Paul and Rhetoric Revisited: Reexamining Litfin’s Assumptions on Pauline Preaching in 1 Corinthians

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is fine to set your position in contrast to others. Please tone down your language to your opponent. You use the word wrong or wrongly nine times in your paper. You call Litfin "completely wrong" on page 5 footnote 24 and "simply wrong" on page 6. You use the words "major flaw" on page 9. It is one thing to disagree with someone and another to be so emphatic.

You are inconsistent with the Pastorals. Please reconsider your presentation of the Pastorals that you make on pages 5 and 8. Please remember that Pauline scholarship is not in agreement on Pauline authorship of these epistles.

It would aid your case on page 5 if you could suggest other ideas that informed Paul's apostleship whether they be Jewish or Christian. Refer to the leading scholars from those perspectives. A lengthy argument is not necessary.

Eliminate the word "dumfounding" on page 7

Delete "why this is such a sin in Litfin's view" on page 7

The paragraph regarding wisdom on page 9 is simplistic. It leaves out studies by Inkelaar, Davis, Rosner and Ciampa that take a Jewish viewpoint about wisdom, and Schütz, Furnish, and Jacobi who see a Christian content to wisdom. Reference to these studies in footnotes would be valuable. Another possibility is to delete the paragraph.

On page 9, you use the words "I think" several times. Rephrase. 

Delete the sentence about "moral atrocity" on page 9.

Delete "pontificating" on page 9. It is fine to say that he has overstated or "pressed his case too far."

Delete "eisegetically" on page 12.

Delete comment about how little research Litfin has completed on Acts on page 12.

Delete "ignorance" on page 12.

The fifth point takes up too many questions in New Testament scholarship. The relationship between Paul and Acts on this topic is worthy of another article. Handling it in a few paragraphs is insufficient unless you provide multiple references which are not present in this paper. Simply stating "the facts are" does not justify the treatment that has been provided.

The final sentence should be deleted. "So, he is either misinformed, refuses to admit the facts about Acts, or he simply has not thought out the implications of his conclusions about his reading of 1 Cor 1—4."

Who are the Acts scholars that you are referring to on page 13?

Footnote 23 uses the words "great inconsistency." Eliminate the word "great."

Footnote 25 is not necessary either and should be deleted. Please stick to the argument and do not criticize someone about doing their "exegetical homework."

Footnote 33 is speculative and not supported sufficiently and should be deleted.

Footnote 34 sounds "preachy" and is not sufficiently referenced. It assumes a definition of a "Christian preacher." It does not contribute directly to this article and should be removed.

Pauline letters are indeed ad hoc (p. 10). However, they are what is available. It could be said that Paul never provides a systematic theology. Consider rewording the first paragraph on page 10.

Your writing style places much of the interaction with Litfin especially but others in the footnotes. It would help the reader if more interaction was in the body of the paper.

You do not refer to Timothy Brookins work, Corinthian Wisdom, Stoic Philosophy, and the Ancient Economy. Cambridge: CUP, 2014. While not in the same category as Litfin, Pogoloff, and Witherington, he comments on the rhetorical debate in his first chapter and should be mentioned. While a little older than other sources, Andrew Clarke's, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6. Leiden: Brill, 1993 addresses the Greco-Roman background of the passage in question, too.

The paragraph that begins "Another issue is that Litfin does not clarify the term preaching" on page 10 should be shortened. This paragraph mixes modern concepts of homiletics with biblical studies. Since this is a biblical studies paper, it should focus on these matters rather than homiletics.

Please omit your potential title for Litfin's work on page 10. 

It would be better to focus on two points rather than five and pursue two of them in depth. Rather than citing the work of other scholars in footnotes, pointing to particular Greek words or passages from the ancient world would provide a more convincing paper.

A bibliography is missing for this paper.

Author Response

It is fine to set your position in contrast to others. Please tone down your language to your opponent. You use the word wrong or wrongly nine times in your paper. You call Litfin "completely wrong" on page 5 footnote 24 and "simply wrong" on page 6. You use the words "major flaw" on page 9. It is one thing to disagree with someone and another to be so emphatic.

 

• I have eliminated over half of these “wrong” occurrences. Yet, if something is factually wrong, how else is one to express that verbally? I replaced “wrong” for “incorrect/mistaken/erroneously” in a few places.

 

• To push back some, as a scholar in this area of rhetorical criticism, I have confidence to speak with authority when someone is right or wrong on a matter. Sometimes things are a matter of fact. Many of these points where I have disagreed with Litfin are matters of fact, not opinion. Why is it wrong to disagree and call his misinformation “wrong” or “incorrect”?

 

You are inconsistent with the Pastorals. Please reconsider your presentation of the Pastorals that you make on pages 5 and 8. Please remember that Pauline scholarship is not in agreement on Pauline authorship of these epistles.

 

• On pg. 5, I clearly acknowledged that the authorship of the Pastorals are disputed, and that if authentic, that that is the only place where Paul addresses himself as “herald.” I respectfully disagree with you that I need to change something here. I do not think I need to change anything regarding this, and I have not in my revision.

 

• On pg. 8, I acknowledged that the authorship is disputed. However, I added the phrase “assuming Pauline authorship.” I hope this helps. I already acknowledged this here and on pg. 5. I do hold to Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. That is my position, and this is my article espousing my viewpoints. So, I am not going to distract from my article’s main points to argue for or against a certain viewpoint on the Pastorals. Moreover, my argument here is hypothetical—I’m saying that 1 Cor 1—4 is not Paul’s theology of preaching; but if there was a place, it would be 2 Tim 4 (if Paul is the author). The main point is that 1 Cor 1—4 is not the place to do such a thing. The arguments over the authorship of the Pastorals should not interfere with the reader or my argument. And I will not distract my reader with these disputes.

 

It would aid your case on page 5 if you could suggest other ideas that informed Paul's apostleship whether they be Jewish or Christian. Refer to the leading scholars from those perspectives. A lengthy argument is not necessary.

 

• On pg. 6-7, I talk about Paul as an apostle/evangelist. I respectfully disagree that I need to add more here. My point is to rebut Litfin’s claim that Paul is a herald like an OT prophet. I have done so by showing that Paul identifies himself as an apostle who evangelizes. What more needs to be said? I have not added an argument here as you suggested, because I view it as unnecessary and would take away from the main point I am making. Moreover, what is here already expresses Paul’s role as an apostle vs. a so-called herald.

 

Eliminate the word "dumfounding" on page 7

 

• I replaced “dumfounding” with “curious.”

 

Delete "why this is such a sin in Litfin's view" on page 7

 

• I replaced this sentence with: “It is not entirely evident to me why Liftin views persuasion and faith as mutually exclusive”

 

The paragraph regarding wisdom on page 9 is simplistic. It leaves out studies by Inkelaar, Davis, Rosner and Ciampa that take a Jewish viewpoint about wisdom, and Schütz, Furnish, and Jacobi who see a Christian content to wisdom. Reference to these studies in footnotes would be valuable. Another possibility is to delete the paragraph.

 

• I have referenced these in a parenthetical citation and added them to my bibliography, though I was unable to find Schütz and Jacobi. This is what I added: “(Inkelaar 2011; Davis 1984; Rosner 2011; Ciampa and Rosner 2010; Furnish 1999; Brookins 2014; Clarke 2006).”

 

On page 9, you use the words "I think" several times. Rephrase.

 

• I used “I think” twice. I deleted the first one and kept the second one. The one I changed now says, “In this sense, Litfin mistakes rhetoric for a science.”

 

Delete the sentence about "moral atrocity" on page 9.

 

• I changed the sentence to this: “Why this is unfitting of an apostle according to Litfin is beyond my understanding.”

 

Delete "pontificating" on page 9. It is fine to say that he has overstated or "pressed his case too far."

 

• I did not say that Litfin was pontificating, but that Litfin assumes that Paul was pontificating. I changed the sentence to this: “…so Litfin assumes that Paul is laying out his systematic theology of preaching for all times and all peoples here.”

 

Delete "eisegetically" on page 12.

 

• I changed it to read: “…he mistakenly reads 2 Corinthians into 1 Corinthians.”

 

Delete comment about how little research Litfin has completed on Acts on page 12.

 

• I completely deleted that comment and changed the next sentence to start with, “However, many NT scholars…”

 

Delete "ignorance" on page 12.

 

• I replaced “ignorance” with “unawareness.”

 

The fifth point takes up too many questions in New Testament scholarship. The relationship between Paul and Acts on this topic is worthy of another article. Handling it in a few paragraphs is insufficient unless you provide multiple references which are not present in this paper. Simply stating "the facts are" does not justify the treatment that has been provided.

 

• Litfin is the one who makes these claims about the relationship between Paul and Acts; I am responding to his claims. I am not suggesting that the Paul of Acts is Pauline. I clearly state, “Luke’s portrayal of Paul.” I have added more references supporting the facts that Luke’s speeches in Acts are rhetorical. That’s my point—Luke uses rhetoric in the speeches of Paul (and others) in Acts. That is a basic fact, virtually agreed upon by all NT rhetorical critics. I have added parenthetical citations for this.

 

The final sentence should be deleted. "So, he is either misinformed, refuses to admit the facts about Acts, or he simply has not thought out the implications of his conclusions about his reading of 1 Cor 1—4."

 

• Even though this is my conclusion about point 5, I have deleted it.

 

Who are the Acts scholars that you are referring to on page 13?

 

• I have added parenthetical citations. Witherington, Keener, and Kennedy, to name a few.

 

Footnote 23 uses the words "great inconsistency." Eliminate the word "great."

 

• This now reads: “This is an inconsistency…”

 

Footnote 25 is not necessary either and should be deleted. Please stick to the argument and do not criticize someone about doing their "exegetical homework."

 

• I deleted footnote 25.

 

Footnote 33 is speculative and not supported sufficiently and should be deleted.

 

• I deleted footnote 33.

 

Footnote 34 sounds "preachy" and is not sufficiently referenced. It assumes a definition of a "Christian preacher." It does not contribute directly to this article and should be removed.

 

• I deleted footnote 34.

 

Pauline letters are indeed ad hoc (p. 10). However, they are what is available. It could be said that Paul never provides a systematic theology. Consider rewording the first paragraph on page 10.

 

• I don’t understand what needs reworded. That’s exactly what I said: Paul’s letters are ad hoc and they never provide a systematic theology. I agree with your statement. That’s exactly what I said in the first paragraph on pg. 10. I added a footnote that reads, “All of Paul’s letters are ad hoc and should never be considered systematic theologies or a modus operandi.”

 

Your writing style places much of the interaction with Litfin especially but others in the footnotes. It would help the reader if more interaction was in the body of the paper.

 

• I did not want to overquote Litfin in the body. I am of the opinion that footnotes are for this type of detailed interaction, along with citations. That is why I have that interaction there, and I keep the body clean and simplified with extra argumentation, scholarly support, and reasoning in footnotes.

 

You do not refer to Timothy Brookins work, Corinthian Wisdom, Stoic Philosophy, and the Ancient Economy. Cambridge: CUP, 2014. While not in the same category as Litfin, Pogoloff, and Witherington, he comments on the rhetorical debate in his first chapter and should be mentioned. While a little older than other sources, Andrew Clarke's, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6. Leiden: Brill, 1993 addresses the Greco-Roman background of the passage in question, too.

 

• I have added these two in my intext citations and bibliography.

 

The paragraph that begins "Another issue is that Litfin does not clarify the term preaching" on page 10 should be shortened. This paragraph mixes modern concepts of homiletics with biblical studies. Since this is a biblical studies paper, it should focus on these matters rather than homiletics.

 

• This is how I edited this paragraph:

 

• Another issue is that Litfin does not clarify the term “preaching.” “Preaching” is almost as unclear a term today as “rhetoric” (though he does define “rhetoric”). What he fails to do is to show that what underlies “preaching” in 1:17 is the technical term for “evangelism/evangelizing” (see II.2 above). Paul’s preaching at Corinth was not the same as modern preaching and homiletics. In fact, this was not at all what Paul was talking about in 1:17. “Preaching” (εὐαγγέλιον/εὐαγγελίζεσθαι) for Paul meant “evangelism.” This is an important distinction that Litfin neglects to point out.

 

Please omit your potential title for Litfin's work on page 10.

 

• I have omitted this.

 

It would be better to focus on two points rather than five and pursue two of them in depth. Rather than citing the work of other scholars in footnotes, pointing to particular Greek words or passages from the ancient world would provide a more convincing paper.

 

• The point of my paper is to refute Litfin. So, I have organized my article around refuting Litfin’s 5 major points. Litfin didn’t have 2 points, but 5. So, I am keeping the original structure of my article to fit the refutation of Litfin’s major points.

 

A bibliography is missing for this paper.

 

• I have added a bibliography. See below.

 

REFERENCES

 

Anderson, R. Dean Jr. 1999. Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Leiden: Brill.

 

Blomberg, Craig L. 1994. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

 

Brookins, Timothy A. 2014. Corinthian Wisdom, Stoic Philosophy, and the Ancient Economy. SNTSMS 159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Brown, Paul J. 2014. Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Cor 15: Connecting Faith and Morality in the Context of Greco-Roman Mythology. WUNT 2. Reihe 360. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

 

Bühner, J.-A. 1990. "ἀπόστολος." In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, 142–46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Christian, Timothy J. 2023. Paul and the Rhetoric of Resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15 as Insinuatio. Leiden: Brill.

 

Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. 2010. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Clarke, Andrew D. 2006. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1—6. Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster.

 

Collins, Raymond F. 1999. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina Series 7. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.

 

Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 2000. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Davis, James A. 1984. Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1:18—3:20 against the Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

 

Fee, Gordon D. 2014. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Friedrich, Gerhard. 1965a. “κηρύσσω.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, edited by Gerhard Kittel, 683–714. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Friedrich, Gerhard. 1965b. “εὐαγγελίζομαι.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2, edited by Gerhard Kittel, 707–21. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Furnish, Victor Paul. 1999. The Theology of the First Letter to the Corinthians. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Garland, David E. 2003. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

 

Hays, Richard B. 1997. First Corinthians. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

 

Inkelaar, Harm-Jan. 2011. Conflict over Wisdom: The Theme of 1 Corinthians 1—4 Rooted in Scripture. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 63. Leuven: Peeters.

 

Keener, Craig S. 2005. 1—2 Corinthians. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Keener, Craig S. 2012. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

 

Kennedy, George A. 1963. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

Kennedy, George A. 1984. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

 

Kennedy, George A. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon.

 

Litfin, Duane. 2015. Paul’s Theology of Preaching: The Apostle’s Challenge to the Art of Persuasion in Ancient Corinth. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.

 

Litfin, Duane. 1994. St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1—4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric. SNTSMS 79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Malcolm, Matthew R. 2013. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reversal in 1 Corinthians: The Impact of Paul’s Gospel on His Macro-Rhetoric. SNTSMS 155. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Merk, O. 1991. “κηρύσσω, κήρυγμα, κῆρυξ.” In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, 288–92. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Mihaila, Corin. 2009. The Paul-Apollos Relationship and Paul’s Stance toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric: An Exegetical and Socio-Historical Study of 1 Corinthians 1—4. LNTS 402. London: T&T Clark.

 

Mitchell, Margaret M. 1993. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

 

Mitchell, Margaret M. 2010. Paul, the Corinthians, and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Pogoloff, Stephen M. 1992. Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians. SBLDS 134. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

 

Porter, Stanley E. 2016. “‘When It Was Clear That We Could Not Persuade Him, We Gave Up and Said, “The Lord’s Will Be Done”’ (Acts 21:14): Good Reasons to Stop Making Unproven Claims for Rhetorical Criticism.” BBR 26: 533–45.

 

Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. 1964. “ἀπόστολος.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, edited by Gerhard Kittel, 407–45. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Rosner, Brian S. 2011. The Wisdom of the Cross: Exploring 1 Corinthians. Nottingham: Apollos.

 

Schreiner, Thomas R. 2001. “Interpreting the Pauline Epistles.” In Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.

 

Suetonius. 2007. The Twelve Caesars. Translated by Robert Graves. New York: Penguin.

 

Thiselton, Anthony C. 2000. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Thucydides. 1972. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner. Revised with an Introduction and Notes by M. I. Finley. London: Penguin.

 

White, John L. 1994. Where Is the Wise Man? Graeco-Roman Rhetoric and Paul's Gospel in Corinth. London: Continuum.

 

Winter, Bruce W. 2002. Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Witherington, Ben, III. 1995. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Witherington, Ben, III. 1998. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

 

Witherington, Ben, III. 2015. “Almost Thou Persuadest Me…”: The Importance of Greco-Roman Rhetoric for the Understanding of the Text and Context of the NT. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 58: 63–88.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The general argument includes some valid objections to Litfin’s work. The rhetorical thesis that Litfin represents continues to find strong support among interpreters, so the issue is current and the present study worth publishing. I’ll just note a few items where revision is needed.

Pages 4ff [esp. 6]. The author pushes their distinction between being a “herald” and “evangelizing” a little too far. In fact, Isa 61:1 has both the verb form, κηρύξαι, and the verb εὐαγγελίσασθαι in parallel clauses in the same sentence (“he sent me to preach good news (εὐαγγελίσασθαι) to the poor… to proclaim [κηρύξαι] release for captives…”), a text that Jesus of course applies to his own ministry (Luke 4).

Page 7. The author makes a fair point about the use of rhetoric by heralds. Actually there can be no doubt that they did use it. I think the thing for the author to make clearer is that, even if heralds were bound to adhere to the exact words given by the one who sent them, rhetorical theory as found in ancient treatises includes the dimensions of “memory” and “delivery” (fluctuation of volume, the shifting and manipulation of emotions, bodily gestures). In other words, “rhetoric” wasn’t just “style.”

Page 11. I’m not sure it’s true that “most rhetorical scholars identify 1 Corinthians as-a-whole as deliberative rhetoric” (and I’m not sure they think of themselves as “rhetorical scholars”). It wasn’t until Mitchell’s work (1993) that this thesis was put forward, and although many accept it, it has also had pushback.

Otherwise, the article needs to add some acknowledgement of (at least) the recent history of scholarship on 1 Cor 1-4. The author does not mention theories about the Corinthians’ wisdom that associate it with something other than rhetoric or sophistry (e.g., Hellenistic Jewish wisdom, Hellenistic mystery religion/philosophy syncretism, popular philosophy, even some particular Greek philosophy). An extensive critique of the rhetorical thesis of Litfin (and others) was made by Brookins (Corinthian Wisdom, 2014), who also put forward the thesis that the Corinthians’ wisdom is better understood in connection with Stoicism, or as argued in a more recent work, “sub-Stoicism” (Brookins, Rediscovering the Wisdom of the Corinthians, 2024). The author may not find these theories compelling, but if indeed any of the non-rhetorical options have validity, this would of course much more seriously undermine Litfin’s thesis. At least some acknowledgement of the recent history of scholarship should be included here.

 

Other

The author’s manner of discourse sometimes deviates from professional standards, particularly where the author criticizes Litfin’s intelligence, expresses immoderate emotional responses, or uses Litfin’s theological proclivities as a sort of argument against him. E.g. “It is dumbfounding why Litfin,” “is beyond me” (p. 7); “fine and good that Litfin wants to make this point” (p. 8); “beyond my understanding” (p. 9); “eisegetically” (p. 12); “Litfin’s ignorance of” (p. 12); “someone as theologically conservative as Litfin” (p. 13); “either misinformed, refuses to admit…, or simply has not thought out” (p. 13); “not something that Litfin would want to espouse” (p. 13); “arguments simply lack evidence,” including “simply exegesis” (p. 14); even “major flaw” could be somewhat alienating (p. 9). The style needs to be redressed before publication.

Page 2. Line 7. I’m not sure “espouses” works in this sentence.

Page 9. The author here offers his/her understanding of what rhetoric is. He/she does not, however, offer any of the definitions given in ancient treatises (Ps-Cicero, Cicero, Quintilian, Aristotle). This/these should be included.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above on the need to conform to professional style of discourse.

Author Response

 

The general argument includes some valid objections to Litfin’s work. The rhetorical thesis that Litfin represents continues to find strong support among interpreters, so the issue is current and the present study worth publishing. I’ll just note a few items where revision is needed.

 

• Thank you for confirming that. I tried to note that in my citations and footnotes where possible.

 

Pages 4ff [esp. 6]. The author pushes their distinction between being a “herald” and “evangelizing” a little too far. In fact, Isa 61:1 has both the verb form, κηρύξαι, and the verb εὐαγγελίσασθαι in parallel clauses in the same sentence (“he sent me to preach good news (εὐαγγελίσασθαι) to the poor… to proclaim [κηρύξαι] release for captives…”), a text that Jesus of course applies to his own ministry (Luke 4).

 

• Point well taken. However, Litfin takes it too far saying that Paul is a formal herald. My point is to show that Paul identifies himself as apostle and evangelist. Preaching (or heralding) can fall under evangelist/evangelism as I note. But the preaching (heralding) is in fact subservient to the role of evangelist. I do note too that “it is always possible that the difference in terms is one of stylistic variation.” My point is that Paul does not identify himself as herald (preacher), though he does preach (herald). Moreover, Litfin connects the OT prophets as primarily heralds. Again, while this can be part of their role—as you point out in Isa 61:1 and Luke 4—that is not their primary role. Moreover, I have demonstrated these things using the most authoritative lexica and Greek dictionaries. I think that I have argued this well and don’t need to change this here.

 

Page 7. The author makes a fair point about the use of rhetoric by heralds. Actually there can be no doubt that they did use it. I think the thing for the author to make clearer is that, even if heralds were bound to adhere to the exact words given by the one who sent them, rhetorical theory as found in ancient treatises includes the dimensions of “memory” and “delivery” (fluctuation of volume, the shifting and manipulation of emotions, bodily gestures). In other words, “rhetoric” wasn’t just “style.”

 

• Great! Yes, I have added a footnote citing this: “Greco-Roman rhetorical theory included memory and delivery, which meant fluctuation of volume, the shifting and manipulation of emotions, and bodily gestures ([Aristotle] 1936; [Cicero] 1989; Aristotle 1982; Cicero 1968; Quintilian 1960). Thus, rhetoric was not just verbal style.”

 

Page 11. I’m not sure it’s true that “most rhetorical scholars identify 1 Corinthians as-a-whole as deliberative rhetoric” (and I’m not sure they think of themselves as “rhetorical scholars”). It wasn’t until Mitchell’s work (1993) that this thesis was put forward, and although many accept it, it has also had pushback.

 

• It once was thought that 1 Corinthians was judicial/forensic rhetoric, but since Mitchell (who has had pushback as you note) the dominant view in scholarship is that it is deliberative (Kennedy, Watson, Witherington, Keener, Long, etc.). Some like Fee and Litfin, who follows Fee, still think it is judicial/forensic. When considering the ancient rhetorical primary sources, it clearly fits best within the deliberative genus. Most scholars that I have read lean more towards Mitchell than Fee these days. That’s why I have said “most.”

 

• Not all NT scholars do rhetorical criticism (nor should they, if they do not know much about rhetoric). What I mean by “rhetorical scholars” is NT scholars who do rhetorical criticism. I don’t see a problem with this term or distinction.

 

Otherwise, the article needs to add some acknowledgement of (at least) the recent history of scholarship on 1 Cor 1-4. The author does not mention theories about the Corinthians’ wisdom that associate it with something other than rhetoric or sophistry (e.g., Hellenistic Jewish wisdom, Hellenistic mystery religion/philosophy syncretism, popular philosophy, even some particular Greek philosophy). An extensive critique of the rhetorical thesis of Litfin (and others) was made by Brookins (Corinthian Wisdom, 2014), who also put forward the thesis that the Corinthians’ wisdom is better understood in connection with Stoicism, or as argued in a more recent work, “sub-Stoicism” (Brookins, Rediscovering the Wisdom of the Corinthians, 2024). The author may not find these theories compelling, but if indeed any of the non-rhetorical options have validity, this would of course much more seriously undermine Litfin’s thesis. At least some acknowledgement of the recent history of scholarship should be included here.

 

• Per Reviewer 1, I have added Brookins and others into my citations and discussion. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, especially the 2024 version.

 

Other

 

The author’s manner of discourse sometimes deviates from professional standards, particularly where the author criticizes Litfin’s intelligence, expresses immoderate emotional responses, or uses Litfin’s theological proclivities as a sort of argument against him. E.g. “It is dumbfounding why Litfin,” “is beyond me” (p. 7); “fine and good that Litfin wants to make this point” (p. 8); “beyond my understanding” (p. 9); “eisegetically” (p. 12); “Litfin’s ignorance of” (p. 12); “someone as theologically conservative as Litfin” (p. 13); “either misinformed, refuses to admit…, or simply has not thought out” (p. 13); “not something that Litfin would want to espouse” (p. 13); “arguments simply lack evidence,” including “simply exegesis” (p. 14); even “major flaw” could be somewhat alienating (p. 9). The style needs to be redressed before publication.

 

• I have toned all of this language down. Thank you for your comments.

 

Page 2. Line 7. I’m not sure “espouses” works in this sentence.

 

• I changed this to “claims.”

 

Page 9. The author here offers his/her understanding of what rhetoric is. He/she does not, however, offer any of the definitions given in ancient treatises (Ps-Cicero, Cicero, Quintilian, Aristotle). This/these should be included.

 

• I have included this with citations. Thank you!

 

See above on the need to conform to professional style of discourse.

 

• I have changed the tone to a more professional discourse. Thank you so much for your review and comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I assume the attached file will be shared with the author.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The article under review here (hereafter I will just write “A.”) addresses extremely important subject matter (Paul’s use of and attitude to Greco-Roman rhetoric) and critiques or, rather, refutes the formidable, but eccentric contribution of Duane Litfin (1994 and esp. 2015).

 

• Yes, this is a very important matter indeed, and Litfin’s contribution must be addressed in current scholarship.

 

My main problem with A. is largely also a problem I have with Litfin’s work: there are two discourses at play in both A. and Litfin, a discourse in normative evangelical hermeneutics and a discourse in Pauline historical exegesis. A.’s chosen keywords and overall design suggest a focus on the latter, but A. (in dialogue with “Litfin’s assumptions”) seems often to mix in the former. Both discourses are important (not least to this reviewer), but the historical problem of whether, how, and how much the historical authorial Paul interacted with Greco-Roman rhetoric is quite distinct and important enough to warrant distinct treatment and would/should address a wider scholarly audience. That is, everyone who wants to apply a reading of Paul’s letters normatively to 21st-century Christian ministry should be interested in understanding the attitude to rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 1-4, but not everyone who is interested in understanding the attitude to rhetoric in 1 Corinthians 1-4 will be interested in debates with Litfin about normative theology of preaching. The reader’s feeling of being sucked into the latter is reinforced by the ad hominem tone (notably, I do not care whether Litfin is a Calvinist… [A. 7 n. 33]). N.B.: I do understand and sympathize with A.’s frustration with

 

• In my edits, I have attempted to withdraw as many comments about normative evangelical hermeneutics as possible and keep the main thing the main thing: Pauline historical exegesis via ancient rhetoric. Of course, Litfin himself strongly mixes them, so to refute him I have been in the middle of those mixing of topics. But per your insight and request, I have attempted to keep the 21^st century application to a minimum where possible.

 

A.’s bibliographical interactions are thus skewed toward relatively ‘conservative’ references; A.’s discussion of scholarship on “What is Paul Rejecting in 1 Cor 1:18-2:5” mostly just lists Fee, Witherington, Keener, Hays, Winter, Ciampa and Rosner [whom I do not know], Garland, Thiselton (by Anglican standards, at least), Blomberg… I completely agree with A. that Litfin is disappointing on this fascinating problem, but on this Litfin is a more interesting read than A. suggests (“vacillates…” [2]). Paul does seem to be rejecting something and exegetically the audience ought to be able to understand what… Here and throughout, I would have welcomed some hint of appreciation by A. of the strengths in Litfin’s work, strengths which Litfin’s readers need and deserve help separating from his (I agree with A.) strange core claims!

 

• Well, by calling my references ‘conservative,’ have you made this my review about normative evangelical hermeneutics? I use some of the best rhetorical NT scholars out there today who are speaking specifically to these issues at hand. I do not care whether they are conservative or not. I care whether they are speaking to the issues of which Litfin is addressing. They mostly happen to be conservative. But I am not against non-conservative scholarship. It is simply a matter that these scholars are speaking directly to the issues in which I am addressing concerning Litfin.

 

• It is true that there are strengths to Litfin’s work, but when all of his main points are so incredibly off or not on par with current scholarship, I will focus on the main thing. Readers who agree with Litfin will already have the strengths of Litfin’s works in mind. I am attempting to show the blaring miscalculations in Litfin’s assessment of Paul and rhetoric. Of course, there are good things about Litfin’s work. But that goes without saying. Perhaps I need to say it. But I am going to focus on the main task at hand. Refute Litfin’s arguments, and I have done so in this article.

 

1. is right that “Litfin’s foremost claim is that Paul rejects the use of rhetoric not in general, but for preaching. Moreover, he does not explicitly claim that Paul rejects rhetoric for his letters,

but only for his preaching of the gospel” [A. 2]. This is a desperate move for Litfin, since we have no direct evidence for Paul’s preaching as distinct from his dictation of letters. On even the most ‘conservative’ reading of Acts, Paul’s speeches there can only be schematic summaries of longer discourses. A. correctly notes [13] that

 

“…if Litfin is correct that Paul outright rejects rhetoric for evangelism…, then there would be a huge contradiction between Paul and Luke’s portrayal of Paul. That is not something that I think someone as theologically conservative as Litfin would want to suggest.”

 

“…if Litfin is right about his interpretation of 1 Cor 2:1-5, then there would be a breach in consistency between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of his letters. This is not something that Litfin would want to espouse.”

 

• This claim of Litfin is most peculiar. Thank you for confirming that.

 

The Lucan Paul’s speeches in Acts are surely examples of Greco-Roman rhetoric as imagined by the author; whether they represent Paul’s actual practice in this, who knows? In any case, it is a (slightly crazy) merit of Litfin’s scholarship that he cannot conceal the irreconcilable tension between his and Acts’ constructions of Paul’s practice. The probability that Litfin would not want to suggest something that his book, in fact, suggests is, however, not, to this reviewer an argument for or against the suggestion.

 

• I think my point on this is that Litfin does not realize that that is what he is saying. His conclusion does suggest that, but Litfin does not seem to realize that it does. Is that not problematic? That an author’s main conclusion leads to a conclusion that the author would not make. That is a blaring weakness in Litfin’s argument and calls into question the validity of the conclusion.

 

I had hoped that A. would address Ryan Schellenberg’s work, admittedly on 2 Cor, but surely relevant (Schellenberg, Ryan S. Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education : Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10-13. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10783706.)

 

• Elsewhere I have an in-depth publication interacting with Schellenberg and Porter. I have added citation of Schellenberg in the article.

 

1. is aware of the important work of Margaret Mitchell. [Incidentally, in n. 45 A. cites Mitchell,

Reconciliation, without a full citation anywhere (Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of

Reconciliation : An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991).] But A. does not interact with Mitchell’s review of Litfin (1994) in JR 76/1 (1996) 106-108. This would be important as Litfin (2015) is in part an implicit response to Mitchell’s critiques—critiques with which A. would still largely agree in relation to Litfin’s newer work. Mitchell’s awareness of the sheer weirdness and artificiality of Litfin’s position in 1994 is even more relevant to the 2015 reprise: A. could have been much more helpful to readers in showing how odd Litfin’s position is both in relation to conservative scholarship and in relation to wider rhetorical criticism. Mitchell notes of Litfin (1994) that it gives quite serviceable information about the relation of Greco-Roman rhetoric and philosophy, curiously applied only to discussing Paul’s opponents, not Paul’s own discourse--what would be even truer of Litfin (2015). Litfin’s descriptive competence in Greco-Roman rhetoric makes his hermeneutical insistence on its irrelevance to Paul’s authentic preaching impressively striking, if not persuasive.

 

• I have corrected my citation of Mitchell and added her review of Litfin into my article. Still, my refutation in the article is much longer than her 3 pages. No one to my knowledge has provided a more in-depth refutation of Litfin’s points. That is why my article is needed in current scholarship.

 

• As a Paul and rhetoric scholar, Litfin displays his knowledge of Greco-Roman rhetoric and of Paul only to say that only Paul’s opponents (no writings of which we have today) were the ones using rhetoric, not Paul. This is quite odd. But the same could also be said about Stanley Porter, whom I have refuted elsewhere. Originally, this article was part of my research refuting Porter and Schellenberg. They literally do the same, and that is why I believe that so many Pauline scholars (who do not necessarily know much about Greco-Roman rhetoric) follow Litfin’s position. That is why this article is so important; refuting the very influential scholar who says that Paul does not use rhetoric.

 

An unmistakable assumption in Litfin’s work is the assumption that Paul’s historical evangelistic praxis MUST have been that of a herald, and therefore consciously NOT that of a persuader. Litfin belabours his claim that Paul’s self-understanding and praxis as an evangelist was as a herald in conscious rejection of rhetoric; A. unnecessarily follows [A. 4-9], where a simpler procedure would have sufficed. Paul does not claim to be a herald in any such distinctive sense, not even if 1 Tim 2:7 and 2 Tim 1:11 are authentic. Paul does not use κηρύσσειν narrowly to mean “perform the duties of a praeco.” (A. might benefit from the survey by VK Robbins and Greg Stevenson “KERUSSO” in Contexticon of New Testament Language https://contexticon.com/) Conversely, Paul can refer to himself in something close to his function as evangelist as “performing the duties of an ambassador” (2 Cor 5:20; πρεσβεύω). Paul does not call himself a prophet, if memory serves me, but I guess that is because of the possibility of confusion with other practices of prophecy among Jesus devotees. Still, Paul does emphatically assimilate his vocation and message as something like evangelist to prophetic vocations and messages (Gal 1). So, I agree with A. that Litfin fails to attach his ideal type of Christian herald to Paul. So, who cares whether “heralds were against rhetoric” [A. 7]?

 

• You say that my article follows Litfin’s thinking that Paul thought of himself as a herald rejecting rhetoric. I make no such claim. Instead, I argue that Paul identifies himself as an apostle and evangelist who preaches (or heralds). I do not claim that Paul rejects rhetoric for preaching. That is Litfin. I agree with you and so does my article. Paul is not a herald and not a prophet. The point I make is that even if Paul was a herald, that would not necessarily mean that he would be against rhetoric as heralds could be rhetorical. There is a distinction. Litfin says that heralds were against rhetoric; as you note, who cares? Paul wasn’t a herald. That’s my point. But I show that even if (for the sake of argument) Paul was a herald that Litfin is still wrong. That is to my benefit.

 

• I was unable to access the Robbins and Stevenson resource through contexticon. It was only for paying subscribers. So I will not be able to add that into my discussion.

 

Throughout A. too much of the argument, and over-long quotations from Litfin, are embedded in

footnotes.

 

• I have deleted some of these. But another reviewer praised me for this. That reviewer wanted these out of the footnotes and into the body of the article more. So, I think it is a matter of opinion. I have reduced some of them. But it is helpful for readers to see exactly what Litfin has said. In this way, Litfin is accessible without having to read his entire 392-page book.

 

Overall, A. feels to me like an interesting discussion paper for an enjoyable graduate seminar; I certainly feel that Litfin’s need to historicize his kerygmatic hermeneutic is unwarranted. Neither historically nor theologically, does Litfin understand Paul’s theology of preaching, if Paul had one. I do not, however, see that A. makes much contribution to research on Pauline rhetorical criticism. I therefore recommend against its publication in anything like its present form.

 

• I respectfully disagree, and that was not the assessment of my other reviewers. You say yourself at the beginning of this review that a thorough refutation of Litfin is still needed. This article provides that. This article is a needed contribution to the field of NT rhetorical criticism. You are right that my article is not some new research on some particular topic. But it is nonetheless a scholarly article tackling an important issue and refuting a very influential, misguided scholar in the field on NT rhetoric. I ask that you reconsider your assessment given my improvements made to the article. Thank you for your time, thoughts, and insights for the improvement of my article. I have to the best of my ability implemented as much as I could per your suggestions. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is greatly improved. While I happen to agree with many of your viewpoints about Litfin and the overemphasis on Sophists, the language in this paper should still be less combative. If the goal is to persuade scholars and scholarship, one can disagree  without using the language that is found in this paper.

Author Response

I have made more changes in toning things down from the editor. This is what I changed and said to the editor. Please let me know if there are any more places that need toned down:

I removed "pejorative rant."

 

I already removed "there is little indication that he has done his exegetical homework."

 

I already removed "dumfounding."

 

I replaced "misguided" with "incorrect." I don't understand how saying this is inappropriate or unprofessional. It is my professional, scholarly opinion that he is wrong about something--which he is. Why is that unprofessional to say that another scholar is incorrect on something that they are incorrect about? That is not unprofessional. That is the duty of scholars to hold each other accountable for spreading misinformation. To say that someone's view is misinformed--and it actually is--is not unprofessional. It is appropriate and needed. Then, take into account how widely accepted this scholar's misinformation is. Someone needs to say it. I am saying it, and I believe that using the term "misguided" or "incorrect" is not disrespectful. It is true and accurate. I mean no disrespect. This is a matter of fact.

 

I already removed “ignorance” and had replaced it with “unawareness.” Again, Litfin’s work does not show an awareness of current research on Acts. Why is it so wrong and unprofessional to say such a thing, when my article is partly a critique of Litfin’s work? “Unawareness” seems more appropriate than “ignorance,” so I changed it to that.

 

If my research had influenced many scholars and my research was wrong or incorrect, I would want someone to clearly show where I made an error in my thinking or research (or lack thereof). That’s an important part of scholarship. I’m sorry that you feel my tone is too much. I have tried to tone it down as much as possible. Please let me know any other places in the manuscript where I need to tone things down. I have changed or removed every instance that the reviewer pointed out to me. I have changed or removed every instance that you have pointed out to me. If you or the reviewer find any more places, I will happily change or remove that. Please let me know. I am happy with the manuscript as it is now with these changes you have suggested. If you or the reviewer are still not happy with it, please let me know, and I will further make changes. Thank you for your feedback.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is much improved with its language. The conclusions were fine previously but the language would unnecessarily undermine the points made.

As a help for making scholarship be heard and understood, please be aware that how one addresses one's opponent may be as important as the argument itself. Using words like misguided or incorrect should be fine. In an international audience, some may even still consider these words to be unnecessarily confrontational. Certainly not all scholars are from cultures that are so confrontational

Using a word like "unaware" is less confrontational and better than "not doing exegetical homework" or "wrong."  Using such a word like "unaware" implies that the author has worked on something but inadvertently missed something. That approach is more agreeable and will get a better hearing which I believe is what you really want.