2
Though out of vogue in most of the twentieth century,
2
rhetorical criticism of
Scripture has indeed re-emerged in recent decades as evidence by the burgeoning
literature.
3
But one may ask, "By what kind of rhetorical criticism?"
4
This study pursues a
socio-historical, synchronic analysis of the rhetoric of Jesus and Matthew in its first
century setting relying heavily on a synthesis of classical rhetorical theory as a
methodological lens.
5
This paper argues that the free-running arguments in the Temple followed the
challenge-and-riposte pattern of confrontation that was typical of the agonistic culture
6
of
Mediterranean antiquity and that these confrontations were characterized by rabbinic-
styled interrogations (which themselves reflected strongly the influence of culturally-
absorbed Hellenistic rhetorical principles and conventions).
7
Matthew's recounting of
Jesus' rhetorical successes in shaming his opponents to silence projected acquired-honor
upon Jesus which forwarded the Evangelist's own narrative rhetoric proving Jesus was
2
Burton L. Mack in Rhetoric and the New Testament (Fortress Press, 1990), 11, explained, that
"rhetoric slipped away from the curricula of the university. The knowledge of rhetoric actually was lost to us in
the twists and turns of twentieth-century scholarship. We now know that interest in rhetoric waned around the
turn of the century, ushering in approximately four generations of scholarship without formal training in rhetoric
and with very little knowledge of the tradition of rhetorical criticism.
3
George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (University of North
Carolina Press, 1984); Hans Deiter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary of Paul's Letter to the Churches in
Galatia, in Hermeneia Commentary (Fortress, 1979); Duane F. Watson, ed., Persuasive Artistry: Studies on
New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (Sheffield, 1991); Watson and Hauser, Rhetorical
Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehens ive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method (Brill, 1994); Stanley
E. Porter, Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, JSNT Sup. no. 90
(Sheffield, 1993); Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, eds., Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essay form the
1994 Pretoria Conference, JSNT Sup. no. 131 (Sheffield, 1996); Porter and Olbricht, eds., The Rhetorical
Analysis of Scripture: Essay from the 1995 London Conference. JSNT Sup. no. 146 (Sheffield, 1997); Porter
and Dennis L. Stamps, eds., The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu
Conference, JSNT Sup. no. 180 (Sheffield, 1999); and Porter, ed., Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the
Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.-A.D. 400, (Brill, 1997); Carl Joachim Clässen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New
Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
4
Clifton Black, in "Keep Up with Recent Studies: Rhetorical Criticism and Biblical Interpretation,"
Expository Times 100 (1989), 256, asked provocatively: "How is rhetorical criticism to be defined? Is it the
study of poetic structure, classical analysis of persuasive discourse, reflection on strategies for achieving
cultural consolidation, or synonymous with narratology? Admittedly, these possibilities are not mutually
exclusive; nor, however, are they interchangeable.
5
It is intentionally not based in post-modern rhetorical hermeneutic, reader-response focused, and
thus it is not diachronic but rather grounded in exegesis of authorial intent.
6
David Arthur de Silva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture
(InterVarsity, 2000) is an excellent primer on the hermeneutical significance of Mediterranean honor-shame
culture from a refreshingly evangelical perspective. See also, Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World:
Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3rd Rev. & expanded ed. (Westminster/John Knox, 2001).
7
Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans, 1999), 506; Jerome H.
Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), 20-21.