence of ‘freedom’ in translation has always been that nothing is lost by way of meaning in the revision of the literal version” (997). Moreover, despite the fact that a translation does not seem to undercut meaning, the translation issue does not greatly affect my project since I am not concerned with craft or stylistic devices but with the way that a textual analysis reveals traces of the motivating rhetorical situation.

Though Augustine’s impetus for writing his treatise may have been, largely, a discussion of interpretation and a defense of Christian rhetoric, other factors no doubt influenced the creation of his text. Therein lies the importance of evaluating his rhetorical situation, which was partially determined by his cultural situation, containing both Christian and pagan elements, and his education, which was steeped in classical rhetoric. It is from this educational and cultural location that On Christian Doctrine emerges. Through his theological writings, Augustine was a primary advocate for Christianity as the Middle Ages began. In order to determine if he possesses modern theological applicability, which is the purpose of this study, I have chosen to analyze and discuss his rhetorical situation, meaning I will determine to what and out of what exigence Augustine wrote his treatise.

To answer this question, I first review the modern concept of the rhetorical situation and then track it back to its most likely predecessor in the Middle Ages. However, this is not a simple procedure because the modern concept of rhetorical situation is full of controversies. Therefore, I dedicate research to analyzing the debates and tracing the historical development of the modern rhetorical situation. I synthesize the strengths of each conflicting position to create a flexible definition of a rhetorical situation. This area of scholarship begins with Lloyd Bitzer, who in his article “The Rhetorical Situation,” attempts to break down the generating of rhetoric into tangible and identifiable units by naming audience, exigence, and constraints as the three entities accompanying the creation of all rhetoric. Situation, he says, is what causes rhetoric to occur, and the three entities dictate the ensuing discourse. Second, I consider respondents to Bitzer’s theory. For example, Richard Vatz contends that situation has little or no influence on rhetoric and that it is the rhetor’s agency and background that influences discourse, and Scott Consigny’s definition of the rhetorical situation falls into a mediating middle ground. Both, however, fault

Bitzer for failing to take into account the creativity, agency, and intentions of the rhetor and implying that the rhetor will always wish to find the most “fitting” response (since this response is automatically generated by the situation). I weigh and consider these assertions to write my own definition of the rhetorical situation, which contains four terms; an exigence, or a situation in need of discourse, constraints, which modify the discourse produced, a rhetor, or the person who encounters and interprets the exigence, and audience, which is made up of interested parties. This rhetorical situation is not static but somewhat malleable due to the agency of the rhetor and audience.

For Augustine, however, an exploration of the rhetorical situation requires considering what parameters could have served as a predecessor to the concept of the modern rhetorical situation. Whatever this precursor is would certainly have influenced Augustine, who was schooled in the classical tradition. The concept of kairos, which in a basic sense means proper time and measure, was a weighty one for the ancients and one that they considered necessary for rhetoric. In examining kairos to determine if it might have functioned as a proto-rhetorical situation influencing the creation of rhetoric for Augustine, his writing influences, and his educators, I use, for one, the arguments of Michael Carter, who suggests that kairos, when understood properly, will lead scholars away from previously held notions that classical rhetoric is narrow and formulaic and reveal that it is really very situational. I combine these two bodies of scholarship to construct a definition of the rhetorical situation that can be used across time and culture and therefore can be applied to both Augustine and Zacharias.

Finally, I include in this project an examination of Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias, my modern representative Christian theologian and the subject whose rhetorical situation I will ultimately compare to the rhetorical situation of On Christian Doctrine to test Augustine’s modern applicability. This research includes examples of Zacharias’s mission goals and purpose statements taken from Jesus Among Other Gods, in which he situates Jesus among the deities of other religions while furthering his main goal of arguing that all faiths cannot ultimately be true. By bringing together research in four areas (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, the rhetorical situation, and Zacharias), I connect the rhetorical situations of two Christian men, separated by sixteen centuries, to see if an ancient bishop can speak to a modern believer.

In order to temporally and contextually situate my problem, I briefly in Chapter II introduce Augustine’s historical/cultural situation and provide an overview of On Christian Doctrine, in which Augustine examines how to interpret scripture and discern divine knowledge through the written word. Augustine uses his classical education to interpret scriptures and communicate their meaning in what he feels like are the proper ways (Anderson 103).

After giving a brief background for Augustine as well as background for Zacharias, I discuss the theories of the modern rhetorical situation according to Bitzer and his critics and write my own definition of it to be used in this project. I also trace various manifestations of kairos in the works of Augustine and those figures (such as Isocrates, Plato, and Cicero) who influenced his education and scholarship. Using this evidence, I redefine kairos to assert how it was most commonly used and compare it to the modern rhetorical situation. Using the redefinitions and the similarities, I devise an analytical framework by which to analyze the rhetorical situations of these two scholars to see if they are indeed similar.

My next step is to in Chapter III apply my framework of analysis to On Christian Doctrine, exploring the context surrounding Augustine’s work and the text of On Christian Doctrine itself to determine the nature of the rhetorical situation that inspired it. Then, by my own analysis of my primary text and by using scholarship surrounding it, I define Augustine’s situation, which I view through the lens of my analytical framework. In Chapter IV, I take this same framework and apply it to Jesus Among Other Gods to answer questions about his rhetorical situation. In Chapter V, I take my last step, which is to draw comparisons between Augustine’s situation and Zacharias’s situation (having analyzed both according to my framework of analysis), which will allow me to judge the level of Augustine’s applicability in the modern Christian sphere.

CHAPTER II: A RHETORICAL SITUATION ACROSS TIME

The ultimate question I pose in this project is as follows: Can modern Christians, with any real authority, cite a theologian 1600 years in the past? To answer this question of St. Augustine ’s “impossible applicability,” I must first develop a definition of the rhetorical situation that is sufficiently robust to apply to both Augustine and Zacharias. The goal of this chapter, then, is to construct a framework of analysis by which the rhetorical situations of both theologians can be ascertained and scrutinized. I pursue this goal first by examining the modern rhetorical situation according to Bitzer and his respondents and redefining this rhetorical situation to reflect what I feel are the most viable elements from the theories presented in each article. The concept of the rhetorical situation was not formally outlined until the modern age, so I must also examine, based on his education, what would have constituted Augustine's concept of the rhetorical situation. Second, I will explore and redefine the classical rhetorical concept of kairos, nuancing its deeper meanings and asserting that it acted as a proto-rhetorical situation that influenced Augustine. The third step will be to compare the two and find similarities so that, drawing on both concepts, I can develop a framework of analysis that can be used for both Augustine in the fifth century and Zacharias in the twenty-first.

The Modern Rhetorical Situation

Using Bitzer and his respondents is a solid starting point for an analysis of the actual impetus of rhetoric (not an analysis of the actual rhetoric itself or its effects). Bitzer asks not what, but why, and pushing his analysis further can help us understand what generates rhetoric regardless of culture or time. In “The Rhetorical Situation,” Bitzer seeks to identify and explore the factors that come into play when rhetoric is generated. He gives a breakdown of the elements present in a rhetorical situation, thereby allowing us to identify them in order to study their interactions. Once individual parts are identified, separated, and studied in relation to each other, rhetoricians can discover why rhetoric occurs, where it originates, what/who gets the credit for its creation, and what its effects are. Though scholars and writers can disagree and dispute the specifics of the interactions responsible for the creation of rhetoric, there are certain forces always interacting when it is created, and examining what these forces are and how they interact is worthwhile for theoretical as well as pragmatic reasons. In a theoretical sense, examining past

and present manifestations of the rhetorical situation adds to our body of knowledge of the modern rhetorical situation. From a pragmatic stance, such a study is worthwhile as rhetoricians debate such topics as agency and creativity in rhetoric, and it can also help rhetoricians draw situational similarities across cultures and through time as we perhaps seek to find (as I am) greater significance in writers of past eras and explore and discover what moves us to write and speak.

Bitzer contends in “The Rhetorical Situation” that “it is situation which calls the discourse into existence,” (2) and he wishes to analyze “what sorts of interaction occur between speaker, audience, subject, and occasion” (2). He writes that situation is not a word that is normally associated with rhetoric, and he seeks to alter that. “So controlling is situation,” he writes, “that we should consider it the very ground of rhetorical activity” (4). According to Bitzer, there is no generative aspect of rhetoric. It does not create or control an individual’s reality as some rhetoricians would argue. Rhetoric also does not reflect the creativity or personal motivations of the rhetor. Bitzer feels that situation calls forth discourse; discourse does not call forth situation. That being the case, if we are to be able to understand the factors that interplay all rhetoric, it becomes necessary to identify and analyze the various elements of situation, the “controlling” factor of rhetoric.

Bitzer contends that there are three elements present in all rhetorical situations and therefore three elements that dictate all discourse. “These three constituents,” he writes, “comprise everything relevant in a rhetorical situation” (8). The first of these is exigence. Bitzer defines exigence as “something wanting to be done” (6). It could be a problem or a requirement, such as the need for a eulogy at a funeral. It is a circumstance that requires that a discourse be produced for consumption by an audience. But not all exigences, are rhetorical according to his theories. According to Bitzer, “an exigence is rhetorical when it is capable of positive modification and when positive modification requires discourse or can be assisted by discourse” (7). He uses the example of winter and states that though it is indeed a situation, it is not an exigence because there is no discourse that can alter the dropping of temperatures during particular months of the year. Bitzer also writes that “in any rhetorical situation there will be at least one controlling exigence…it specifies the audience to be addressed and the change to be

affected” (7). Though a situation may have many supporting or ancillary exigences, there will always be one main circumstance that is the focus of change.

Audience is the second element Bitzer names. “Rhetoric,” he writes, “always requires an audience” (7). He strictly defines his concept of audience, claiming that it consists not of mere consumers of rhetoric but “only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change” (8). Consumers of poetry, he asserts, are not members of a rhetorical audience because the creation of poetry is an end in itself and requires no modification on the part of the reader or hearer (8). A true audience is not passive. They hear but also heed the rhetoric. He asserts that “the rhetorical audience must be capable of serving as mediator of the change which the discourse functions to produce” (8). For Bitzer, rhetoric is a vehicle of change and thus a true audience of rhetoric must also contribute to this change. An example of a Bitzerian audience would be hearers of a political speech calling for change in an area of government who then go and work to enact change.

The third and final element of Bitzer’s rhetorical situation is constraints, which he defines as “persons, events, objects, and relations which are part of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (8).. He calls “beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives” examples of “standard sources of constraint” (8). According to Bitzer, there are two types of constraints: “those originated or managed by the rhetor and his method” and “those other constraints, in the situation, which may be operative” (8). In other words, constraints can be innate to the situation (such as a tradition, document, or a fact), or they can be external to the situation but personal to the rhetor (such as a belief, attitude, or motive). All constraints, however, work to modify the type of response that the rhetor must deliver.

Also for Bitzer, nearly as important as the elements that call forth the rhetoric or the audience is the answer to the exigence's call: the rhetoric itself. He asserts that the text that is produced by a situation must attain a certain level of appropriateness to truly be considered rhetoric. If, say, a humorous speech were to be given in place of a moving tribute, rhetoric has not occurred because the situation did not call for humor, nor was the audience expecting humor. Rather, he writes that “a situation must somehow prescribe the response which fits” (10). It is a

rhetor’s job to encounter a situation and then properly interpret that situation, its specific requirements, and the unique parameters created by the exigence, audience, and constraints, so that he or she may discover and deliver this fitting response. In his contention that the response be “fitting,” Bitzer implies that ethics play into the response. For true rhetoric to occur, the rhetor must deliver to the audience a response that is truly what the situation calls for, as it sends out a message that a rhetor must receive and interpret it correctly. A response is only true rhetoric if it is fitting, and for the response to be fitting, it must be in alignment with the necessities of the situation. So without ethics, a rhetor will not deliver this “fitting” discourse, and rhetoric will never occur.

After Bitzer’s essay was published, several scholars wrote responses to it, critiquing and revising his theories and asserting their own ideas concerning exactly what phenomena surround, influence, and cause the birth of any act of rhetoric. These critics are quick to point out that Bitzer gives all of the power to the situation itself; it is the situation that controls and dictates the discourse that arises from it, leaving no agency to the rhetor delivering the discourse or to the audience interpreting.. The rhetoric, for Bitzer, is determined almost automatically by the current exigence. If Bitzer were to construct a timeline, it may read as follows: situation occurs, rhetor interprets it correctly and appropriately, rhetor delivers a “fitting” discourse. Both rhetor and audience are empty containers waiting to be filled. This timeline makes it impossible for a rhetor to encounter a situation, interpret it, determine what it means for him and others like him, and create a discourse designed to achieve a desired end for a specific audience and a specific purpose. It also makes it impossible for an audience or member of an audience to encounter a discourse and make individual meaning out of it, a meaning that may or may not align itself exactly with the message the rhetor intended to convey. Instead, the rhetor acts as a conduit, almost robotically interpreting the message transmitted by the situation.

In one response to “The Rhetorical Situation,” Richard Vatz harshly faults Bitzer for his neglect to take into account the agency of the rhetor. He writes in his article “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation” that “in a world of inexhaustible and ambiguous events, facts, images, and symbols, the rhetorician can best account for choices of situation, the evocative symbols, and the forms and media which transmit these translations of meaning” (158). It is the rhetor, according to Vatz, who is ultimately responsible for the end result (the discourse) since it is the rhetor who

chooses when to speak, how to communicate information, and what information to communicate. Vatz also writes that “we learn of facts and events through someone’s communicating them to us. This involves a two-part process. First there is a choice of events to communicate. The world is not a plot of discrete events. The world is a scene of inexhaustible events which all compete to impinge upon what Kenneth Burke calls our ‘sliver of reality’” (156). Here, he means that the selection of facts is just as important as the facts themselves. The discretion of the rhetor also dictates not only how events and elements are related, but which events and elements are related. Different selections could alter audience perception of the discourse.

Scott Consigny echoes this lament of Bitzer’s omission of the agency of the rhetor in his article “Rhetoric and Its Situations.” Consigny writes that “because the incoherence of the situation impinges on forms of life acceptable to himself and his audience, the rhetor must find strategies for shaping the indeterminacies, thereby formulating concrete problems which can be potentially solved” (2). Here, Consigny conveys the idea that the rhetor is actively participating in the creation of rhetoric and not merely searching for rhetoric that is somehow innate to a particular situation. He puts forth two conditions that rhetoric must meet in order for it to effectively engage in situations. These two conditions are integrity and receptivity (2). The rhetor must wish for the rhetoric to meet the needs of the situation but at the same time must also be receptive to different events and capable of managing and interpreting them. This viewpoint also implies agency on the part of the rhetor in interpreting a situation that calls for discourse. Vatz also goes on to argue that no meaning exists outside of individual interpretation and goes on to write that “no situation can have a nature independent of the perception of its interpreter or independent of the rhetoric with which he chooses to characterize it” (154). The way the rhetor personally perceives the situation influences the rhetoric that is produced—and this personal influence comes from outside of the situation since it is unique to that particular rhetor.

Another point of contention held by respondents to Bitzer’s theories is that his conception or audience is too narrow. Bitzer’s assertion that an audience only exists if it is made up of members who not only understand the situation but also are capable of enacting the changes called for by the rhetor unreasonably leaves out people who are especially interested in the subject at hand but are prevented from acting for various reasons. He states that an exigence that

is impossible to change is not rhetorical. However, this statement assumes that the change the rhetor wishes to mediate through the audience will result in some sort of tangible action when perhaps the rhetor’s purpose is merely to change a mindset or opinion. Vatz writes that “to the audience, events become meaningful only through their linguistic depiction” (157). In order for any information to be understood, there must be the “translation of the chosen information into meaning. This is an act of creativity. It is an interpretive act. It is a rhetorical act of transcendence” (157). He goes on to boldly state that “if you view meaning as intrinsic to situations, rhetorical study becomes parasitic to philosophy, political science, and whatever other discipline can inform us as to what the ‘real’ situation is” (157). Consigny also petitions for the agency not only of the rhetor but also of the audience. Referring to the power of the audience, with its particular characteristics and expectations, to influence the choices rhetors make, he writes that “the rhetorical situation is not one created solely through the imagination and discourse of the rhetor. It involves particularities of persons, actions, and agencies in a certain place or time, and the rhetor cannot ignore these constituents” (3).

In his article, Bitzer, despite some missteps, succeedes in taking a consideration of rhetoric beyond an analysis of the rhetor and his or her intentions and in exploring how concerns outside of the rhetor (such as constraints) may also influence rhetoric. Though in his theories, Bitzer may have severely and unfairly confined the creation of rhetoric by failing to account for any agency or creativity on the part of the rhetor, his attempt to define the rhetorical situation and name the generative forces of discourse is laudable. Bitzer gave us something to “wrap our hands around,” so to speak, when attempting to account for the matrix of players involved in and influencing the creation of rhetoric. Though his rhetorical situation is in need of redefinition to accommodate other elements like the intentions and creativity of the rhetor and the possible variety of interpretations from the audience, its basic goal is valuable: to identify and examine all the entities involved in the creation of rhetoric.

A Redefinition

Within the context of this study, I agree that though Bitzer’s rhetorical situation is exceedingly narrow and painfully rigid, he succeeds in recognizing the influence of the three elements he names (exigence, audience, and constraints) as intrinsic to all situations. There is

exigence, which I believe he correctly names as situational obligations to create rhetoric, and its power to call people into public forums to deliver discourse. Constraints he also correctly names. His definition of audience, however, must be modified to account for a certain level of individual interpretation. I alter Bitzer in that I assert that no external change that leads to action is necessary on the part of the audience for true rhetoric to have occurred. Change, I feel, can also be internal, such as a change of attitude or opinion. I also propose to add a fourth term of “rhetor” to his definition, since I feel that a rhetor is more than a medium, which is what Bitzer implies. Vatz primarily contributes to my definition the idea of agency of the rhetor in that the rhetor indeed makes choices independent of the situation in that he or she selects what facts to address out of a network of many facts, decides when to speak, and makes his or her decisions based on individual motivations and desires. While Consigny seconds Vatz’s contentions about the rhetor, he contributes vital theories about the agency of the audience. The audience, he asserts, by its makeup and desires, influences the rhetor’s choices. The rhetor in part creates the situation to which he or she responds. A rhetor has individual desires and goals influenced by various attitudes and ideologies, and thus he or she approaches an exigence uniquely. By selecting the circumstances and events to respond to and imposing a viewpoint onto these circumstances and events, he or she plays a creative role.

Therefore, my modified version of the rhetorical situation contains four terms (exigence, constraints, rhetor, and audience) instead of Bitzer’s three and involves an expansion of one of Bitzer’s original terms (audience). The modified version includes an exigence (something which demands a response whether it be to mediate a change or not) fraught with unique constraints (like those Bitzer suggests, such as time constraints), a rhetor (someone who navigates a situation of his or her choice and attempts to convey what he or she feels is the best and most suited interpretation), and an audience (which is composed of at least moderately interested persons who may or may not be able to initiate a change and who will then interpret the discourse, hopefully coming to a somewhat similar conclusion as the ethical rhetor). For Bitzer, a situation is a static and unchanging framework that rhetor then fills out with discourse. In this modified version of the rhetorical situation, however, a situation has a degree of malleability due to a modified version of the rhetor and audience. Though the elements (exigence, audience, and

constraints) do exert considerable influence on the situation, the rhetor is partly able to, as discussed, create the situation to which he or she responds.

Having established a new definition of the modern rhetorical situation, it is necessary now to explore what constituted the rhetorical situation in the fifth century. I must determine not only to what rhetorical situation Augustine responded, but also how he, drawing on his Christianity and his education, would have defined the concept of rhetorical situation. His cultural heritage in North Africa as a citizen of the Roman Empire involved receiving a classical education, one that he enjoyed and greatly valued. One of his favorite subjects was rhetoric, which was considered a pagan art. When he converted to Christianity in Milan in 386 (Outler, 136), he experienced a conflict of interest between his beloved faith and his favorite scholastic endeavor.

In his article “Augustine’s Use of Scripture,” Mervin Monroe Deems discusses the historical context surrounding Augustine. In 406, the Roman Empire suffered a barrage of attacks from various groups, and a mere four years later, Rome fell to the Visigoths (188). He asserts that “Augustine lived at a critical moment in western European history….In a world in which the pillars of state were tottering and at a time when every pagan philosopher, every heretical Christian, every Christian schismatic laid claim to possession of truth” (188). In “The Conversion of St. Augustine,” Joseph McCabe echoes Deems and writes that “the great bishop of Hippo…lived at a notable crisis in the intellectual and religious and political development of Europe, and who sprang forward with alacrity to meet every movement of his day” (450).

Because of his intriguing circumstances, various writings, and theological work, Augustine has been the subject of exhaustive study in Christian and secular circles. Scholars, historians, and theologians have examined the fascinating historical context (the fall of the Roman empire) surrounding his writing, his unique position as a Christian who desired to preserve the art of rhetoric, and his current status as early apologetic and foundational Christian theologian. His greatest significance, however, is found in the Christian realm. Deems confirms Augustine’s historical importance to Christianity; “Augustine exerted great influence in helping to shape the canon of Scripture. The importance of his relationship to the matters of canon and text can hardly be exaggerated” (189).

Augustine, however greatly valued his classical education and highly regarded and admired his educational forefathers. Weithoff mentions Augustine’s “conscious attempts at adaptation” (116) in his use and paraphrasing of Plato. He was also influenced rhetorically by the work of Isocrates (117). Anderson contends that Augustine was also inclined to use classical methods of interpretation and drew on these when he wrote On Christian Doctrine (103). Anderson goes on to assert that “another of the pagan riches which Augustine despoils is Ciceronian rhetoric, particularly Orator,” (103) from which he drew rhetorical knowledge. Outler also writes that “ Cicero remained [Augustine's] conscious model. He had been trained as a Latin rhetor—and once a rhetor, always a rhetor” (215). Outler, however, contends that Augustine’s “his real light and leading in pagan philosophy was Plato and ‘the Platonists’” (215). From these, Augustine echoed the notions of ultimate truth and ethical orators.

His academic pursuits, though, were second to his devotion to Christianity. He did not, however, wish to discard academics. In Outler’s words, the bishop “sought to harmonize his learning and his delight in learning with his faith in God as Creator and his delight in exploring His creation” (215). Albert Outler asserts in “Augustine and the Transvaluation of the Classical Tradition” that “Augustine saw himself as an heir to the tradition of classical culture, as one vitally concerned to appropriate its values and to measure its claims by the norm of Christian truth….[He], then is best understood, and on his own terms, when he is reckoned as a Christian classicist who saw no contradiction in the terms” (214). Augustine felt, despite his high regard for his Roman education, that “pagan learning must be firmly subordinated to the pre-eminent worth of revealed truth” (Outler, 214). However, “he refused to jettison his own share of that learning. He conserved and cherished all he had received, but he had discovered a way by which it could be radically transvalued” (214). The cultural and historical climate in which Augustine lived and worked made this “transvaluation” extremely difficult for him to achieve. In his article “De Doctrina Christiana: The Convergence of Athens and Jerusalem ,” Floyd Anderson contends that

the culture of the West…represents, both in its historical and contemporary manifestations, a ‘convergence’ of two distinct and often rival moral and intellectual traditions: the secular or “Hellenic” tradition whose origins lie in ancient Greece and Athens, and the sacred or “Hebraic” tradition whose origins lie in ancient Palestine and

Jerusalem. Throughout most of the history of the West the convergence of these two traditions has been an uneasy one at best, and only rarely have successful syntheses of the two been achieved” (102).

So not only was Augustine in the unique and distressing position of being torn between two traditions, but the two traditions were fierce rivals.

For Augustine, the problem Christian leaders found with rhetoric was nonexistent because he viewed God as the ultimate source of all knowledge and learning. Therefore, he did not feel one must choose between the study and use of rhetoric and one’s status as a Christian. Anderson writes that for Augustine, “since all truth emanates from God, human beings do not invent or create truths or standards, they merely discover them. Thus, according to Augustine, such secular pursuits as history, philosophy, dialectic, and rhetoric cannot properly be regarded as ‘secular’ or ‘human’ institutions at all” (103). Though rhetoric and other academic subjects had formerly been regarded as secular, Augustine’s philosophy held that without the one true God, none of this knowledge would have been possible in the first place, so to separate these pursuits from God and claim that they are of “pagan” origin is faulty practice. Anderson writes that “in viewing all knowledge as emanating from God and in despoiling and converting secular knowledge for religious purposes, the Augustinian synthesis embraces all learning, both sacred and profane, within the common grasp of wisdom… secular and profane knowledge have no value in and of themselves; they have value only in so far as they promote the loftier goal of Christian salvation” (104). Augustine felt that all areas of learning and scholarship were actually inventions of God that humans had managed to discover over time and that these inventions should be cultivated by Christians in order that their invaluable power may be claimed and used.

Augustine responded to the exigence at hand (defending and promoting the use of rhetoric among Christian teachers to communicate scriptural interpretations) by seeking to safeguard this right of Christians to use rhetoric in the furtherance of Christian learning. But how would Augustine’s classical training have led him to envision his rhetorical situation, and to what configuration of the rhetorical situation did he respond based on his classical rhetorical training? It is necessary to answer these questions in order to formulate a historical predecessor of the modern rhetorical situation so that Augustine’s idea of what would have constituted a

rhetorical situation can be built into the framework of analysis that will be used to analyze On Christian Doctrine (and later, Jesus Among Other Gods).

Since the modern theory of the rhetorical situation had not been outlined in the fifth century, Augustine’s idea of it would have been drawn from theories that shaped his educational influences. One concept that was heavily considered in rhetorical study in practice was kairos, which is defined, basically, as proper time and measure. James Kinneavy, who established himself as the primary contemporary scholar studying this concept, states in his article “Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric” that his goal is to reinsert kairos as “the dominating concept” in sophistic and Platonic rhetoric (it is necessary to remember that Plato was one of Augustine’s chief educational influences, suggesting that Augustine would have witnessed the influence of kairos in Plato’s work). To emphasize its deep influence and wide possibilities, Kinneavy expands on its traditional definition, which he states is “the right or opportune time to do something, or right measure in doing something” (80). He emphasizes, however, that the concept is much more complex that is evidenced by this surface definition, and he goes on to unpack all the meanings historically embodied by the term. He explores five areas of kairos: the ethical (the moral), the epistemological (the study of the origins of human knowledge and understanding), the rhetorical (the study and application of persuasive language), the aesthetic (the stylistic and technical aspects of writing), and the civic educational (the academic instruction of students), in furthering his goal of showcasing the many facets of kairos.

The ethical aspect of kairos deals with its close relation to the concept of justice. Kinneavy writes that “justice was defined as giving to each according to merit…Justice, therefore, was determined by circumstances: justice was kairos” (87). In this way, justice, or ethics, is situational, indicating that justice may look different in different circumstances. This aspect of kairos is related to the “proper measure” element of the term. The epistemological facet, perpetuated in part by Plato, exists in that it “brings timeless ideas down into the human situations of historical time” (88). Kairos here is an epiphany of sorts. Divine revelations, through an opportune moment or moment of learning, are recorded and thus introduced into the realm of human knowledge. From a rhetorical perspective, kairos is the transcribing of knowledge into words for consumption by a reader or listener and is linked to the epistemological perspective. Rhetoric occurs at a moment of understanding. An instance of

kairos is when “rhetorical thought becomes effective” to either the one producing the rhetoric or the one experiencing it. The aesthetic dimension of kairos deals with the idea in Greek thought that “the ethical and the aesthetic are consistently intertwined” (91). For Plato and Cicero, aesthetics was linked to kairos in its concern for “proper measure.” It also has a civic educational aspect. The god Kairos was portrayed as an athletic young man who entered into manhood by received two years of required military and civic education in a program that focused on rhetoric (93). His activities were properly portioned between what was important to that society: the military and education. Kairos determined the moment one could persuade or be persuaded, which was the heart of Greek rhetorical education.

Michael Harker also explores the ethical aspects of kairos in his essay “The Ethics of Argument: Rereading Kairos and Making Sense in a Timely Fashion.” His goal in his article is to “challenge commonsensical notions of kairos as a term expressing a formal aspect of argument or strictly temporal concerns” (78). He feels that it is important to go beyond a “truncated understanding of [the term]” (79) as merely the right measure at the right time because without a deeper knowledge of the term, scholars, teachers, and students miss “the social context of argument” (79). Without this “social context," we might miss nuancing audience and rhetor intentions and fail to view the richness and complexity of the rhetorical situation and the entities that interact to create it. Kairos is not (like the Greek word chronos) meant to indicate only quantities of time. There is also in it an element of right measure, which implies ethics. Harker writes of the importance of ethics, saying that “ultimately, I intend to demonstrate ethical considerations that orbit kairos” (78).

Aside from the ethical aspect of kairos outlined by Kinneavy and Harker that is built into the term, it has an implied sense of ethics that can be extracted from it. Kairos, even in its simple definition of right time and measure, assumes that the rhetor desires to wait till the right time to do the right thing and does not have deceptive motives. To truly fulfill a kairotic moment according to right time and measure, a rhetor must first wish to fulfill it and intend for his or her rhetoric to come at the right time and in the right measure, a task that implies ethics on the part of the rhetor. Erika Rummell, in her article “Isocrates’ Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation,” asserts that Isocrates, who was one of Augustine’s influences, “judged the value of a speech by its style, content and purpose. While his considerations for style are rooted in his love for ornate

language, his views on content and purpose are ethically oriented. In fact, Isocrates’ idea of rhetorical perfection is closely related to his concept of moral excellence” (26). He believed that a rhetor should strive for “a practical and worldwise handling of his subject” but insisted that they “maintain a high level of integrity” (25). This “practical handling” of a subject and the maintenance of “high level of integrity” is parallel to the portion of the definition of kairos that calls for a response to be “proper,” indicating again that ethics is central to the concept.

Kairos, then, is an opportune moment to speak to an audience, generated by some exigence, and the condition of taking this opportunity and speaking ethically. Seizing this opportunity to reply to an exigence in the correct (or “fitting") way implies that the rhetoric will speak ethically to truly achieve “rhetorical excellence.” Critical scholarship concerning kairos by experts in the field indicates its importance during the Classical period, and historical scholarship suggests that Plato and Isocrates, two of Augustine’s chief educational influences, recognized the power of kairos. I contend, based on these two areas of research, that kairos, when it is expanded beyond its traditional, abbreviated definition and compared to the modern rhetorical situation, operated as a “proto-rhetorical situation” that influenced the rhetoric of Augustine.

Synthesizing the Modern and Medieval: A Rhetorical Situation for All Times

The modern rhetorical situation accounts for rhetoric in the twenty-first century, and kairos in the fifth. However, in order to use both these to synthesize a definition that can be used for both Augustine and Zacharias, similarities between the modern rhetorical situation and kairos must be extracted. As is evidenced by the discussion of concepts, ethics has a prominent role in both the contemporary rhetorical situation as well as in kairos. Bitzer makes an ethical assumption when he asserts that rhetors will encounter situations and then attempt to discover and deliver the most “fitting” discourse. Vatz agrees, writing that “if we view the communication of an event as a choice, interpretation, and translation, the rhetor’s responsibility is of supreme concern” (158). In other words, the rhetor has a duty to the situation and the audience to provide a proper bridge between the two. Kairos also has an implied sense of ethics evident even in its surface definition (as in the word “right”) in addition to scholars unpacking its

meaning to actually include ethics. Roger Thompson writes in his article “Kairos Revisited: An Interview with James Kinneavy” that

a more complete definition of the term recognizes that concerns of appropriateness and timing inter-animate each other in such a way that it is almost impossible to consider kairos outside of the most problematic philosophical and rhetorical realm, the realm of action, the realm of ethics”(82).

Kairos, then, assumes that in rhetoric there definitely exists an appropriate time and appropriate measure in which it is suitable to act, and that outside of this appropriate time and disregarding this appropriate measure, kairos cannot exist.

Framework of Analysis

Both kairos and the rhetorical situation, then, are permeated by ethics. This binding principle will allow us to use both kairos and the modern rhetorical situation to create a framework by which to analyze the rhetoric of medieval rhetoricians and modern theologians. Since both kairos and the modern rhetorical situation heavily involve ethics, the updated concept of the modern rhetorical situation can also be applied retroactively to Augustine since kairos bears a strong similarity to it with regards to ethics. Therefore, the analytical framework by which I will examine Augustine and Zacharias consists of exigence, audience, constraints, rhetor, and ethics. Examining both by one analytical framework will reveal how true rhetoric generated regardless of time and culture. If the elements of their respective rhetorical situations are played out in similar ways, then justification exists for Zacharias to draw on Augustine with authority.

CHAPTER III: THE RHETORICAL SITUATION OF ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

“Since rhetoric is used to give conviction to both truth and falsehood, who could dare to maintain that truth, which depends on us for its defence, should stand unarmed in the fight against falsehood?” (Book IV, 4)

In order to determine if Augustine is a viable influence and a possible applicability for Zacharias and thus other modern Christian theologians, I must determine whether both Augustine and Zacharias are creating and reacting to similar rhetorical situations and thus producing complementary true rhetorics. In the previous chapter, I synthesized (from the theory of the modern rhetorical situation and the concept of kairos) an analytical framework to be used to test both subjects. This framework consists of five elements: exigence, audience, constraints, rhetor, and ethics. In this chapter, I will apply this five-part framework to Augustine's On Christian Doctrine in order to explore the nature of his rhetorical situation so that I may then take my findings and compare them to the rhetorical situation of Zacharias, thus determining Augustine’s “impossible applicability” to modern Christian theology.

On Christian Doctrine

After his conversion in Milan in 386, Augustine became in 391 Valerius of Hippo’s assistant bishop and then replaced him in the Fall of 395, after which he found himself constantly immersed in the duties of a bishop (Charles Kannengiesser, “The Interrupted De Doctrina Christiana” 3-4). A year later in 396 when he was about 42 years old, he began penning On Christian Doctrine (3). This project was for him, among other things, a chance to justify and legitimize rhetoric in sermons, lessons, and scriptural interpretations. Books I and II and two- thirds of Book III were written in the years 396-396 (5). During a reprieve from this project, he wrote Contra Faustum in 400 and City of God from 415-416 (5). Amid the writing of his work Retractationes (6), he finished Book III and wrote Book IV. The completion of On Christian Doctrine in 426 (5) came after a gap of more than thirty years and only three years before his death.

In Book I, Augustine discusses the nature of “things versus signs” and how the two can intersect. Book II deals with different types of signs, especially those that are unknown or unfamiliar. The ambiguity of both literal and figurative signs that appear in the scriptures is discussed in Book III. Book IV deals with the use of rhetorical eloquence to spread Christian truths. Erikson asserts that though “De Doctrina Christiana’s four books may resemble an odd assembly of disparate concepts…doctrina, in its varied uses, acts to unite Books I-IV and justify a Christian rhetoric designed to communicate exegetically derived scriptural meanings” (105). Erikson contends that On Christian Doctrine is “a homilectic rhetoric and metaphysical guide to scriptural ‘truths’” (105). He writes that “now preachers could not only learn but communicate scriptural meanings” (106), which is necessary if Christianity was to ever spread and flourish. Outler claims that the bishop’s transvaluation of his educational tradition occurs as he “tries to discriminate between the valid and the false in Classicism” (215). Anderson emphasizes the importance of the word “doctrine” in the work’s title: “the term doctrina, with its foundation in the concept ‘teaching,’ enabled Church leaders to rationalize the use of a ‘Christian rhetoric.’ Now preachers could not only learn by communicate scriptural meanings” (106). Augustine intended for his treatise to explain the point he argues about knowledge: that all knowledge has God as its point of origin. Augustine sought in On Christian Doctrine to “eradicate the existing distinctions between sacred and profane; instead, it would view all knowledge, whatever its point of origin, as emanating from God, and therefore as a potentially useful tool for religions education” (Anderson 102). In this way, Augustine is able to view “pagan” knowledge as divine knowledge (that has thus far only been employed by heathen people) that is therefore useful to Christian due to its origin and not due to those who popularized it. Also, according to George Sanderlin in “St. Augustine and the Twentieth Century,” the arguments in On Christian Doctrine “led, incidentally, to the liberal arts being taken into the program of Christian education, as ancillary to a proper understanding of the Scriptures” (133). Though over time On Christian Doctrine gained status as an important work of literature in both Christian and secular realms, its immediate reception after publication is unknown. In the introduction to his translation of On Christian Doctrine, R.P.H. Green states that in the fifth century, there is no clear evidence of its use or popularity, but this is not unexpected. It is often not possible to trace the fortunes of an ancient work immediately after its publication….The conditions of the time, with the barbarian

Vandals seizing the capital of Roman Africa within a year of his death, and the situation in other areas of the Latin-speaking West little better, did not encourage study.” (xx) In the Carolingian Renaissance, however, “it was considered well worth the cost and effort of transcribing, and it was widely available to learned readers…one can assemble an impressive list of leading medieval and Renaissance authorities who not only knew the work but read and used it, including Cassiodorus, Raban Maur, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, and Erasmus” (xx). In “Augustine and the Education of the Early Medieval Preacher,” Thomas L. Amos concurs with Green’s assessment of On Christian Doctrine’s medieval popularity. He writes that “it was regarded as the preeminent guide for exegetes, the cornerstone,” (23) and the text was used by Pomerius, who had a complete copy of the work, and Eugippius, who had excerpts of it (25). D.W. Robertson, in the introduction to his own translation of the work, also asserts that “On Christian Doctrine exerted an enormous influence throughout the Middle Ages” (xii). In order to determine if Augustine is truly an impossible applicability today, the rhetorical situation of On Christian Doctrine must be analyzed by a specific framework. As stated in Chapter II, I determined from an evaluation and redefinition of the modern rhetorical situation and of kairos that a framework of analysis that can be applied to both Augustine and Zacharias involves five terms: an exigence that requires a response, an audience that receives the rhetoric, constraints that influence the creation of the rhetoric, a rhetor who navigates and interprets the exigence, and the ethics of the situation. To analyze Augustine’s rhetorical situation, I must conduct an examination of On Christian Doctrine focusing on these five areas. Then I can take the discoveries about the text and see if they bear any similarities to the discoveries made about Zacharias’s Jesus Among Other Gods when it is tested by the same standard of analysis.

Exigence

The first component of the rhetorical situation is exigence, or a circumstance that requires a rhetorical response. It includes both concrete external circumstances as well as the atmosphere created by rhetor's selection of events. Augustine’s exigence can be determined by two methods. One is by examining scholarship on the subject, and the other is by searching the text

itself for the author’s explicit and implicit references to a problem or situation he wishes to address. Augustine’s exigence in On Christian Doctrine involves legitimizing the use of rhetoric in Christianity, which he felt would help preachers and teachers to communicate scriptural interpretations to their congregations and students as well as help Christian followers disseminate Christian truths to nonbelievers. Especially after paganism was banned in 342, the study and use of rhetoric (since it sought largely to invent meaning and persuade) was either looked on with suspicion or rejected altogether (Keith V. Erikson, “The Significance of ‘Doctrina’ in Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana” 106). Erikson writes that “a ‘Catch-22’ phenomenon arose: How could the Word of God be communicated effectively if not by rhetorically articulate (a Greek concept) preachers?” (106). Augustine found himself in this middle of this “Catch-22.” As a Christian, he wished above all to further the message of God. As a student of rhetoric and one who finds it powerful, he wished to wield this power and stress to the faithful how the art of rhetoric was not only useful but necessary to the furtherance of Christian teachings among believers and nonbelievers alike. Not only did he feel as though rhetoric was a highly appropriate tool for Christians, but he also believed that Christians would lose the battle for souls since pagans and non-Christians used rhetoric, and Augustine felt that the Church should not allow non-Christians to wield a tool that it would not. Augustine recognized the heightened need for a strong, public defense of rhetoric if it were to ever be accepted into Christian circles. It was a common practice in the Middle Ages for laypeople to rely on clergy to interpret scripture, but Augustine felt that every educated person needed to take control of his or her own interpretation. Green asserts that Augustine wrote On Christian Doctrine because one, he saw “the need to help Christians learn from the bible” (ix) and two, he wanted “to enable readers of scripture to be their own interpreters” (vii). “It has also been seen,” Green goes on to write, “the value of the learning available outside the church, or, as we would say, pagan or classical culture. There is no doubt that this is a major theme of the work, and one of its major points of interest” (viii). A synthesis, then, of the opinions of Erikson and Green indicate that Augustine’s exigence was indeed the failure of the Church to use “learning available outside the church” (which is, in this instance, rhetoric) to communicate scriptural truths learned from a proper interpretation of the scriptures.

There is also textual evidence to suggest Augustine’s exigence. He begins his treatise by writing “there are two things on which all interpretation of scripture depends: the process of discovering what we need to learn, and the process of presenting what we have learnt” (Book I, 1). So for Augustine, one necessity is being able to discern truth and a second is to be able to communicate what one has learned from the scriptures. He writes his preface that “there are certain rules for interpreting the scriptures” and that these can be “passed on to those with an appetite for such study to enable them to progress not just by reading the work of others who have illuminated the obscurities of divine literature, but also by finding illumination themselves” (Preface, 1). Here, he indicates that being able to personally decipher scriptures is vital to the Christian if he or she is to be able to daily gain wisdom. He goes on to write in Book IV, if “oratorical ability, so effective a resource to commend either right or wrong, is available to both sides; why then is it not acquired by good and zealous Christians to fight for the truth?” (Book IV, 5). Here he addresses his second concern, communicating truths. He wishes for Christians to be well equipped and to use “oratorical ability” in this task. The impetus for Augustine’s responding to this exigence at the moment he chose was most likely a fervent desire to see Christianity spread coupled with possessing enough influence to perhaps see his ideas concerning rhetoric and scripture come to fruition. It may be contended, however, that Augustine’s exigence changed during the thirty years it took him to complete On Christian Doctrine. However, not only did the exigence not dissipate or disappear in thirty years, but the commencement and completion of On Christian Doctrine is evidence that there were at least two manifestations of the exigence: one when Augustine started the treatise and another when he continued it much later. Had Augustine felt that his exigence has dissolved, then he surely would not have finished the treatise after such a long hiatus; therefore there must be other reasons for the delay. Green points out that “Augustine’s comment in the Retractations rather suggests that he lost sight of it” (xi). He says that this should not be interpreted as Augustine losing interest in the project or as the project losing importance. There may simply have been more pressing issues that he felt must be immediately addressed. Green writes that “it is not likely that [Augustine] came to consider it unimportant, even if it had to take second place to his sustained attacks on movements which he saw as dangerously schismatic or heretical” (xi). Perhaps, therefore, he simply had to put the project aside to address pressing church concerns (he was, after all, a Church bishop).

Green also asserts that it is quite reasonable “to attribute the delay to an appreciation that there were issues involved which could not be adequately covered in what he envisaged as a small book” (xi). Being that Augustine halted progress partway through Book III may indicate that the project indeed was becoming much lengthier than he imagined. Green also mentions that, during the long hiatus, Augustine read Tyconius’ Book of Rules and added a condensed summary of it in his own writing (xi). He suggests that “it may well have been the appearance of [Tyconius's] work some years before that showed him the possibilities of a hermeneutical treatise and encourage him to provide something better” (ix). Though he had had read Tyconius with great interest, Augustine was however not inspired by him to write the remaining portion of On Christian Doctrine. Green writes of Book IV: “this important part of the work was part of his plan from the outset” (xi), which indicates that Augustine stayed true to his original vision, even after more than thirty years of writing. Green, referring to the early portion (Books I through two-thirds of Book III) and the later portion (the remainder of Book III and Book IV), contends that “no really convincing differences of substance between the two sections have been detected” (xi).

Audience

The second element of my framework of analysis is audience, which is the component of the rhetorical situation that consists of the consumers of rhetoric who heed that rhetoric (but do not necessarily take physical action because of it). Before attempting to analyze the audience that Augustine addresses in On Christian Doctrine, it is necessary to determine what constitutes an audience. Some composition theorists hold that there are actually two kinds of audiences to which a rhetor writes, and these can generally be termed the “addressed audience” and the “imagined audience.” The “addressed” or “real” audience refers to the actual people who will likely read the text. In “The Writer’s Audience is Always a Fiction,” Walter J. Ong asserts that a writer must indeed “take into consideration the real social, economic, and psychological state of possible readers” and must “write a book that real persons will buy and read” (10). Ong feels, however, that the rhetoric a writer produces will always be truly aimed not at the addressed audience but towards “the ‘audience’ that fires the writer’s imagination” (10). Therefore, “the writer must construct in his imagination, clearly or vaguely, an audience cast in

some sort of role—entertainment seekers, reflective sharers of experience…and so on” (12). Ong contends that a rhetor first imagines his or her audience to have certain characteristics, and, second, the rhetor will invite this audience to play a role based on those characteristics. Any writer in any genre or field, in order to produce the desired text, will “fictionalize their audiences, casting them in a made-up role and calling on them to play the role assigned” (17). The rhetor must, however, indicate his or her intentions to the audience. The way in which he or she will do this is with certain cues in the text. He writes that, for instance, in ancient texts “the invocation to the Muse is a signal to the audience to put on the epic-listener’s cap” (15). He gives as another example the audience imagined or invoked in the Canterbury Tales. It is the text itself, he points out, that cues the reader to his or her role. He writes that “Chaucer simply tells his readers how they are to fictionalize themselves. He starts by telling them that there is a group of pilgrims doing what real people do, going to a real place, Canterbury. The reader is to imagine himself in their company and join the fun” (16). Ong also gives the example of the phrase “once upon a time,” writing that “the phrase lifts you out of the real world…it establishes a fictional world” (15). The text is, then, a method by which the rhetor cues the audience to assume a certain role that the rhetor imagines for them. In their article “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy,” Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford agree that each rhetor potentially addresses two audiences, one more actual and concrete and the other more imaginary and abstract. They refer to these two audiences as “addressed” and “invoked.” They write that “those who envision audience as addressed emphasize the concrete reality of the writer’s audience” (156). This “concrete reality” may include elements such as social status, religious preference, sex, age, or race. Ede and Lunsford go on to assert that “writers who wish to be read must often adapt their discourse to meet the needs and expectations of an addressed audience” (166). For instance, an addressed audience of highly educated individuals would expect a different sort of treatise than would an audience of largely uneducated individuals, and men may perhaps expect something different than women. Addressed audience is, then, an actual reader with particular characteristics who is the most likely to be an actual reader of the text. Besides addressed audience is what Ede and Lunsford refer to as the “audience invoked.” This perspective of audience holds that a writer envisions an audience with specific attitudes and expectations. Not only that, but rhetors can never truly know, once they write and

release a text, who will be the end recipient. Since an ideal audience exists, and since there will always be this uncertainty, Ede and Lunsford argue that while a writers are creating texts, they “must rely in large part upon their own vision of the reader, which they create, as readers do their vision of writers, according to their own experiences and expectations” (158). A rhetor, will “define a role for her audience, one congruent with her personality, arguments, the facts as she knows them, etc. She must…both analyze and invent an audience” (163). Attending to that concern, they write that writers “do not so much create a role for the reader—a phrase which implies that the writer somehow creates a mold to which the reader adapts—as invoke it” (167), meaning that the rhetor will call on a reader to, at least temporarily, assume the role designed for him or her to occupy while encountering a particular text. According to the theories discussed, Augustine would have a double audience: the actual historical audience (addressed audience) of real readers that he speaks to in the book as well as the imagined audience, which he creates by drawing on his own values and expectations. We must look at both audiences, addressed and imagined, to gain a complete picture of this aspect of Augustine's rhetorical situation. The addressed audience can be determined by historical scholarship and by looking at the text, and the characteristics of Augustine’s imagined audience can also be determined by looking for textual evidence that suggests values and truths he prized invited his ideal audience to prize as well.2 Augustine’s addressed audience consists of those real people whom he envisioned would encounter a copy of On Christian Doctrine. Pinning down the specific characteristics of this audience, however, prove somewhat difficult for such an ancient text. Christoph Schäublin writes in “De Doctrina Christiana: A Classic of Western Culture?” that scholars have never “been able to decide on its intended audience” (47). However, according to Norman Kretzmann in the introduction to The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, Augustine’s writing “doubtless circulated in Hippo and Carthage” (12), but this information does not describe the audience itself. Based on Augustine’s own words in Book III, it seems evident that he himself expects an audience that is formally educated or perhaps those who are involved in occupations (such as teachers or politicians) that provide them access to reading material. He writes that a knowledge of languages protects him from uncertainty over unfamiliar words or

2 However, he could not force his audience to fill this role in an actual sense. Therefore, his creation of audience would have been somewhat false since the ideal reader may never exist in real life.

phrases, and a knowledge of certain essential things protects him from ignorance of the significance and detail of what is used by way of imagery. Thus equipped, and with the assistance of reliable texts derived from the manuscripts with careful attention to the need for emendation, he should now approach the task of analyzing and resolving the ambiguities of the scriptures. (Book III, 1) This addressed audience could have ranged from church clergy such as bishops like himself to laypeople. However, from this passage, we can gather that, regardless of church status, Augustine expects that those who see a copy of his treatise will be familiar with multiple languages, understand the concept of literary imagery, have access to outside reference texts, and be schooled in critical reading. This would exclude many poorer and lower class Christians who did not receive a formal education or encounter printed texts. Kretzmann also believes that Augustine’s addressed audience would have included the more gentile classes, writing that “we know [Augustine] had found ways of bringing [his works] to the attention of distinguished literary Christians” (12). He also writes that “over the years that followed, Augustine’s books became well known outside Africa in upper class Christian circles” (13). This upper-class audience3 of the educated was thus encouraged by Augustine to take control of their own religious learning and to communicate the scriptures to one another in a manner that was persuasive and could be easily understood. The result of discourse for an audience could be, especially in religion, edification or enlightenment, such as the gleaning of knowledge from the scriptures and not necessarily physical action. Augustine wishes to first move his readers internally and then subsequently to action. He desires for the audience, after receiving the rhetoric of On Christian Doctrine, to act first in their hearts and minds (by an acceptance of Christianity and complete submission to God and then by diligently studying scripture) and then with their bodies (by applying scripture to everyday life and then seeking to spread Christianity to others). Aside from those who may actually encounter Augustine’s text is his imagined audience, the one that Ong calls “a fiction.” Ong writes that “when [a rhetor] becomes truly adept…he can

3 Though the addressed audience Augustine may have targeted in On Christian Doctrine would seemingly consist of Christians, it should be noted that he spoke in his sermons to a wide range of people from heretics to new converts to accomplished theologians. Further information on the subject of Augustine’s audiences and the dissemination of his works can be found in Plumer, 3-59.

do more than project the earlier audience, he can alter it…shape it to his own demands” (11). Douglas Park writes in “The Meanings of ‘Audience’” that to some extent, then the task of analyzing audience is a matter of identifying the nature of the contexts that are already given by some aspect of the occasion of publication and of understanding the relationship between those that are given and those that must be more explicitly defined within the discourse itself. (253) Park goes on to write that “the audience as it exists in the writers’ consciousness and as it shapes the text is a complex set of conventions, estimations, implied responses and attitudes” (251). The way in which Augustine would have imagined an audience can be determined by examining the text for evidence of what community values or “conventions” and commonplaces, or shared experiences, he felt were important and participated in since his ideal, rational audience member would share his involvement with these concepts. There are in On Christian Doctrine community values demonstrated by Augustine, and one of these is concern for the souls of fellow humans, who must be introduced to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This introduction happens primarily through human contact. Within the Christian community, of which Augustine is a part, there is a shared appreciation for the distribution of Christian knowledge and a desire for a Christian world to be created by the passing on of information. Augustine begins Book I of On Christian Doctrine by writing that “there are two things on which all interpretation of scripture depends: the process of discovering what we need to learn, and the process of presenting what we have learned” (Book I, 1). Information is not being used to its maximum potential if the one who has it does not then share what he or she has discovered with others. Augustine writes that “the human condition would be wretched indeed if God appeared unwilling to minister his word to human beings through human agency” (Preface, 13, p. 5). People can be each other’s greatest allies on earth if they are working to spread the word of God to others. “There would be no way,” Augustine says, “for love, which ties people together in bonds of unity, to make souls overflow and as it were intermingle with each other, if human beings learned nothing from other humans” (Preface, 13, p. 5). He gives a scriptural example of how humans aid other humans in the dissemination of knowledge. He writes that “Philip, who knew the prophet Isaiah, was sent to him by divine prompting and sat with him, revealing in human words and human language the passage of scripture that he had found

impenetrable” (Preface, 14). It was through human contact that Isaiah was able to discover meaning in scriptures that he, for whatever reason, could not discover himself. In order to further distinguish characteristics of Augustine’s imagined audience, we can search the text for an example of a metaphor that his ideal, imagined reader would have responded to upon identification with that metaphor. One such common image is that of a voyage. In On Christian Doctrine, Augustine emphasizes the unending character of Christianity, pointing out its nature as a religion that takes commitment that endures until death. Therefore, to speak to his readers, he uses the construct of a journey, a metaphor that other Christians would understand since they view heaven, not earth, as their true home. He describes his audience (of which he considers himself a part, as evidence by his usage of the words “us” and “we” in the text) as people who see themselves as on a lifelong voyage of purification through Christianity. “ Let us,” he writes, “consider this process of cleansing as a trek, or a voyage, to our homeland” (Book I, 22), which is of course, in heaven with God. Speaking of the earth, Augustine asserts that “although it is actually our homeland, it has also made itself the road to our homeland” (Book I, 23). The way through the temptations and evils of earth, however, is treacherous. He writes that “we are on a road—in spiritual, not spatial terms—and one blocked as it were by thorny hedgerows, which flourish through the evil influences of our earlier sins” (Book I, 34). Christians must faithfully continue this “voyage,” relying on Christ for strength and never stopping, if they are to live in God’s will and reach their final heavenly home. Augustine’s imaged reader would be able to reflect on his or her spiritual quest and identify with the metaphor of a journey towards a location of true and lasting belonging. Therefore, in addition to Augustine’s addressed audience of educated Christians, his imagined audience would have included those who were concerned for the fate of their fellow humans in the afterlife, those who had the desire to spread Christianity throughout the globe, and people who set out on the “journey” that is Christianity. While these addressed audience share similarities, they differ in that the educated readers in his addressed audience may not exactly fill the role of his imagined audience, since those roles require that a person be Augustine’s ideal reader, or one who valued the same things that he valued.

Constraints

Constraints, another element of the rhetorical situation, are factors that influence the creation of discourse. According to Bitzer’s definition (which I did not modify for my definition of the rhetorical situation), there are two types of constraints: those innate to the situation (external) and those that originate from within the rhetor (internal). Internal constraints could include attitudes, beliefs, and motives. The first external constraint acting on Augustine’s rhetoric concerns the publication methods of the time. The handwritten manuscript as a medium delayed the rapid spread of On Christian Doctrine, and only members of the wealthier, more educated classes would have had access to the materials needed to make a copy or have the leisure to transcribe the books.4 This constraint of medium also would have influenced his rhetoric in that he would not have the interaction with his audience as he may have in a sermon or in his duties as a bishop. Concerned audience members would not be able to approach him and ask for an explanation, making it imperative that he carefully and thoroughly consider his subject matter. There would be no opportunity for revision or clarification. While external constraints influenced Augustine, the most influential constraints of this particular rhetorical situation are internal and include those that were located within Augustine. They are his personal beliefs and can be discerned by looking at the text of On Christian Doctrine. First and foremost, Augustine believes that God is the origin of the universe and everything within it. In Book I, he references a verse from Romans: “the one God from whom, through whom, and in whom everything is [Rom. 11:36] (Book I, 10). Augustine believes that God has an “eternal nature” and a quality of “unchangeableness” (Book I, 12). He holds to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (“the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity that consists of them, which is a kind of single, supreme thing” (Book I, 10, page 10)), and he believes that it is through Christ’s blood sacrifice that we are saved, writing that “we made bad use of immortality, and so we died; Christ made good use of mortality, and so we live” (Book I, 29). “God’s care,” he says, “has taken it upon itself to heal and restore sinners” (Book I, 27), but ultimately, “he is expected to come from heaven as judge of the living and the dead” (Book I, 31). So, we must live pure lives during our time on earth.

4 The knowledge that his text would be copied and disseminated by interested parties would likely have influenced Augustine’s decision to divide the treatise into separate books that can stand alone if need be.

Another belief Augustine held that acts as a constraint aside from his doctrinal beliefs is that all knowledge originates from God, even knowledge such as that surrounding a subject such as rhetoric. He writes that “since, therefore, we must enjoy to the full that truth which lives unchangeably…God the Trinity, the author and creator of everything, takes thought for the things that he has created” (Book I, 22). By the same token, he believed that rhetoric, then, should be embraced and valued by Christians. He felt strongly that its use could aid the Christian in the communication of spiritual matters with other Christians and in the spreading of Gospel truths and insights. Therefore, his two main beliefs that act as constraints in his rhetorical situation are the belief in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity (God as creator, the Holy Trinity, and Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world) and the belief that rhetoric could be an effective tool in disseminating scriptural information to both believers and nonbelievers since all information ultimately comes from God. These beliefs constrain by controlling all of Augustine’s ultimate goals concerning his discourse. Since the constraints in this situation are Augustine’s Christian beliefs, they exert a strong influence on the discourse produced to modify the exigence since they are operating from a highly valued and extremely personal place within the rhetor himself.

Rhetor

Rhetor is the next element of the analytical framework. A rhetor encounters an exigence and then navigates it using his or her agency as an individual by selecting which facts to respond to and present and considering the expectations of the audience to produce a discourse used to modify the exigence in some way, thus producing true rhetoric. He or she has an ethical obligation, however, to edify the audience. In the rhetorical situation surrounding On Christian Doctrine, Augustine himself is the rhetor and must speak with authority if the discourse he produces is to have the effect of altering the exigence. The question, then, becomes how does Augustine construct an ethos of himself in On Christian Doctrine? Being that he was an ardent consumer of the texts of Aristotle, I use Aristotelian concepts to examine the way in which Augustine demonstrates his own perceived ethos. According to Aristotle, ethos it is a mode of appeal (along with logos and pathos). In the article “Aristotle’s Concept of Ethos, or If Not His Somebody Else’s,” S. Michael Halloran

asserts that “of the three modes of appeal, Aristotle acknowledges ethos to be probably the most important” (60). It is, he says what we might call the argument from authority, the argument that says in effect, Believe me because I am the sort of person whose word you can be believe…the speaker (or writer) must understand ethos in order to create in his audience a strong and favorable impression of his own character. (60) Within the Aristotelian concept of ethos are three terms: arête, phronesis, and eunoia. According to Jonathan Shay’s essay “Aristotle’s Rhetoric as a Handbook of Leadership,” arête is “competence” or “spirited personal integrity,” phronesis is “intelligent good sense” or “practical wisdom,” and eunoia is “good will” or “respect.” The presence of these three elements in discourse aids in the production of true rhetoric The task at hand is for a rhetor to establish an ethos so that the claims of his or her discourse are not rejected due to a perceived lack of authority. Halloran believes that a rhetor achieves this feat “by bringing to the rhetorical occasion a good reputation, but he must also manifest the proper character through the choices made in his speech” (60). He feels that the discourse produced is a “dramatization of the character of the speaker, and the wise speaker will construct his speech with an eye towards the sort of character it portrays” (60). So, in effect, a rhetor will construct an ethos both outside and inside a text. Augustine’s ethos outside the text is established by his personal life and status in the church. According to Kretzmann, he was raised by a Christian mother, Monica, who was unwavering in her desire for her son to become a Christian (1). After repenting of a life of excess, he converted and was baptized in 387 and ordained just four years later (1). Shortly thereafter, he “committed himself to a life of celibacy” (2) and created a monastery of sorts where he could study and pray (16). His time spent in solitude was in stark contrast to his busy life as a church official. He was highly regarded and revered by his congregation both inside and outside of official services. His followers saw him as a “hieratic figure, dispenser of God’s word” (16). “He appeared serene,” Kretzmann asserts, “before his congregation as they stood, row on row, straining to hear his voice” (16). These followers sought him outside of the church as well. “As a bishop,” Kretzmann writes, “he exercised a widespread influence” (2) and performed various “administrative duties” (2) as well. He also often acted as a judge for his congregations, and “to settle their petty legal cases” took up much of his time (16).

Not only were his daily duties important to those that he served, but he “made important contributions to every area of philosophy” (2) through his extensive writings. To further establish his ethos Augustine employs the Aristotelian concepts of arête, phronesis, and eunoia. He demonstrates arête (competence or personal integrity) in several ways; first he warns his readers of the dangers of being incompetent with regards to knowledge and relying too much on highly stylistic language to disguise a shortage of facts. He writes that “there is a danger of forgetting what one has to say while working out a clever way to say it” (Book IV, 11). His personal integrity is demonstrated when he humbly states his own shortcomings related to the task of writing this treatise (humility is a virtue lauded in Christianity) by asserting that he has the complete support of an infallible God who generously supplies him with the necessary knowledge. He asserts that writing On Christian Doctrine is a great and arduous burden, one difficult to sustain and also, I fear, a rash one to undertake; or so it would be if I were trusting in my own resources. But since in fact my hope of completing the work is based on God, from whom I already have much relevant material through meditation, I have no need to worry that he will fail to supply the remainder when I begin to share what has been given to me.” (Book I, 1) It is not his own intellect that is revealed in the pages but that of the Lord. In the same vein, he goes on to write: “God has already supplied to me for starting this work will be multiplied, through his own provision…I will not only experience no shortage of material, but in fact enjoy an abundance of it” (Book I, 3). He is not himself, he contends, capable of such a feat, but completes it only through the strength and wisdom of God on whom he fully relies. Such a statement of humility and faith would have helped him garner the trust of his Christian readers, who also put their faith in God’s wisdom. Augustine’s phronesis (or intelligence) is also demonstrated by his statements within the text. Augustine, a rhetorical scholar himself, references his own school days when he writes of “the rhetorical rules which I learn and taught in pagan schools” (Book IV, 3). He received a rigorous classical education that included much rhetorical training. He indicates his high regard of intelligence when he asserts that “wisdom without eloquence was of little value to society but that eloquence without wisdom was generally speaking a great nuisance, and never beneficial”

(Book IV, 18). Eloquence is useless if there is not a sufficiently intelligent argument behind it. Intellect is, then, paramount in rhetoric and something he demonstrates is important to him personally. Augustine employs eunoia, (or good will and respect) when he writes that teachers should never “cloud [the audience’s] understanding, and stifle their desire to believe” (Book IV, 4) but rather that a rhetor should always “in this process of speaking must win over the antagonistic, rouse the apathetic” (Book IV, 14). A rhetor, according to Augustine, shows respect and compassion for others by wishing to improve their lives by seeing them become enlightened to Christian truths. Therefore, a rhetor should point readers to the sources of knowledge (God and divinely inspired scripture) as efficiently as possible and encourage them to use rhetoric to further Christian goals and spiritual growth. In the quest to aid humanity, Augustine wishes for rhetors to be ultimately prepared, and the way to accomplish this is fellowship with God. He writes that a rhetor “should be in no doubt that any ability he has and however much he has derives more from his devotion to prayer than his dedication to oratory….he must become a man of prayer before becoming a man of words” (Book IV, 87). Once a rhetors are properly equipped, they will not work to “make people like what was once offensive, or to make them do what they were loth to do, but to make clear what was hidden from them” (Book IV, 72). Ultimately, good Christian rhetoric will help Christians to “develop a serious commitment and yearn for him in lives of goodness rather than fear him in lives of wickedness” (Book I, 31). Augustine can think of no better way to respect his audience than to display his desire to see them enlightened and edified, and this respect is evidence of eunoia in that community goodwill is, for the Christian, a desire to see the Gospel spread and lived.

Ethics

Ethical concerns are implied in the theories of the modern rhetorical situation and of kairos and is thus the connecting factor between the two. It is also the final element of my framework of analysis. According to Bonnie Kent in her essay “Augustine’s Ethics,” ethics is determining “how virtue should be characterized and the role it should play in human life” (207). And for Augustine, the role of ethics was paramount. Not only would it have been central to him as a Christian, but it would have also been an important concept in his education. She asserts

that “after the death of Aristotle, philosophy became more and more the ‘art of living’ (206), meaning that philosophers began to focus on the pragmatic implications (like ethics, which appear in everyday life) of their theories. “Ethics,” Kent says, “emerged as the dominant part of the discipline” (206). Upon examination of Augustine, it becomes clear that ethics were indeed a part of his response to the exigence at hand since one they would have had a prominent role in Aristotelian philosophy and second, ethics are emphasized in Christian teaching. Augustine wished to act ethically as a rhetor as well as inspire others to do so in an act (that of communicating truths through rhetoric) that he felt was vital to Christianity. Kretzmann writes that “he judged himself against a high standard” (16). The ethical obligation he felt manifested itself in On Christian Doctrine. He writes that “the interpreter and teacher of the divine scriptures, the defender of the truth faith and vanquisher of error, must communicate what is good and eradicate what is bad” (Book IV, 14). Though as a scholar he cared for his literary form, he writes that attempting to impart wisdom “sometimes leads one to neglect elegant vocabulary and consider not what sounds good but what is good for putting over and making clear what one has to say” (Book IV, 64). He does not wish for aesthetics to outweigh accuracy. Outler writes that “he rarely strives for rhetorical effect for its own sake and everywhere puts his message and his hearer ahead of any preoccupation with style. And he makes repeated mention of the false sentimentalism and the ethical irrelevance of the poets and the dramatists” (216). Therefore, he himself attempts to avoid an overbearingly ornate style I his own writing. He asserts that first “there must be rational argument and deployment of evidence” (Book IV, 15), and above all, “the person required for the task under consideration is someone who can argue or speak wisely” (Book IV, 17). However, he offers advice for those who struggle to balance truth with eloquence. An overly grandiose style, he writes, can be “rescued from this exuberance by the soundness of Christian teaching” (Book IV, 84). Not only does Augustine see ethics as the roadway to avoiding tragic errors while using rhetoric, he sees it as also leading to happiness, since ethics clears our path to communion with God, who is “the source of all happiness” (Book I, 65). Kent writes that “Augustine regards ethics as an enquiry into the Summum Bonum: the supreme good, which provides the happiness all human beings seek” (205). Since God is the author of all happiness, we must learn to

ultimately seek it from him instead of from worldly pursuits. Kent goes on to say that “the importance of happiness in Augustine’s ethics can scarcely be overestimated” (207).

Conclusion

Having tested On Christian Doctrine by my analytical framework, we have a clearer understanding of the situation Augustine was simultaneously responding to and creating and why his discourse occurred. His exigence was a desire to equip Christians with rules of scriptural interpretations and then the encourage them to use persuasive, ethical rhetoric to communicate these truths. His audience had two manifestations, one being the educated, upper class citizens who would have access to his treatise, and the other the zealous Christian, a believer in ultimate truth, who shared values with the rhetor himself. The constraints surrounding the rhetorical situation consisted of Augustine’s personal beliefs concerning the fundamental theology of Christianity. He constructed a duel ethos for himself outside the text by his position as a bishop in the church and his conduct and inside the text by the statements he makes in the treatise. Augustine’s ethics are key to his situation and permeate all of his actions as well as the advice he gives his readers.

CHAPTER IV: THE RHETORICAL SITUATION OF JESUS AMONG OTHER GODS

“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.…”Mark 12:29-30

In Chapter III, I examined the rhetorical situation of Augustine, a fifth century theologian. This analysis was conducted according to a framework developed particularly for this project by examining and modifying theories of the modern rhetorical situation and of kairos. In this chapter, I examine the rhetorical situation of Ravi Zacharias, a twenty-first century Christian author, theologian, and apologist, according to the same framework. The purpose of analyzing both of these theologians using common terms is to search for similarities in their rhetorical situations. If similarities between them are found, I contend that there indeed exists justification for Zacharias to draw on Augustine. Born in Madras, India in 1946, Ravi Zacharias grew up an aimless youth with little ambition besides playing cricket. In Jesus Among Other Gods, he concludes that “purpose is to life what the skeleton is to the body. The muscle may have strength, but it needs support and attachment. All my pursuits had no supporting structure. Life drifted with affections and sports, but without ultimate purpose” (13). Adding to his sense of hopelessness was a strained and sometimes abusive relationship with his father, a successful businessman with important and influential political connections. Zacharias says, “I showed early signs that I would not be the boast of a powerful dad” (9), and his father was not shy about voicing his discontent with his son. “No one who knew me,” he writes, “would have ever suspected the depths of emptiness within me. I was one of those teenagers who struggled with much on the inside but did not know where to turn for answers” (2). Though Zacharias knew of Christianity through missionaries who ministered to the youth in his town, he was familiar mainly with his homeland’s Hindu faith. He even asserts that his ancestors has once been converted to Christianity by missionaries in the area. Of his own personal journey to Christianity, he came to the faith “amid the thunderous cries of a culture that has three hundred and thirty million deities” (6). During his tormented teen years, he sought answers to the questions that plagued him, questions such as one’s fate in the afterlife and

purpose in this life, but the Hindu faith, he says, did not satisfy his inquiries. He writes, “How I wish there had been answers for me to such questions. Maybe there were, but I could not discern them amid the deluge of voices in a religious land” (13). Overwhelming feelings of purposelessness, personal shame, and his father’s ridicule led Zacharias to attempt suicide at the age of eighteen. While recovering in an Indian hospital, a Christian missionary presented Zacharias with a copy of the Bible and read to him about Jesus from the book of John, the fourteenth chapter. During this time of physical and emotional crisis, Zacharias read and deeply internalized the message of Christianity and earnestly accepted its teachings. The Zacharias family subsequently immigrated to Canada when Zacharias was twenty. He began his undergraduate career studying business management. However, after becoming heavily involved in a Christian and Missionary Alliance church, he altered his field of study to prepare for a career in the ministry. He earned a bachelors degree from Ontario Bible College in 1972. Shortly after, he married Margaret Reynolds, a fellow church member. He went on to earn a Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. Since, he has received honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees from Houghton College in New York and Tyndale College and Seminary in Toronto, and he also received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College in Kentucky. Currently, Zacharias works as a visiting professor in Oxford, England at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. As a visiting scholar, he also studied Romantic-era literature and moralist philosophers at Cambridge University. In the early 1980s, Zacharias recognized what he calls a profound lack of attention to evangelism in “the arena of the intellectually resistant.” Attempting to address this issue, he founded Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) in 1984. While the overarching goal of his career (and of RZIM) is, like most Christian organizations and ministries, evangelism, or the conversion of people to Christian beliefs, RZIM seeks to achieve evangelism chiefly through apologetics. According to Zacharias, “Christian apologetics is the task of presenting a defense of the person and the message of Jesus Christ” (17). Whereas some evangelicals address individual personal concerns, RZIM strives to achieve the goals of evangelism (which is ultimately to persuade souls to believe the Gospel of Jesus) by appealing to a person’s intellect through reason and rationality, thereby exhibiting the credibility of Christianity. RZIM also seeks to prove that, contrary to the teachings of postmodernism, absolute truth does exist, and all religions cannot be true. The ultimate goal is to turn hearts

towards Jesus, but RZIM seeks to accomplish this task by appealing to the mind in an attempt to appeal not to a person’s emotions, which may differ with circumstances, but to his or her logic. Aside from having as its goal to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, Zacharias and RZIM also wish to give Christians the ability to defend their faith against a cultures and worldview that applauds and promotes skepticism, secularism, and relativism. There are several reasons I chose to examine Ravi Zacharias as opposed to other current Christian leaders and evangelists. The chief reason for this choice is that Zacharias bears similarities to Augustine in that both are highly educated Christian men concerned with the presence and role of intellect in Christianity. Zacharias feels that in today’s world community, “intellect is worshipped” (9), especially opposed to faith, and should therefore not be ignored when addressing Christian concerns. Though some of his books, such as Can Man Live without God, Deliver Us from Evil, Cries of the Heart, and I, Isaac Take Thee, Rebekah deal with personal, spiritual issues and concerns, Zacharias puts more effort into and receives the most attention for his work that deals with the intellectual side of the Christian faith. Such books include his first book, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism, and subsequent works Jesus Among Other Gods, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, Sense and Sensuality: Jesus Talks with Oscar Wilde, Light in the Shadow of Jihad, a response to the September 11 tragedy, and his most recent publication, Walking From East to West: God in the Shadows (with R.S.B. Sawyer).

Jesus Among Other Gods

In Jesus Among Other Gods, Zacharias asks, Was Jesus who He claimed to be? Is the Christian claim to uniqueness a myth? Can one study the life of Christ and demonstrate conclusively that He was and is the way, the truth, and the life? That is the question I propose to answer in this book. I believe there is overwhelming evidence to support Jesus’ claims.” (5) In seven chapters, Zacharias attempts to present, as he writes in the introduction to Jesus Among Other Gods, “a defense of the uniqueness of the Christian message” (ix). He begins with his personal testimony (or story of coming to Christ) along with stories from his childhood. He then goes on in subsequent chapters to address the debate of faith versus reason and address common

complaints against and questions about Christian theology. All the while, he reveals different aspects of the nature of Jesus in order to demonstrate how these aspects are the logical answers to some of life’s most difficult questions. Jesus Among Other Gods was met with good consumer response according to customer reviews on online book sites. It was also reviewed by Nancy Caine on the website of the Christian Broadcast Network. Responding favorably to the text, she writes that it contains “helpful insight in the blending of Eastern and Western understanding” as well as “cultural nuances and observations many authors would miss.” She goes on to conclude that For those interested in apologetics, this book is superior. The author offers so much interesting religious detail from other traditions, both from their scriptures and from his own observation of non-Christian cultures. His research effectively highlights the differences between the faiths. Throughout the work, Zacharias remains non-judgmental but highly persuasive, in a discussion that ultimately points to the many factors proclaiming the uniqueness of Jesus. The framework of analysis by which I analyze the rhetorical situation of Zacharias is that which I used to examine Augustine's situation in Chapter III. This framework (which grew out of examinations and redefinitions of kairos and the modern rhetorical situation) consists of five terms: exigence, audience, constraints, rhetor, and ethics. The exigence is a circumstance in need of an alteration that can be achieved by discourse. The audience will receive this discourse, which was created navigating particular constraints, or elements that modify the discourse, by a particular rhetor who considers ethics are part of his or her duty in the creation of the rhetoric. After I apply this framework to Zacharias's work Jesus Among Other Gods in this chapter, I can then draw conclusions, based on both sets of data, regarding Augustine's contemporary applicability to Zacharias.

Exigence

The exigence, or situation calling for mediating discourse, that Zacharias addresses can be determined by two examinations: one of the problems and situations addressed by his organization, RZIM, and another of the text of Jesus Among Other Gods. Zacharias's chief ministerial exigence is, then, the defense of Christianity's truth and uniqueness through rational,

intellectual defenses. Indications of Zacharias’s specific exigence can also be deciphered from his own words in Jesus Among Other Gods. Zacharias contends: Religions are making a revival, but often as a hybrid of western marketing techniques and eastern mythology—a devastating combination of seduction through media and mysticism. The first casualty in such a mix is truth, and, consequently, the person of God. (4) It is the postmodern practice to then consider all religions and spiritual practices “true” and “correct” if they in some way satisfy those who practice them. There is not a consideration for factuality but for the satisfaction, even if temporary, of the adherent. No one religion is, therefore, superior to another. In this way, he feels, Christianity’s uniqueness and correctness is downplayed as it becomes just another road to religious satisfaction. But today’s cultural and political leaders, he says, take downplaying Christianity’s uniqueness one step further by continually denouncing its practices and teachings as they would not do an eastern religion. “If a spiritual idea is eastern, it is granted critical immunity; if western, it is thoroughly criticized. Thus, a journalist can walk into a church and mock its carryings on, but he or she dare not do the same if the ceremony is from the eastern fold. Such is the mood” (vii). He wishes to exercise his right to proclaim his belief that Christianity is unique and “true.” This right, he says, is not encouraged by “postmodern moods and mind-sets” (5). “Philosophically,” he writes, “you can believe anything so long as you do not claim it to be true. Morally, you can practice anything, so long as you do not claim that it is a ‘better’ way. Religiously, you can hold to anything, so long as you do not bring Jesus Christ into it” (vii). He is reacting to, then, a postmodern situation in which he feels Christians are denied the right to proclaim without fear of persecution that Christianity is true and therefore unique. He also helps to create his exigence by only selecting facts, instances, and circumstances in which Christianity is downplayed, attacked, or dismissed. He wishes, then, to bring Christianity’s uniqueness to the forefront so that it will spread worldwide.

Audience

The second element that must be addressed in the framework of analysis is audience. A rhetor, when creating a text, actually attempts to reach two separate audiences, one addressed and one imagined. The addressed audience is made up of the “real persons will buy and read” (Ong 10). The imagined audience is comprised of a rhetor’s “own vision of the reader, which they create, as readers do their vision of writers, according to their own experiences and expectations” (Ede and Lunsford 158). Both of these audiences must be determined and scrutinized if we are to gain a complete picture of this element of Zacharias's rhetorical situation. To establish what characteristics would describe both of his audiences for this particular rhetorical situation, we can look for indications in the text of Jesus Among Other Gods. Aside from scattered statements concerning Christian doctrine, the only theological belief that Zacharias repeatedly emphasizes and elaborates on is that of the nature of Jesus (which is due to the focus of the book). His addressed audience, then, would not be those who wish to find out more about Christian doctrine. By his lack of depth into that arena, it is evident that his addressed audience is already familiar with at least the basic tenants of the Christian faith, whether it be knowledgeable skeptics or Christians wanting information to help them defends doctrines. By the high prevalence of personal anecdotes (such as the story on page 27 of an Olympic runner who struggled with an overwhelming desire to please his father, and the story on page 39 of visiting a shop where father and son teams work to make beautiful Indian saris) to illustrate his points and his tendency to give the text of any outside sources he uses, it is evident that he does not anticipate that his readership will necessarily have benefited from higher education. For instance, on pages 15 and 36, he uses an Oscar Wilde poem entitled “The Ballad of Reading Gaol,” and he includes the entire poem in the text. When referring to C. S. Lewis on page 68, he also inserts the entire passage referenced. The biblical references he does make are either universally familiar (the Genesis account of Abraham and Isaac on page 51, and on page 96, Jesus driving out the temple merchants) or are cited verbatim (Jesus preaching about the Hebrew people’s selfish desire for signs on page 103). When a story is not as well-know, Zacharias provides his readers with the full text, eliminating the need for extensive prior

scriptural knowledge. No understanding of advanced theology or familiarity with literature is necessary to grasp the meanings of such examples. Since he aims not only to strengthen Christians in their defense of their own beliefs but also to persuade the unbelieving that, the role of his addressed audience may be that of a postmodern skeptic who places “a halo on the notion of tolerance as if everything could be equally true” (4). These are people, he writes, who “deem all beliefs equally true” (4) and lump Christianity together with other faiths as merely another path to truth and enlightenment. They may be people ranging anywhere from those who simply do not believe in and practice Christianity all the way to those who work to discredit it. This audience may have scoffed at the faith based on what he calls the “mood” of today’s society, and he asks that they put these feelings aside so that they may judge for themselves based on the argument of one who wishes to present his case without offense. For people such as that, he writes “my earnest prayer is that when you read this, you will make your judgment of the Christian message based on truth, not the mood of our times. Moods change. Truth does not” (x). Despite the fact that the imagined reader may not be a believing Christian like himself, he or she will still hold the views that truth is not all-inclusive and must exclude some religious beliefs. As discussed in Chapter III, to construct an imagined audience, “the writer must construct in his imagination, clearly or vaguely, an audience cast in some sort of role—entertainment seekers, reflective sharers of experience…and so on” (Ong 12). More insight into Zacharias’s ideal reader (or imagined audience) can be gained by looking further into the text of Jesus Among Other Gods. Zacharias’s imagined audience is made up of his ideal audience, which may or may not consist of Christian. This audience is instead made up exclusively of those who want to believe or who are at least not prejudiced against believing. Where or not he or she is a Christian, this ideal reader is open-minded, rational, and not concerned with the “mood of our times.” He or she would be an independent thinker and very concerned with the discovery of a foundational truth. This reader would also concede that truth does not change and that every religion cannot be correct. We can assume that when writing this book, Zacharias considers readers of every age, class, and nationality, since he asserts in the text that in all of his extensive travels as a Christian apologist, he has had the “privilege” to speak about Christianity on “every continent and in dozens of cities, presenting a defense of the Christian faith in some of the finest institutions of the world….I am as much at home in New

Delhi as I am in Atlanta or Toronto” (17). His imagined audience, then, does not consist of one race or gender but of world citizens (much like himself). He, then, imagines his audience to also be, at least mentally, a citizen of the world (which is highly possible in today’s world of quick and easy information exchange). He invokes this world citizen in his audience by referring to his travels to many different places and speaking of various religions. He seems to consider a basic knowledge of the world and its religions to be universal, not provincial, and as something of which a world citizen would have at least passing knowledge. While extensive knowledge of world religions is not required, references to them indicate that he imagines that his audience is at least familiar with the origin and basic tenets of these religions. Just a few examples in Jesus Among Other Gods include references to Vedic teachings and karma (8), the clashing of Buddhism and Hinduism (19), the plurality of religion in India (23), Mohammed and Islam (71), and Krishna (78).

Constraints

There are two kinds of constraints, or “persons, events, objects, and relations which…have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (Bitzer 8). These two types are external and internal constraints. We must evaluate the constraints that potentially affected the discourse produced to aid in the examination of this aspect of Zacharias's rhetorical situation. There are several external constraints (or constraints that are inherent in the situation at hand) affecting the discourse produced by Zacharias. These include those that are mainly production-related. The first of these is the medium through which he is presenting his claims. This discourse of Jesus Among Other Gods is communicated in one print book, which places numerous restraints on his rhetoric. With a printed book (as opposed to a website) a rhetor has limited space and no chance for modification of the text after publication, which makes accuracy important since there is not an opportunity for the rhetor to recall and correct errors. Print medium may limit the audience that can be reached to the literate and those who can afford a copy or have access to a library, which may cause Zacharias to modify his discourse for the slightly more educated. Printed text also does not allow for interaction between the rhetor and the audience. Therefore, Zacharias must anticipate potential questions that may arise, which

causes his rhetoric to be very thorough and exacting, particularly when addressing potential questions his readers may have. Another constraint of this rhetorical situation is Zacharias’s responsibility to his readers. He cares for them in this life and the next and wishes to reach his audience in the most effective way possible. He must also not let the fact that his ministry is his livelihood affect his credibility. All of these constraints work to alter the information that he includes and how he presents this information. As with the rhetorical situation of Augustine in the fifth century, the main constraints that operated to influence the creation of this text were Zacharias’s own personal beliefs. The most effective way, then, to determine what these personal beliefs are by exploring the Christian denomination with which he aligns himself and then by searching the text of Jesus Among Other Gods for indications of his beliefs. Zacharias’s professional journey in the Christian realm began in the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, in which he is an ordained minister. The CMA is a Protestant denomination that follows suit with most other Protestant sects. It holds that God is the creator of all the universe and everything within, and that He exists as part of the Holy Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). After the fall of man, Jesus Christ, the sinless son of God, appeared incarnate on earth to sacrifice Himself, out of love for mankind, to pay for the sins of all past, present, and future humans. It is then the duty of all humans to recognize this sacrifice and devote their lives to following the example of Jesus, which leads to perfect fellowship with God and an eternal home in heaven with God after death. There is a great emphasis on daily fellowship with God through prayer and the studying of scripture as well as on interaction with other Christians in an atmosphere of worship in order to praise the Lord and gain insights for life since, apart from God, we are incapable of success. Important also is the belief in evangelism, which cannot be divorced from the worship of God, and the carrying out of the Great Commission, or Christ’s command that Christians continue throughout their lives to spread the gospel of Jesus to all those who have not yet heard. Also in the CMA is an emphasis on the physical healing powers of Jesus and the idea of taking faith-based risks in the furthering of God’s will in one’s life.

Zacharias’s most significant personal belief, however, is his opinion regarding the origin and identity of Jesus. He writes: Historians, poets, philosophers—and a host of others—have regarded Him as the centerpiece of history. He Himself made a statement that was very dramatic and daring when He said to the apostle Thomas, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).’ Every word of that statement challenges the fundamental beliefs of the Indian culture from which I come, and in reality, actually stands against an entire world today. (4) He is uncompromising in his assertion that Jesus is the true Son of God whose life was a ransom for the souls of mankind. This belief colors all others and permeates his text, as the nature of Jesus defines not only his entire belief system but how he views the belief systems (or lack thereof) of others. Zacharias is unwilling to compromise his stance on the nature of Jesus and concede that perhaps He was merely a prophet or gifted teacher. Jesus, Zacharias feels, is the only way to the Father, and this belief causes Zacharias to mold all of his arguments around one ultimate belief: that Jesus is who He claimed to be. He refers to Jesus as the “Son of God who led the way to the Father” (18) and “God incarnate” (39).

Rhetor

Both internal and external constraints must be navigated by the rhetor, who is the producer of the discourse. For this particular exigence, Ravi Zacharias himself acts as the rhetor. It is important for Zacharias to build a persuasive ethos in order to speak authoritatively in his text. Like Augustine, he builds his ethos as a rhetor both inside and outside of the text. Outside the text, Zacharias’s ethos is established by the building of his good reputation as a Christian apologist and the work he has done in filling that role. He has built this status by his resume of appearances and accomplishments. Billy Graham invited him three times (1983, 1986, 2000) to be the plenary speaker at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists, which is held in Amsterdam. He has spoken at notable universities such as Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford, and he has addressed numerous international groups such as the Peruvian parliament and military officers in the Lenin Military Academy. He delivered the keynote speech in Washington D.C. at the National Day of Prayer, co-hosted by President George W. Bush. He

has twice spoken in New York at the United Nation’s Annual Prayer Breakfast, an event which heralds the start of a new U.N. session. As noted earlier, he has also received various theological degrees. Not only do Zacharias's activities and life achievements help to construct an ethos for himself outside the text of Jesus Among Other Gods, but he builds his credibility within the text as well. In order to accomplish this, he uses, as Augustine does, the concepts of arête, phronesis, and eunoia. He establishes his arête (or competence) by demonstrating his knowledge of and experience with world cultures and religions. He writes that he has “covered thousands of miles during this writing, not only for the book, but also through invitations to speak in various parts of the world. I have walked through temples, mosques, and other religious sites” (ix). With this statement, he accomplishes two goals: the first is to disclose that he is sufficiently renowned to have been invited to speak all over the world, and the second is to reveal that he has traveled the world and visited a wide variety of religious sites. Both of these elements (worldwide recognition and familiarity with a multitude of religions and locations) indicates that he is competent to speak on the religious climate of the world at large. He goes on to add that he has “spoken to students at universities in which the predominant religion is not Christian” (ix), which indicates that he is skilled not just in speaking to a segment of the population that belongs to one faith but in meeting the challenge of addressing those who do not share his religious views. He can bring a message not only to a sympathetic Christian audience, but also to a skeptical or even a hostile non-Christian one potentially armed with challenging questions and complaints to bring to his attention. Zacharias demonstrates phronesis (or wisdom or intelligence) through statements he makes in the text regarding his own personal quest for knowledge, which he refers to as the “passion for learning, the recognition of the value of study, and the need to understand great thinkers and their thoughts” (16). Books are for him, he writes, a “gold mine” (16). Though he rejected school when he was a teenager, he grew to love the quest for knowledge after he converted to Christianity and began to nurture his relationship with God. He asserts that “the very pursuits that at one time brought so much inner heartache are now for me the transcending delight of my heart. Little did I know the long academic journey that lay ahead of me. I have loved it” (16-17). After all, he writes that “our intellect is not intended to be an end in itself, but only a means to the very mind of God” (16). It is evident by these assertions that intellect is for

Zacharias a never-ending pursuit that brings him personal satisfaction, aids him in his ministry goals, and draws him nearer to God. Zacharias also exhibits eunoia, (or good will, friendliness, and respect) to all his readers at various points in his text. He demonstrates to his readers that he has genuine concern and respect for them, thereby increasing the potential credibility of his statements. His eunoia is illustrated by his indicating his wish to be inoffensive, his expressions of his love for those he has met in his travels and for humanity in general, and his thankfulness for what he has been able to experience and accomplish. Beginning in the preface to Jesus Among Other Gods, he expresses his desire to avoid insulting any of his readers. “The difficulty,” he writes, “has really not been in knowing what to say, but in knowing what not to say. We are living in a time when sensitivities are at the surface, often vented with cutting words” (vii). He does not want to add to this tense climate and, in making his argument, unnecessarily offend with harsh or unfitting language, because, as he writes, “we can be world-views apart without anger and offense” (x). Finding the right words to achieve this goal, however, is another matter. He asks, “How do I say what I want to say without bringing hurt to anyone else or, for that matter, to any culture?” (5). This predicament arises because he finds himself “torn out of love for the truth and the cost of candor” (6). He feels it necessary to aid humanity in the way he believes correct (by the spread of Christianity), but he wishes to do it in the most loving, careful way possible, as he cares deeply for humanity. He writes, “I love the people of this world, each with their accents and cuisines and idiosyncrasies” (17). He goes on to say that “in the course of this, I have met some very fine and gracious people. By nature, I am a people person. I enjoy conversations, especially around a meal with newfound friends” (ix). By these statements, he generates true rhetoric that reveals a very personal, compassionate side to his ministry and that he connects deeply with those he encounters on a daily basis. Not only does he cherish the personal relationships he forms, but he also relishes his job as an apologist, He says, “I have truly enjoyed the challenge and privilege that being a Christian apologist has brought my way….the thrill of seeing thousands of lives transformed is a thrill I cannot deny”(17). Seeing that he is truly and deeply affected by the changes he effects in others lives can work to convince the audience that his argument comes from a place of true concern, thus improving his ethos in the eyes of his readers.

Ethics

Previously, I determined that ethics is the connecting factor between kairos and the modern rhetorical situation. Ethics (as it was for Augustine when writing On Christian Doctrine) is foremost for Zacharias in writing Jesus Among Other Gods. It is, of course, a concept that is encouraged by Christian Doctrine (for instance, the Golden Rule). Jesus is the ultimate example of an ethical man. Ethics leads to a respectful treatment of everyone, regardless of creed, but ultimately, it demands that we do not reject truth without careful examination. Zacharias (in addition to the automatic sense of ethics inherent in the Christian system) exhibits his desire for ethical actions in himself and others by his discussion of the way in which conflicting cultures, worldviews, and religions should be treated when searching for truth, and how people should be treated who adhere to different worldviews. He writes that “there is an extraordinary conferral of sanctity upon what it means to be human. It means that this body is deemed worthy of respect and reverence” (124). Every human being deserves respect and all the attributes that come along with that. He goes on to asserts that “one must respect the concern of a culture to protect what it deems sacred” (277). Reverence, he contends, “must be chosen even when it is hard and costly” (226). Ultimately, there is no excuse for bad behavior towards anyone of any faith or background. As he states from the outset of the book, “we can be world views apart without anger and offense” (10). He himself demonstrates a reverence for the sanctity of humanity and respect for others in his own style as well. He does not verbally attack other religions. When speaking of a seemingly barbarous sect that asks adherents to pierce their skin with knives and spikes, he simple asks: “Why do the same thinkers who criticize any western forms of spirituality take this to task?” (7), and on page ten he writes only kind words about a Muslim man who was an attendant at a hotel he once visited. Ethics, however, are not to be used as an excuse when in reality, there is “no real will to listen” (253), which can happen when a desire not to offend keeps people from “squarely facing the questions” (255). He feels that many times people reject Christianity not because of a fair investigation of it but because of an en-vogue rejection of western religion. “Many times,” he contends, “so-called reasons for rejecting the truth are so blended with individual prejudice” (253). He says that people must possess “the genuine hunger for truthfulness” (255), which will lead us to explore

all avenues, even religious ones in a society that holds to what he calls the new Descartian opinion: “I doubt, therefore I am intellectual” (255).

Conclusion

An application of the analytical framework reveals the characteristics of the rhetorical situation which Zacharias creates and to which he responds. His exigence is, ultimately, the failure of contemporary popular society as a whole to recognize Christian doctrine as correct totally unique. His audience consists of an ideal audience those who share his beliefs but also of those who reject Christianity as ultimate truth. The constraints of the situation are the personal beliefs of Zacharias as well as external constraints related largely to his means of distributing his message. As a rhetor, Zacharias (like Augustine before him) constructs an ethos inside the text by statements he makes and outside the text by his reputation as a Christian apologist, author, and speaker. His ethics are constantly at the forefront of his actions as he attempts to persuade his readers to that ethics involve careful treatment of all humans and the objective pursuit of truth. Since the rhetorical situations of both he and Augustine have now been examined by the same framework, I can now take the conclusions from both and compare them to determine Augustine’s applicability to Zacharias.

CHAPTER V: DETERMINING AN IMPOSSIBLE APPLICABILITY

“We would do well to remember, however, what Augustine said: ‘We are never to judge a philosophy by its abuse’” (Jesus Among Other Gods, viii).

Everything about these two men, Saint Augustine and Ravi Zacharias, seems, at least on the surface, quite dissimilar; one is an early medieval bishop from Africa, and the other is a contemporary travelling apologist and author who was born in India. Even their respective works (On Christian Doctrine and Jesus Among Other Gods) attempt different feats. The temporal difference in the two alters how they would have defined the rhetorical situation; Zacharias writes in a tradition influenced by Bitzer’s theory of the rhetorical situation has influenced, while Augustine was educated by the school of thought in which the dominating concept is kairos, which, in all of its complexity, acts as a proto-rhetorical situation influencing his rhetoric. However, a connecting thread of ethics allows for the union of the modern rhetorical situation with the proto-rhetorical situation to create a rubric by which the rhetoric of both men, who worked in different eras and on different continents, can be analyzed. In order to finally determine if Zacharias can authoritatively draw on the insights of Augustine, and thus if Augustine’s work has relevance for any theologian in the contemporary Christian world, it is necessary to finally take an analysis of the rhetorical situation of Augustine and compare it to an analysis of the rhetorical situation of Zacharias. This comparison will allow me to identify areas of similarity, overlap, or perhaps of contrast. It would also be the first step in determining if Augustine’s range of applicability extends to the broader Christian community that may be in need of insights into current Christian struggles in the postmodern world.

Exigences

Both Christian men, despite their separation of 1600 years, are responding to an exigence that they feel can be modified through the use of rhetoric. The exigence facing Augustine, and the one to which he responded in On Christian Doctrine, concerned scriptural interpretation and

then the communication of the truths discovered therein. He wished to legitimize the use of rhetoric in this communication, since he believed (being a former student of rhetoric himself) that this practice would help Christians to effectively communicate scriptural insights to both believers and non-believers. The exigence that Zacharias deals with involves an intellectual defense of the truth of Christianity at a time in history that promotes pluralism in the religious sphere. Though these sets of circumstances seem quite different, they share a common theme; evangelism in religiously fractured circumstances. Both men fear that Christianity will not grow and thrive as they wish for it to. This concept of evangelism, which cannot be divorced from the most basic tenants of Christianity, is evident in the situations of both men, although they deal with it in different ways. Augustine addresses interpretation and communication. The communication element would not be treated so in depth and with such importance if it were not vital to Augustine that the message of Christianity be learnt and then spread to non-believers. He is highly concerned with encouraging “good and zealous Christians to fight for the truth” (Book IV, 5). Though Augustine devotes much energy to the interpretation of scripture, also key is “the process of presenting what we have learnt” (Book I, 1). Book IV of On Christian Doctrine is devoted to elements of presentation, such as style and eloquence. He wishes for Christians to be well-studied in the best ways to transmit information so that it can have the greatest effect on society. The knowledge we gain from scriptures must not be kept to oneself but communicated to others in the spreading of the Gospel. For Zacharias, it is important for believers and non-believers alike to distinguish that Christianity is different from other religions and ultimately recognize the exclusive truthfulness of the Christian message. He writes in the introduction to Jesus Among Other Gods that his text is “a defense of the uniqueness of the Christian message” (ix). He desires for people to realize this uniqueness so that they will choose the Christian path for their lives. He wishes to publicly defend the Christian message so that more people can “witness the transformation that Christ brings” (243). By asserting that Christianity bears a true message and defending that truth in his writing, he hopes to evangelize as many people as possible. Despite any specific differences observed in their exigences (Augustine focuses on learning and dissemination, and Zacharias focuses on distinguishing Christianity from other faiths), both men wish to ultimately disseminate the Gospel into a religiously fractured world and

win souls to Christ. They have the ultimate goal (evangelism) in mind but deal with different steps in the process. Augustine deals with the presentation of the message while Zacharias deals with the content of the message, or the message itself. It was, however, a common desire, the desire to see Christianity embraced worldwide, that spurred both these men to embark on lifelong quests to disseminate information that they feel can drastically improve the human condition now, in the future, and after death.

Audiences

The audiences for Augustine and Zacharias include both an addressed audience of real readers and an imagined audience of ideal readers. There is an immediate disjuncture in the addressed audiences for the two. Though these readers could have been laypeople or clergy, we can gather from scholarship on the subject and textual evidence (such as instances in which Augustine refers to his readers referring to their knowledge of languages and using their access to reference manuscripts) that he intended for his audience to be well-educated, which, considering the time period, most likely excluded most of the lower classes. Due to the volume of personal anecdotes and many instances in which he provides readers with the text he references, I conclude that he does not necessarily expect for his readers to be extensively educated. Therefore, in their addressed audiences, Augustine and Zacharias differ on in their education level Though there are dissimilarities the area of addressed audience, there are alignments in the ultimate role in which Augustine and Zacharias cast their imagined audiences. It is this audience that Ong feels is the most important, since it is the one that “fires the writer’s imagination” (10). Augustine’s imagined audience is made up of those who are concerned for the current life and afterlife of their fellow humans. These readers wish, by personally communicating with others, to promote the spread of Christianity and the acceptance of its teachings (evangelism). They see themselves (as discussed in Chapter III) as being on a lifelong voyage towards their true home (heaven) with their fellow Christians. Zacharias’s imagined audience consists of those who are searching for truth and won’t compromise it at the expense of tolerance, because ultimately, it is this tolerance that could lead to grouping Christianity with other religions, thus preventing people from accepting the truth of Christianity.

There are multiple similarities in their ideal readers. Though Augustine takes an avenue of the proper way to interpret and then communicate scriptural knowledge and Zacharias takes an avenue of formulating intellectual defenses of the validity of Christianity, both men, in their respective texts, ultimately demonstrate concern for the welfare of those who are not Christians. Both sets of imaged audiences believe that there is an exclusive truth and feel that it is important to find it; therefore they do not wish to postpone a search of truth in favor of tolerance. Not only do they believe truth exists, but they wish to search for it and then proclaim it to others.

Constraints

Within a rhetorical situation, there are constraints, and these may be internal or external. I explored the external constraints at work for Zacharias. These included those associated with the print medium and his responsibility to his followers. Augustine operated under similar external constraints, being that his manuscript was hand-printed and circulated through copying. However, it is internal constraints that are the most influential for both Augustine and Zacharias. More specifically, it is the internal constraint of personal beliefs that is at work to modify the discourse produced. Both men’s beliefs, as discussed in this project, are those dealing with their Christian perspectives, and both are unwavering in their opinions, which color their discourses by influencing the content. Augustine’s beliefs include God being the creator of the entire universe and its contents, the existence of God as a holy Trinity consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the doctrine stating that Jesus is God’s son incarnate sent to die for the sins of humankind. Zacharias’s beliefs are completely consistent with Augustine on all three of those points. He also believes that God created the universe and all the elements therein, that God exists in three persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost), and that Jesus is God in the flesh and the perfect and ultimate sacrifice. Though Augustine is a member of the Catholic Church and Zacharias is a protestant, there are perfect alignments in their viewpoints in these important areas. Therefore, these beliefs influence both their discourses in that they cannot promote any purpose that is contrary to these teachings.

Rhetors

Augustine and Zacharias are both the rhetors for their respective rhetorical situations, and they rely on ethos for credibility. They share the similarity of constructing their ethos both inside and outside the text. Within their texts, they demonstrate the three Aristotelian concepts of arête, eunoia, and phronesis, particularly demonstrating phronesis and eunoia in similar ways. Augustine constructs his phronesis by referencing his own education (which was quite extensive) and by stating the importance of always having a strong intellectual argument to accompany effective rhetoric. Eloquence is useless without wisdom and knowledge, areas of his life he spent much time building through study both formally and personally. Zacharias’s phronesis is similarly demonstrated by his assertions regarding his lifelong quest for knowledge, which has taken him through various universities and to various locations. He speaks highly of his “academic journey” (16), which brought him to study at numerous universities and earn various degrees, not to mention that he has made his career out of formulating intellectual appeals for Christianity. Both men display eunoia through statements made regarding expressions of love and concern for humanity at large. Augustine wishes to prevent duping through words while promoting clear communication so that Christians can achieve what he considers to be his ultimate expression of goodwill: encouraging the spread of Christianity. Zacharias’s eunoia is expressed by his desire not to offend others while making his assertions about Christianity. He writes, “we can be world-views apart without anger and offense” (x). He knows that offense will ultimately lead to hurt and damage and will not be conducive to evangelism, which he, in alignment with Augustine, also wishes to ultimately achieve for the good of mankind. Despite similarities in the area of phronesis and eunoia, there is, however, a slight disjuncture in their expressions of arête. Augustine’s arête is chiefly created by his constantly deferring to God for his wisdom. “I have no need,” he says, “to worry that he will fail to supply the remainder when I begin to share what has been given to me.” (Book I, 1). Zacharias takes a different approach when building his arête, choosing to derive it by referencing his extensive travels across the world and to religious various sites and his encounters with people of different faiths. In addition to creating a textual ethos, Augustine and Zacharias, outside the texts of On Christian Doctrine and Jesus Among Other Gods, build their ethos in the professional arena in

like ways. Both exhibit exemplary behavior in their tireless religious work. Augustine, as a bishop and preacher, dispensed invaluable advice to a congregation that admired him and inspired them to spread the Gospel. Zacharias travels the world spreading a message of the importance of intellectual inquiry to further Christianity, which he feels is the one true religion. Both rhetors, however, have the same ultimate goal in mind: to spread the message of Jesus and see it be accepted wherever and whenever possible.

Ethics

Ethics are key for both Augustine and Zacharias. First and foremost, both are acting under the innate sense of ethics found in Christianity. Augustine possessed high personal standards for himself and was unmercifully critical of his own professional performance. Kretzmann writes that “it troubled him that [his congregation] venerated him so, for he was acutely aware of his own failings—even to the point of what later churchmen would call scrupulosity” (16). Augustine never wanted to fail to live up to the doctrines he found himself preaching to others. He constantly examined his own life and “found himself wanting, and so he felt unworthy in the eyes of his congregation” (16). The ethical standards he espoused could never be compromised and never rested, even in his own life. We also see evidence of these standards in his writing, in which he repeatedly warns his readers against the dangers of deceit. Aesthetics must never outweigh accuracy. Outler writes that Augustine “rarely strives for rhetorical effect for its own sake and everywhere puts his message and his hearer ahead of any preoccupation with style. And he makes repeated mention of the false sentimentalism and the ethical irrelevance of the poets and the dramatists” (216). Though he may himself use literary devices and stylistic language in his own work, he never fails to reinforce his claims with evidence (such as his lengthy quotations of Paul). Zacharias also promotes high ethical standards in his own life, centered particularly around the treatment he gives others in the text and statements he makes about how others should be treated. He contends that “there is an extraordinary conferral of sanctity upon what it means to be human. It means that this body is deemed worthy of respect and reverence” (124). He also says that it is necessary to always “respect the concern of a culture to protect what it deems sacred” (277). The ethical treatment of others can never be neglected. Not only does he

encourage this practice in others, but he demonstrates it in the statements he makes in his text concerning others (such as the kind words he had for the Muslim man, with whom he shared no cultural or religious similarities). Both rhetors see ethics as codes of conduct that they espouse and do not fail to use themselves, and they also see it as a practice, not merely a system, that must be implemented daily.

Conclusions

As demonstrated in this chapter, both men’s exigences are ultimately a response to a religiously fractured world, and both desire for the end result of their discourse to be evangelism. Though there are disparities in their addressed audience in the area of education, there are alignments in their imagined audiences, which consist of those who believe that ultimate, exclusive truth exists and wish to find and then disseminate it throughout society. Both men’s discourses are altered by the external constraint of medium, which leaves them no opportunity for further clarification of their assertions and demands accuracy. The primary constraints acting on these men, however, are their personal Christian beliefs, which color all their arguments. As rhetors, they build their ethos outside the text in their professional behavior and inside through similar demonstrations of phronesis and eunoia. The ethical systems of both men are grounded in the ethics espoused by Christian doctrine, and both have ethical standards of personal conduct. It is clear from the various demonstrations of the similarities between Augustine and Zacharias, when both are analyzed by the same framework, that it is indeed appropriate for this modern apologist to cite the ancient bishop for insights into theological matters. However, from examinations of both rhetorical situations, using ethics from the proto-rhetorical situation as a bridge between early Medieval Augustine and twenty-first century Zacharias, it is quite clear that such situations are extremely variable and unique. Examining the rhetorical situations of each has revealed how intricately variable and unique these situations can be and how specifics will differ from rhetor to rhetor and situation to situation. Therefore, while I conclude that Zacharias can hearken back to Augustine with confidence, I would not make the same assertion for every modern Christian theologian since the web of factors behind rhetoric is extremely variable. I do, however, believe that the analytical framework by which I dissected and weighed these two rhetorical situations, a combination of a modern and a proto-rhetorical situation, is a strong

enough model to be used to analyze the rhetorical situations surrounding other discourse to determine if it bears any similarities to Augustine and thus can benefit from his wisdom. Christianity’s forefathers, such as Augustine, and ancient thinkers can, it seems, be found to be more relevant to our contemporary situations than previously thought. Zacharias quotes Augustine in the introduction to Jesus Among Other Gods. And now, after a thorough rhetorical examination, it can be concluded that he can make such a reference with confidence and authority. Should a question ever arise regarding Augustine’s authority to inform another work of theology, the model of analysis used in this project can be applied to that rhetorical situation as well to potentially to see if there are potentially insights to be gained from the Bishop of Hippo as Christianity moves forward towards an increasingly uncertain future on earth.

WORKS CITED

Amos, Thomas L. “Augustine and the Education of the Early Medieval Preacher.” Reading and Wisdom: The De Doctrina Christiana in the Middle Ages. Ed. Edward D. English. Notre Dame and London: U of Notre Dame Press, 1995. 23-40.

Anderson, Floyd D. “De Doctrina Christiana: The Convergence of Athens and Jerusalem.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly., Vol. 15, No. 3/4. (Summer-Autumn, 1985), pp. 102-104.

Augustine. On Christian Doctrine. Trans. R.P.H. Greene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric. Vol. 49, No. 3. (Jan., 1968), pp. 1-14.

Caine, Nancy. Book Review: Jesus Among Other Gods. Christian Broadcasting Network. 24 March 2008. 2007. .

CMA Alliance. 11 February 2008. 2007. .

Consigny, Scott. “Rhetoric and Its Situations.” Philosophy and Rhetoric. Vol. X, No. 7. (Jul, 1974), pp. 175-186.

Deems, Mervin Monroe. “Augustine’s Use of Scripture.” Church History, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Sep., 1945), pp. 188-200.

Ede, Lisa, and Andrea Lunsford. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 35, No. 2. (May, 1984), pp. 155-171.

Erikson, Keith V. “The Significance of “Doctrina” in Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3/4. (Summer-Autumn, 1985), pp. 105-107.

Grant-Davie, Keith. “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents.” Rhetoric Review, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Spring, 1997), pp. 264-279.

Green, R.P.H. On Christian Doctrine. Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Halloran, S. Michael. “Aristotle’s Concept of Ethos, of It Not His Somebody Else’s.” Rhetoric Review, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Sep., 1982), pp. 58-63.

Harker, Michael. “The Ethics of Argument: Rereading Kairos and Making Sense in a Timely Fashion.” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 59, No. 1. (2007), pp. 77-97.

Kannengiesser, Charles. “The Interrupted De Doctrina Christiana.” De Doctrina Christiana: A Classic of Western Culture. Ed. Duane W.H. Arnold and Pamela Bright. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995. pp. 3-13.

Kent, Bonnie. “Augustine’s Ethics.” The Cambridge Companion to Augustine. Ed. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. pp. 204-209.

Kinneavy, James. “Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric.” Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Practical Reasoning. Ed. Jean Dietz Moss. Washing, DC: The Catholic U of America P, 1986. 79-105.

Kretzmann, Norman. Introduction. Cambridge Companion to Augustine. 8 Ed. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. pp. 1-8.

Leighton, Lauren G. “Translation as a Derived Art.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 134, No. 4. (Dec., 1990), pp. 445-454.

McCabe, Joseph. “The Conversion of St. Augustine.” International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 12, No. 4. (Jul, 1902), pp. 450-459.

Ong, Walter J. “The Writer’s Audience is Always a Fiction.” PMLA, Vol. 90, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 9-21.

Outler, Albert C. “Augustine and the Transvaluation of the Classical Tradition.” The Classical Journal, Vol. 54, No. 5. (Feb. 1959), pp. 213-220.

Park, Douglas. “The Meanings of ‘Audience.’” College English, Vol. 44, No. 3. (Mar., 1982), pp. 247-257.

Plumer, Eric. “Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians.” Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 3-59.

Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). 9 March 2008. 2008. .

Robertson, D.W. Introduction. On Christian Doctrine. St. Augustine. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1997.

Rummell, Erika. “Isocrates’ Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation.” The Classical Journal, Vol. 75, No. 1. (Oct.-Nov., 1979), pp. 25-35.

Sanderlin, George. “St. Augustine and the Twentieth Century.” The Classical Journal. Vol. 49, No. 3. (Dec., 1953), pp. 132-135.

Schäublin, Christoph. “De Doctrina Christiana: A Classic of Western Culture?” De Doctrina Christiana: A Classic of Western Culture. Ed. W.H. Arnold and Pamela Bright. Notre Dame and London: U of Notre Dame Press, 2000. 47-67.

Shay, Jonathan. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric as a Handbook of Leadership.” 5 March 2008. 2000. .

Sturrock, Thomas. “Writing Between the Lines: The Language of Translation.” New Literary History. Vol. 21, No. 2. (1994), pp. 993-1013.

Vatz, Richard E. “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 6, No. 3. (Summer, 1973), pp. 154-161.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kelly Israel is a native of Smithville, GA and earned a B.A. degree in English with a minor in Professional Writing and Mass Communications from North Georgia College and State University in May of 2005. She enrolled at Florida State University in the summer of 2006 in the Rhetoric and Composition master’s program. Her area of interest includes Christian rhetoric.