A Cool Example of the Rhetorical Skill of Paul

If for some reason you ever need a reason to demonstrate how skilled or intentional Paul was in some of his communication then let me give you an example from Romans. There are three briefs items for consideration.

First, Pauline authorship of the letter to the Romans is almost universally undisputed, and the few who have argued to the contrary have been unable to sustain their argument in a manner to seriously convince the larger body of scholarship.[1]

However, the role of Tertius, the amanuensis (scribe), is less clear: “ἀσπάζομαι ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Τέρτιος ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν κυρίῳ”; “I greet you, I Tertius, the one writing this letter, in the Lord” (Rom 16:22).

There were three different practices in antiquity of dictating a letter

1. The dictator would give the scribe the general themes of his letter and the scribe would have great freedom in filling in the body of the letter
2. The scribe used a style of short hand during dictation, and later the amanuensis would write up the document in full
3. The dictator would speak very slowly waiting for the scribe to write in full[2]

The first option given above is not very likely; the second or third are more probable given the many similarities between Romans and other Pauline letters that, as far as we know, were not written by Tertius.  The second option could raise some questions as to style; however, the letter could have been dictated slowly.

Pliny the Elder reports of Julius Caesar dictating up to four letters at once if the matter was serious and up to seven if he was relaxation,[3] therefore, if Paul was dictating a single letter he could have brought his full attention to even the smallest of details.  I assume that Paul is the “author” of Romans and dictated it in a manner that is indicative of his own style and thought. One of the many reasons I believe this from studying Romans is examples such as 9:4.

Romans 9:4

οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι,

Who are the Israelites, whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the Torah, and the service, and the promises

The second item worthy of consideration is Paul’s use of the term “Israelite.” Up to this point in the letter he has used Ἰουδαῖος (Jew) for his own people and his gospel message has been Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι ( to the Jew first and also to the Greek).  What would lead to this sudden change in terms for Paul in naming his own people?

The purpose for the change in terms appears to be intentional for Paul.  The first term “Jew” was the name commonly used by outsiders and which Jews used to refer to themselves with outsiders as well.  This is reflected in pagan postclassical Greek writings in which there are many references to the Jews: most of these writings have Ioudaios for the individual Jew and Ioudaioi for the people. However, when referring to themselves among themselves, especially, in a religious sense Jews commonly used the term “Israel”.  As Dunn notes, “Since Israel is a specifically Jewish term, it is no surprise that pagan writers never use it for either past or present Israel.” Therefore we should expect this term from the Jewish Paul at this point in the letter and the direction he is taking the argumentation.

Finally, in the commentaries concerning this passage there is no shortage of discussion on some of the unique forms of words that Paul chooses to include in his list of items or privileges of the Israelite.  Why the use of υἱοθεσία?  Dunn suggests this is surprising, since it occurs nowhere in the LXX or in other Jewish writings of the period[4] (but cf. 8:15, 23).  Why νομοθεσία (which occurs here in this form the only time in the NT) instead of the ubiquitous νόμος?  Why διαθῆκαι? Does Paul mean one covenant or more than one covenant, and if so which one is he referring to?

It may be, however, that one answer supplies the solution to all of the concerns.

First, there is a pattern of assonance in the endings of the main items in the verse that is indistinguishable in English but quite clear in Greek:  ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι.  This threefold pattern, called “homoioteleuton” in rhetoric, is the name given to a form of prose based on the repetition or near rhyme of the final syllables of certain key words[5]—in this case with: θεσία, α, αι, θεσία, α, αι.[6] While some scholars maintain that Paul is reflecting traditional material the list is found nowhere else in ancient Jewish literature.

If one were to maintain that the list is unique to Paul then this may be a primary example as to the skill and intentionality of the apostle as a communicator. However, not only has Paul uses a complicated assonant pattern scholars have also noticed that the six privileges of the Israelites can be broken up into three couplets:

ἡ υἱοθεσία ἡ νομοθεσία

ἡ δόξα ἡ λατρεία

αἱ διαθῆκαι αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι

When viewing the list in this format it appears that the individual couplets may be related.  Both υἱοθεσία (adoption) and νομοθεσία (Torah) “hark back to the exodus events when Israel was redeemed as God’s son and the covenant was ratified through the giving of the law.”[7]

The association of δόξα (glory) and λατρεία (service) may indicate the cultic relationship between the tabernacle and the Temple.[8]

While the pairing of διαθῆκαι (covenants) and ἐπαγγελίαι (promises) suggest the “covenants of promise mentioned in Ephesians 2:12[9], and Schreiner suggests that “With this pair of terms Paul moves beyond the past blessings of Israel to the future promises given to them.”[10]

If it is accepted that Paul dictated Romans to Tertius, a process which would go very slowly, and that this list in 9:4 is unique to Paul–and at the time there is no evidence to the contrary–then this verse may be an excellent example of the intentionality and skill of Paul the ancient rhetorician.

---

^[1] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8. (WBC 38A; Dallas, TX: Word, 1998), xxxix; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Volume 1 (ICC 31; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 1-2; Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: 1996), 1; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 2; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans Vol. I (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), xiii; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 2.

[2] Schreiner, Romans, 2.

[3] E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004) 66.

^[4] Dunn, Romans 9-16, 526.

[5] Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Louisville, KN: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 82.

[6] Jewett, Romans, 556.

[7] Schreiner, Romans, 483.

[8] Ibid., 484.

[9] Ibid., 485.

[10] Ibid.

Advertisement