What has Athens to Do with Patmos? Rhetorical Criticism of the Revelation of John (1980—2005)

Abstract

While Revelation does not immediately recommend itself for analysis along the lines of Greek and Latin rhetoric, scholars have made considerable progress analyzing the persuasive strategies of Revelation from this methodological orientation. Energetic attention has been given to John's strategies for establishing authority for his message and deconstructing the authority of rival 'orators'. A number of articles have identified and analyzed implicit and explicit enthymemes in Revelation, the deployment of typical epideictic and deliberative topics, and the contributions of intertexture to rational persuasion. Study of John's style has demonstrated John's finesse and purposefulness in deploying standard figures of thought and diction, while investigation of rhetorical arrangement has generally proceeded in ways that have respected Revelation's complexity and its distance from the standard forms of oratory. Although critics generally affirm the importance of John's appeals to the emotions, this line of investigation has been the least developed.

Seeing Christ through Hearing the Apocalypse: An Exploration of John’s Use ofEkphrasisin Revelation 1 and 19

“…Likewise, although there are epideictic topics, such as praise and blame, 4 these too function in a way that serves Revelation’s overall deliberative aim (cf. deSilva 2008: 259). 5 Two things should be kept in view when answering this issue: (1) All three species of rhetoric can be helpful for analyzing specific passages in Revelation, some of which may be construed more closely to forensic or epideictic categories, even if the overall aim of Revelation is seen as deliberative; and (2) Aristotle’s categories, even though they are transferable, were developed within the specific social context of ancient Greece (civic oratory; cf.…”

“…Moreover, it presents future judgment in a way that motivates hearers to a particular course of action, incorporating forensic topics within the scope of deliberative rhetoric (cf. deSilva 2008: 260-61). Likewise, although there are epideictic topics, such as praise and blame, 4 these too function in a way that serves Revelation’s overall deliberative aim (cf.…”

“…A number of rhetorical-critical studies have followed after these two pioneering works: Kirby 1988; Diefenbach 1994; Royalty 1997, 1998; Carey 1999; Rossing 1999; Duff 2001; Longenecker 2001; Nikolakopoulos 2001; Johns 1998, 2003; Humphrey 2007: 151-94; Perry 2009; deSilva 2009; Harker 2012. For helpful surveys of the state of research on rhetoric and Revelation, see deSilva 2008; Whitaker 2015a: 18-27.…”

“…1.2.1 (Freese, LCL)). Methodologically, deSilva observes that rhetoric ‘provides a “vocabulary” for discussing the persuasive strategies of Revelation in terms that correspond to first-century analyses of public discourse’ (deSilva 2008: 257). The question as to whether or not the author of Revelation had classical rhetorical training must be left open, although his ability to compose in Greek, even if it is not stylistically up to par, suggests that he had received at least some exposure to rhetorical theory.…”

“… 6. As Kennedy states: ‘In a single discourse there is sometimes utilization of more than one species … but a discourse usually has one dominant species which reflects the author’s major purpose in speaking or writing’ (1984: 19). Many agree that Revelation possesses an overall deliberative character: Blount 2009: 18; Yarbro Collins 1984: 144; deSilva 2008: 258-62; 2009: 9-11, 82-83; Kirby 1988: 200; Koester 2014: 135. …”