DOCSLIB.ORG

“Deuteronomy and Rhetoric: the Art of Practical Argumentation in Ancient Israel”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Deuteronomy and Rhetoric: the Art of Practical Argumentation in Ancient Israel” “DEUTERONOMY AND RHETORIC: THE ART OF PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION IN ANCIENT ISRAEL” By David Jonathan Rosenstein A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland January, 2020 © 2020 David Jonathan Rosenstein All Rights Reserved Abstract The composition of the book of Deuteronomy reflects a phase of Israelite history when the Judean kingdom was undergoing an existential crisis that threatened its survival as a nation and the Israelites as a distinct people. The writers had the task of constructing a religious, social and legal program that would insure the survival of their people. As such, the book of Deuteronomy has long been recognized as a rhetorical work, as its aim is to persuade the Israelites to adhere to a set of laws, instructions, and teachings attributed by the writers to both God and Moses. The writers offered both strong incentives for compliance and equally strong disincentives for non-compliance. This core feature of Deuteronomy that requires the audience to make existential choices about preferred values and societal outcomes is what makes the discourse in Deuteronomy fully rhetorical. Previously, scholarship has treated Deuteronomy’s rhetorical character in piecemeal fashion. Comprehensive rhetorical analysis of Deuteronomy was hampered because the only available conceptual framework for understanding rhetoric and persuasion was that offered by the classical Greeks. This study concludes that while the descriptive categories of classical rhetoric are still useful, they insufficient for describing rhetorical argumentation in Deuteronomy. This study makes use of contemporary rhetorical critical method, literary critical thought and a significant revision to classical rhetorical theory proposed by Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca in 1958 called The New Rhetoric. Their theory of argumentation provides a set conceptual tools ii that can be used to establish a rhetorical framework for the entire corpus of Deuteronomy based upon the use of informal logic and the establishment of value hierarchies. This study unravels the rhetorical structure of Deuteronomy, and addresses the dual vision of its writers who in used rhetorical arguments to address the particular situational needs of their Israelite audience, as well as a universal audience that lay beyond that of the Israelite nation. In addition to Deuteronomy having become a basis of later Judaism, it was the ultimate success of the writers’ vision that their appeal to a universal audience became one of Deuteronomy’s most enduring legacies. Advisor: Professor Theodore J. Lewis Second Reader: Assistant Professor Alice Mandell iii Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………….……..........i Abbreviations…………………………………………………………….………....viii Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…......1 Chapter One: From Ancient Rhetorics to Modern Rhetorical Criticism 1.1 The Origins of Rhetoric in the Western Traditions…………………………..….. 13 1.2 Early Greek Rhetoric: The Pre-Socratics in the Homeric-Sophistic Tradition..…..16 1.3 Plato’s Opposition to the Sophists………………………………………….......…22 1.4 Aristotle: The Student Becomes the Master…………….………………….……..26 1.5 A Closer Look at the Sophists: The Legacy of the Sophists in Modern Rhetorical Theory.. .......................................................................................................30 1.6 The Widespread Phenomena of Rhetoric in the Ancient World………………….36 1.7 Points of Comparison: Deuteronomy and the Pre-Socratic Movement……….….37 1.8 The (Re) Discovery of the Hebrew Rhetorical Tradition...………………….……39 1.9 Points of Contrast: Differences in Metaphysics and in How Persuasion Occurs………………………………………………………………….………….…..42 1.10 Rhetoric’s Ups and Downs Over the Centuries………………………………….48 1.11 The Revival of Rhetoric in the American Academy and the Rhetorical Turn in the 20th Century……………..……………………………………..……………….51 1.12 The Seeds of Ferment and the Birth of Rhetorical Criticism……………………53 1.13 The Beginnings of Rhetorical Criticism in Bible Studies in the Late 20th Century……………………………………………………………………………......55 1.14 Approaches to Rhetorical Criticism after Muilenburg: The Influence of George A. Kennedy………………………………….…………………………….…60 1.15 On the Rhetorical Critical Method……………………….…………………..….64 iv 1.16 Summary….………………………………………………………………….… 69 Chapter Two: The Rhetorical Situation and the Audiences of Deuteronomy 2.1 The Rhetorical Situation…………………………………………………….…….71 2.2 Deuteronomy’s Rhetorical Situation…………….…………………………….….73 2.3 Categories of Apostasy: Describing the Exigencies and Constraints in Deuteronomy…………………………………………………………………………..77 2.4 A Further Constraint on the Narrator/Authors: Questions about Israel’s Moral Character…………………………………………………………………………….....86 2.5 Theoretical Considerations on the Question of Audience: “Invoked” and “Addressed” Audiences……………………..…………………………………….……92 2.6 Mutual Fictionalization: How the “Invoked” and “Addressed” Audiences Connect With the Rhetor…………..……………………………………………..…....95 2.7 The Rhetorical Audience of Deuteronomy………………….…………………....100 2.7.1 The Mediators of Change: The Addressed Audience of the First Order.101 2.7.2 Plausible Pathways of Dissemination…………………………….…….104 2.8 The Second Invoked Audience- The People of the Land Mentioned in Deuteronomy………………..………………………..…………….…………….…..107 2.8.1 A Closer Look at the Second Invoked Audience….…………………...109 2.8.2 Constituent Stakeholders: Israel as the Collective………..……………109 2.8.3 The General Constituent Stakeholders In Deuteronomy.……………...110 2.8.4 Stakeholders from the Second Discourse: Dt. 5-11……………………112 2.8.5 Stakeholders from the Law Code: Dt. 12-26…………………………..113 2.8.6 Stakeholders from the Blessings and Curses: Dt. 27-28...……………..118 2.8.7 Stakeholders from the Third Discourse and Supplement: Dt. 29-34…..118 2.9 The Third Invoked Audience: The “Foreign” Presence in the Land….…………118 2.10 Summary…………………………….……………………….…………..……..119 v Chapter Three: Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric: How Their Revival and Redefinition of Rhetoric Helps Us Understand Argumentation in Deuteronomy 3.1 Preliminary Comments of the Nature of The New Rhetoric…………………..….121 3.2 The Background and Origins of The New Rhetoric………………..……...……...123 3.3 Perelman’s Regressive Philosophy……..……………………………..………..…129 3.4 Perspectives on The New Rhetoric………………………………………………..131 3.5 On Temporality in The New Rhetoric……………………………………….……138 3.6 The New Rhetoric: A Jewish Counter Model––Toward a Jewish Metaphysics….140 3.7 Three Key Concepts in The New Rhetoric……………………….……………….144 3.7.1 The Prerequisites of Argumentation….....................................................144 3.7.2 The Audiences: Particular and Universal…………..…………………...146 3.7.3 The Creation of Presence……….………………………….…………....149 3.8 The Basics of Argument Schemes in The New Rhetoric….………………..…….151 3.8.1 The Details of the Argument Schemes………………………….………153 3.8.2 The Premises of Argumentation………………………………………...154 3.8.3 Arguments by Association………………………………………………155 3.8.4 Arguments Based on the Structure of Reality…………………………..158 3.8.5 Arguments that Establish the Structure of Reality………………………160 3.8.6 Arguments by the Disassociation of Ideas………………………………161 Chapter Four: Application of The New Rhetoric to Deuteronomy 4.1 The Basic Classifications of Rhetoric Found in Deuteronomy…………………….163 4.2 The Presence of Classical Typologies……………………………………..…….... 165 4.3 Narrative in Deuteronomy………………………………………..……………….. 169 4.3.1 Matters of Style: Utterances within Utterances………………………..…170 4.3.2 Direct and Indirect Voices………………..…………………………....…172 4.3.3 Establishing Authority: The Rhetorical Impact of the Indirect Voice…………....175 vi 4.4 Points of Departure for Argumentation: “Shared Worlds” at the Intersection of Situation and Collective Memory……..………………………………………….…....176 4.4.1 The Narrator/Author’s Presumptions: Reliance on Collective Memory………………………………………………………………………..177 4.4.2 A Possible Warrant for Israel’s Collective Memory………………………………………………….………………….....179 4.5 Deuteronomy Chapter Four as the Heart of its Rhetorical Vision: Three Premises Hiding in Plain Sight…………..…………………………….……………....181 4.5.1 The First Rhetorical Premise……………………….………………..…..183 4.5.2 On Being Rhetorically Incontrovertible……………………....................188 4.5.3 The Special Role of Element (h) of the First Rhetorical Premise………………………………………………………………………...190 4.5.4 The Second Rhetorical Premise………………………….………...……191 4.5.5 The Third Rhetorical Premise………………………….………..............199 4.5.6 The Narrator/Author’s Reach Towards a Universal Audience……….....204 4.6 Looking to the Past, Being in the Present and the Vision of the Future…..............207 4.7 Establishing Hierarchies of Value: Arguing Through the Use of Models, Anti-Models, Illustration and Example ……………………………………………….208 4.7.1 The Incident of the Golden Calf (Ex. 32:1-35; Dt. 9:8-22)………….......211 4.7.2 The Incident at Kadesh-barnea (Num. 13:1-14:45; Dt. 1:19-34............... 212 4.7.3 The Incident at Baal-peor (Num. 25:1-9; Dt. 4:3-4)……………………..213 4.8 Arguing by the Creation of Presence: The Rhetorical Impact of Visual Imagery....215 4.8.1 Standing 0n the Other Side of the Jordan: (Dt. 1.1-4:45)…..…..………..216 4.8.2 “Let Us Not Die” (Dt. 5:19-27; Dt. 9:8-10:2)……….…………………...218 4.8.3 The Ceremony on Mt. Gerazim and Mt. Ebal (Dt.27:1-26)……………,,.220 4.8.4 The Death of Moses: Moses as Model and Anti Model (Dt. 34: 1-8)..… 222 4.9 Summary………………………………………………………………….………...224 vii Chapter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Imagining the Words of Others: Public Memory and Ceremonial Repetition in American Public Discourse
    IMAGINING THE WORDS OF OTHERS: PUBLIC MEMORY AND CEREMONIAL REPETITION IN AMERICAN PUBLIC DISCOURSE A Dissertation by ADAM JOEL GAFFEY Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, James Arnt Aune Committee Members, Leroy Dorsey Jennifer Jones Barbour C. Jan Swearingen Head of Department, J. Kevin Barge May 2013 Major Subject: Communication Copyright 2013 Adam Joel Gaffey ABSTRACT Rhetorical analyses of collective memory study how perceptions of a shared past are maintained through public texts. This analysis explores an alternative relationship between rhetoric and remembrance. Rather than study the textual form of public memory alone, I argue that communities actively interpret artifacts of public discourse as public memory. The most enduring form of this practice is ceremonial repetition, or the deliberate recitation of a text during moments of communal observance. When performed effectively, ceremonial repetition imagines a text by highlighting a resonant virtue through public reading. Such strategies to mold the meaning of a text occur through a variety of messages adjoining recitation, such as formal speech, visual display, written testament, or spatial and bodily enactment. Ceremonial repetition illustrates the extensional evolution and legacy of speech in the public imagination. In a range of historically grounded case studies, this work explores the effectiveness and dominant strategies of ceremonial repetition
    [Show full text]
  • Studying and Teaching “Law As Rhetoric”: a Place to Stand
    Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2010 Studying and Teaching “Law as Rhetoric”: A Place to Stand Linda L. Berger University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub Part of the Legal Education Commons, Legal Writing and Research Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation Berger, Linda L., "Studying and Teaching “Law as Rhetoric”: A Place to Stand" (2010). Scholarly Works. 664. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/664 This Article is brought to you by the Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law, an institutional repository administered by the Wiener-Rogers Law Library at the William S. Boyd School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDYING AND TEACHING "LAW AS RHETORIC": A PLACE TO STAND Linda L. Berger* The first of these [attacks on rhetoric], the attack from above, argues for a politics of reason whose indisputable truths can only be obscured by the rhetorician's passionate appeals. This is the position that Socrates defends. The second, the attack from below, insists that the rhetorician's invocation of truth and justice is a sham, a technique for gaining power whose success requires that its practitioners either fail to understand what they are doing or deliberately conceal it. This is the line of attack forcefully pressed by Callicles ..... Gorgias stands between these two, between Socrates and Callicles, and the question is, does he have any ground on which to stand? Does the craft of rhetoric have a separate and legitimate place in human life, in between pure reason and pure power?' INTRODUCTION As they begin law study, students "undergo a linguistic rup- ture, a change in how they view and use language." 2 The change affects not only their understanding of language use, but also 3 their ideas about how the law works and its place for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Nathaniel Hawthorne's
    Reading literature rhetorically in education: Nathaniel Hawthorne’s ‘The Prison-Door’ as an exercise in close reading Magnus Ullén, Karlstad University Abstract Despite the many historical links between literature and rhetoric, teachers of literature have made relatively few attempts to draw on rhetoric for teaching purposes. The present article suggests how this may be done, and argues for the pedagogical benefits of taking a rhetorical approach to literature. By means of a close reading of the first chapter of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, I demonstrate how a text may be systematically explored through the five steps (partes) of the classical rhetorical process. In conclusion, it suggests that rhetoric may be a means to bridge the gap between the many facets of English as a second language subject, as rhetoric provides a holistic framework allowing us to study literature and culture as language, and vice versa. Keywords: rhetoric, literature, English education; Hawthorne 1. Introduction Rhetoric and literature have been deeply associated throughout Western history. It is commonly held that it is only toward the end of the eighteenth century that this long-standing association begins to break down (Gossman 1990: 228). While the link between the two disciplines has never been completely disowned, rhetoric and literature have come to be seen as contrasting rather than complimentary practices, and as a rule organized as distinct departments in the academy.1 The consequence of this division is the curious separation of what might reasonably be seen as one subject into two separate ones: Literary departments typically 1 From a “neo-sophistic” (Walker 2000: xi) perspective, Jeffrey Walker calls on us to “rethink some key assumptions on which our histories of rhetoric have traditionally been based” (3), such as “that poetic, epideictic, or ‘literaturized’ forms of rhetoric are ‘secondary,’ derivative manifestations” (4) of a primary civic rhetoric.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric: Some Definitions (Note That One of These Things Is Not Like the Others…)
    Rhetoric: Some Definitions (note that one of these things is not like the others…) Gorgias: Persuasion by speech is like abduction by force. And: “The power of speech [logos] over the constitution of the soul can be compared with the effect of drugs on the bodily state: just as drugs by driving out different humours from the body can put an end either to the disease or to life, so with speech: different words can induce grief, pleasure or fear; or again, by means of a harmful kind of persuasion, words can drug and bewitch the soul.” Socrates/Plato: “Rhetoric” is “an art of guiding the soul by means of words” (technê psychagôgia tis dia logôn) in any kind of discourse (Phaedrus) Aristotle: Rhetoric is an antistrophes to dialectic. “Let rhetoric [be defined as] an ability [dynamis], in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion.” “Rhetoric is a counterpart of dialectic” — an art of practical civic reasoning, applied to deliberative, judicial, and “display” speeches in political assemblies, lawcourts, and other public gatherings. Cicero: "Rhetoric is one great art comprised of five lesser arts: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronunciatio." Rhetoric is "speech designed to persuade." Rhetoric is a general art of speech that joins “wisdom and eloquence” (sapientia et eloquentia), and that ranges over the whole realm of human concerns, but applies especially to practical civic discourse. Quintillian: "Rhetoric is the art of speaking well." Actually, it’s “the good man speaking well.” George Campbell: [Rhetoric] is that art or talent by which discourse is adapted to its end.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Distinctions
    INFORMAL LOGIC xv. I , Winter 1993 The Revival of Rhetoric, the New Rhetoric, and the Rhetorical Turn: Some Distinctions DILIP PARAMESHWAR GAONKAR University of Illinois Key Words: Rhetoric; rhetorical tum; new rheto­ were authorized to grant doctoral degrees. ric; revival of rhetoric; rhetoric of inquiry; consti­ As the American teachers of public tutive rhetoric; figural language; ideology. speaking set out to revive rhetoric, there al­ Abstract: Each of the three phrases-the revival ready existed considerable literature on the of rhetoric, the new rhetoric, and the rhetorical study of rhetoric. It consisted of two dis­ turn-points to a rediscovery of rhetoric in con­ tinct types. First, there was abundant peda­ temporary thought. However, the scholarly work, gogical material on the art of public motivation and commitments associated with speaking and on other forms and tech­ each phrase invokes and puts into playa different niques of effective communication. This notion of rhetoric. In this paper, I explore those differences with a view to showing how the "rhe­ pedagogical literature is part of what torical tum," unlike the "revival of rhetoric" and George Kennedy caIls the tradition of the "new rhetoric," repositions rhetoric as a "technical rhetoric" whose roots can be "metadiscipline." Thus, it signifies a radical shift traced with remarkable continuity all the in the self-understanding of rhetoric. way back to the handbook tradition of the ancients. This pedagogical and technical tradition, always susceptible to the chang­ I. The Revival of Rhetoric es in climate of opinion, has been periodi­ cally renovated, and sometimes mutilated, Although the idea of a "rhetorical turn" in response to the dominant intellectual is of recent vintage, there has been inter­ and cultural influences of the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice Douglas Eyman
    digital rhetoric Digital Humanities The Digital Humanities series provides a forum for ground- breaking and benchmark work in digital humanities, lying at the intersections of computers and the disciplines of arts and humanities, library and information science, media and communications studies, and cultural studies. Series Editors: Julie Thompson Klein, Wayne State University Tara McPherson, University of Southern California Paul Conway, University of Michigan Teaching History in the Digital Age T. Mills Kelly Hacking the Academy: New Approaches to Scholarship and Teaching from Digital Humanities Daniel J. Cohen and Tom Scheinfeldt, Editors Writing History in the Digital Age Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotzki, Editors Pastplay: Teaching and Learning History with Technology Kevin Kee, Editor Interdisciplining Digital Humanities: Boundary Work in an Emerging Field Julie Thompson Klein Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice Douglas Eyman diGitalculturebooks, an imprint of the University of Michigan Press, is dedicated to publishing work in new media studies and the emerging field of digital humanities. Digital Rhetoric theory, method, practice Douglas Eyman University of Michigan Press ann arbor Copyright © 2015 by Douglas Eyman Some rights reserved This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial- No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by- nc- nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. Published in the United States of America by the University of Michigan Press Manufactured in the United States of America c Printed on acid- free paper 2018 2017 2016 2015 4 3 2 1 A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric in Ancient Greece and Rome: a Historical Perspective
    Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal Vol.8.Issue 1. 2020 Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; (January-March) Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O) RESEARCH ARTICLE RHETORIC IN ANCIENT GREECE AND ROME: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Dr DEEPALI DHAUL Guest Faculty, Dept. of English, HPUDES, Shimla Abstract This article proposes to study the first two stages in the evolution of rhetoric. It will trace the history and development of rhetoric from ancient Greece to Rome. Rhetorical devices are literary devices that combine with style to form an important aspect of rhetoric. The codification of the rhetorical devices was a long process toward acquiring the present nomenclature. This article will outline the history of Article Received: 30/12/2019 English rhetoric, with respect to the rhetorical devices, and trace and limit itself to its Article Accepted: 19/01/2020 inception in the classical traditions of Greek and Latin. The focus will also be on the Article Published online: rhetorical devices as systematised by the Sophist, Gorgias, to the augmentation by 28/01/2020 Roman rhetoricians. DOI: 10.33329/rjelal.8.1.81 Key words: rhetoric, Sophistic, Hellenic, rhetorical devices, Gorgias, Plato, Aristotle Introduction presented a Ciceronian form of rhetoric in The Marriage of Philology and Mercury, and in the Modern scholarship of English rhetoric is translations of Boethius. The art of rhetoric between founded on the principles and theories of ancient the Middle Ages, until the fourteenth century did not literary critics and rhetoricians of Greece and Rome.
    [Show full text]