I just finished reading Alex Damm's "*Ornatus*: An Application of
Rhetoric to the Synoptic Problem" (*NovT* 45 [2003] 338-64), and have a
few comments.

I'm troubled by the way Damm uses the so-called rules of rhetoric. In
adopting the terminology of rhetorical handbooks, it is not clear what
Damm is inferring about the evangelists: Is he saying that they
consciously followed the rhetorical technique prescribed by handbooks
(either directly or indirectly), or is he merely using these devices as
a cognitive filter for understanding the rhetoric of the more freestyle
rhetoric of the evangelists. To begin with the latter: Damm does not
come out and say that the evangelists were following rhetorical
handbooks, or that they were indirectly influenced by them. But if
that's *not* the case, then I fail to see why his discussion of
redactional improvements needs the language of the rhetorical handbooks
in the first place. We would have gotten along fine with those terms
that have already infiltrated NT studies ("ring structure", etc.).

And if Damm implies that the evangelists *were* consciously in touch
with a rhetorical tradition, then we are faced with a serious problem
that pervades other areas of NT studies (esp. Pauline studies): Scholars
often identify a particular rhetorical (incl. stylistic) trope that they
find in a NT author with a trope discussed in detail by Greek
authorities on rhetoric, and assume that the NT author was consciously
or subconsciously following the well-defined prescriptions of
professional rhetoric. While I see little that militates against the
possibility that NT authors were affected by these professional
guidelines, I also see little reason to suppose it. After all, where
did these rhetorical guidelines come from in the first place?
Certainly, they are largely refinements of *universal* structural
elements of argumentation. *Everyone* knows that a well-structured
argument works much better than a careless rehearsal of the facts. In
other words, the writers of rhetorical guides drew their material from
the world of universal discursive logic, and this fact alone makes it
difficult to tell whether a specific encounter with the rhetorical
elements of this logic reflects the pre-scholarized base of the
rhetoricians' knowledge, or is somehow a product of the rhetoricians'
refinement of that knowledge (which seems to have consisted mostly of
taxonomy).

A professor of mine once said that the best way to learn how to write
clearly is to read books that are written clearly: it simply rubs off.
This, I think, is how 90% of rhetorical tropes are learned. When Jay
Leno's writers use enthymeme in a joke, are they aware of the fact? I
doubt it, and yet they use enthymeme brilliantly. Why then do scholars
suppose that when Paul uses enthymeme he is probably reflecting a
technical knowledge of rhetoric?

In other words, I fail to see how the knowledge of rhetorical handbooks
can help explain the evangelists' redactional improvements.

There are other problems with Damm's article, as well. Most
significantly, he uses "2DH" when he means "Markan priority". He does
this constantly, as he very often claims that Matthew's and Luke's
improvement of Mark is more likely than Mark's improvement of Matthew
and Luke, referring to this as a boon for the "2DH" all the while
failing to note how the simultaneity of Matthew's and Luke's
improvements problematize the Q hypothesis. This confusion between
"2DH" and "Markan priority" accounts for the logical blunder in the
abstract to Damm's article, already noted on this e-list.


John C. Poirier
Middletown, Ohio





Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...