The rhetoric of the father

This study will utilize tools developed by and from ancient Western rhetoric for

understanding the 10 lectures of Proverbs 1-9 as attempt by an author/speaker (the

"father") to persuade an audience (the "son[s]"). Having dealt With the issue of

definition and the validity of utilizing Western rhetorical theory; for the interpretation

of non-Western texts, I will now articulate the specific procedure of rhetorical analysis

that I will follow in the next three chapters. This analysis will progress in four

overlapping steps: Text and Translation, The Limits of the Rhetorical Unit, Analysis of

the Artistic Proofs, and Summary.
1. Text and Translation

The rhetorical analysis of each of the ten lectures will begin with my own

translation of the text, including notes that attend to the fundamental issues of textual

and grammatical criticism. Although my primary interest is neither text critical nor

grammatical, it is necessary to establish the text and clarify any grammatical

ambiguities in order to lay a foundation for subsequent analysis. The uncertain value

76

of other textual witnesses to Proverbs 1-9 causes me to give preference to the MT.⁹⁷

This second exercise roughly corresponds to the first step in Kennedy's

rhetorical method. Here, I will draw on both form critical and rhetorical insights to

determine the boundaries of the rhetorical unit to be studied. However, against

Kennedy, it is not my immediate interest to situate these discrete rhetorical units

within the rhetoric of larger units, i.e., Proverbs 1-9 or the book of Proverbs. This

delimitation follows a long standing hypothesis regarding the compositional history of

Proverbs 1-9, namely, that the original core of these chapters was the collection of ten

lectures to which the interludes were later added (see pp. 1, 9, 292-294). Thus, my

primary objective is the analysis of the individual speeches as individual speeches and

_______________________
⁹⁷ The manuscripts from Qumran offer almost no assistance for the study of the ten

lectures. Two fragments of Proverbs have been recovered from cave 4 (4Q102 and 4Q103),

but not yet published. More, these fragments attest to only one verse from the lectures

(4Q102; 2:1).

The LXX is of greater, albeit, limited assistance. According to J. Cook (The

Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? VTSup 69 [Leiden: Brill: 1997],

1), in addition to smaller differences (e.g., the variation of subject/object, plural instead of

singular) the LXX Proverbs differs from the MT in many respects, e.g., minuses, pluses,

chapters placed in a different order, and verses within chapters in a different order. The

nature or origin of these differences is uncertain. Cook (2) summarizes the problem, "If they

[the differences] are ascribed to the translator, then this version of the book of Proverbs will

be less useful for the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. However, the contrary will apply

if the deviations could be retroverted to different Hebrew Vorlagen." After careful study of

Proverbs 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9, Cook concludes that the greatest number of differences are due to

the creativeness of the translator. Thus, "the Septuagint version of Proverbs should be treated

with the utmost caution when utilized for text-critical purposes" (334). See also E. Tov,

"Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs," in Of

H.W. Attridge, et al. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 43-56.

77

the comparison of the rhetoric of these speeches. Within this task, the larger context

individual analyses are completed, I will propose a redactional hypothesis for the

relationship of these lectures.
3. Analysis of the Artistic Proofs

Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the faculty of discovering the possible means of

persuasion in reference to any subject whatever.”⁹⁹ For Aristotle, such discovery

primarily involved invention: planning a discourse and the arguments to be used in it

Such invention may be based on external proofs (inartistic), which the speaker utilizes,

but does not invent (e.g., the evidence of witnesses, documents, laws), or artistic

are three and only three kinds of artistic proof:

The first depends upon the moral character of the speaker, the second upon

putting the hearer into a certain frame of mind, the third, upon the speech itself,

in so far as it proves or seems to prove.¹⁰⁰

According to Kennedy, these three types of proof, typically designated as ethos,

encompass the basic dimensions of a literary work: the author, the audience, and the

_______________________
⁹⁸ The interpretation of the lectures within the context of Proverbs 1-9 is necessary only if

the focus of the interpretation is Proverbs 1-9 as a whole. My dissertation is concerned with

the stage of literary development prior to the addition of the interlude3.
⁹⁹ Aristotle, The "Art" of Rhetoric, 15.
¹⁰⁰ Ibid., 17.
¹⁰¹ Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 15.

78

the lectures. Consequently, my analysis concentrates on the artistic proofs in the

following order.
a. Logos

Logos refers to the logical or rational development of the argument in the

discourse. According to Aristotle, logical arguments may exist in two forms: inductive

or deductive. Inductive reasoning utilizes a series of examples to draw a general

conclusion. Deductive reasoning utilizes enthymemes. Rhetorical enthymemes most

often take the form of a statement generally accepted to be true or probable by the

audience and a conclusion based on the statement.¹⁰³ Again, in Classical theory, both

_______________________

(Louisville: Westminster Press, 1993), 136.

Kennedy has distinguished these terms in different and contradictory ways. Most recently he

has claimed (New Testament Interpretation, 16-17) that the epicheireme employs a full

statement of major premise, minor premise, and conclusion, while the enthymeme assumes or

suppresses one of these parts, i.e., the part already accepted by the audience. This is a

reversal of his earlier claim (The Art of Persuasion in Greece, 97-98): "Later writers,

misunderstanding Aristotle, sometimes regarded such suppression as the factor in

distinguishing an enthymeme from a syllogism and adopted the term epicheireme to refer to a

rhetorical syllogism in full form. In the last hundred years there has been a general return to

the Aristotelian definition. If the premises are scientific, demonstrable, known to be

absolutely true, the argument is a syllogism. If they are only true for the most part, or usually

true, the argument is an enthymeme." For the purposes of this dissertation, I adopt Kennedy's

most recent definition of enthymeme (suppression of one of the premises) and epicheireme

(full statement of major premise, minor premise, and conclusion).

inductive and deductive arguments are drawn from topics or places a rhetor may look

for material to develop his/her argument.¹⁰⁴

My analysis of the logos of the lectures will also include the element of

arrangement. Typically, in the theory of classical rhetoric, arrangement (i.e., the

composition of a unified structure) follows logos as the second of the five canons of

speech composition and delivery.¹⁰⁵ Yet Kennedy observes that, in practice, classical

rhetoricians usually included arrangement in their discussion of invention.¹⁰⁶ So, here,

I will consider this element in its role as a contributor to the development of the logos

or logical argument of the lecture.

Each analysis, then, will begin with an identification of the arrangement of the

lecture utilizing concepts from Western rhetorical theory, e.g., Proem, proposition,

the lectures. For example, each lecture begins with the proem “my son” or "sons"

(e.g., 1:8, 3:1, 4:1) and asserts a proposition (e.g., 1:8-9, 3:1-2,4:1-2) that is

elaborated and defended in a section of proof (e.g., 1:10-18, 3:3-10, 4:3-9). Most

lectures also include an identifiable epilogue (e.g., 1:19, 2:20-22, 3:11-12). The proper

identification of these elements is important for understanding the unique rhetoric of

each lecture. For example, the failure to recognize the epilogue of the first lecture

(1:19) has led many scholars to miss the hyperbolic nature of the rhetoric. In the

_______________________
¹⁰⁴ See Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece, 100-02; and New Testament

Interpretation, 20-21.
¹⁰⁵ The other canons are style, memory, and delivery.
¹⁰⁶ Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 23.
80

same way, the failure to identify and recognize the controlling function of the

proposition in each lecture has led to a lack of appreciation for the differing aim(s),

proofs, and coherence of each lecture: Thus, in this section, I will identify the

constituent parts of the rhetoric and seek to understand their role in the logical or

rational development of the rhetor's argument.

b. Ethos

The second artistic proof is ethos. Kennedy describes the concept of ethos in

Classical theory as

the credibility that the author or speaker is able to establish in his work. The

audience is induced to trust what he says because they trust him, as a good

man or an expert on the subject. In Aristotelian theory ethos is something

entirely internal to a speech, but in practice the authority which the speaker

brings to the occasion is an important factor . . . ¹⁰⁷

Frequently, in the ten lectures of Proverbs 1-9, there is special concern for developing

the authority or the moral character of the speaker (the father), against the ethos of the

opposition, e.g., the wicked men (1:8-19, 2:12-15) and the seductive woman (2:16-19).

Here, I will identify the devices that develop the ethos of the speaker and their

function in the rhetoric. In other lectures, there is an apparent lack of concern or need

to develop the speaker's ethos (e.g., 3:1-12, 21-35). Again, I will identify the devices

that are present, but I will also explore the reason(s) for the relative lack of concern

for the speaker's ethos.

_______________________
¹⁰⁷ Ibid., 15.
81

c. Pathos

The third artistic proof is pathos. Pathos regards the emotions of the audience

and how rhetors may stimulate or manipulate their emotions, e.g., anger, fear, or love,

to achieve their rhetorical goals. Typically, pathetic appeals are concentrated in the

epilogue or final stages of a speech. However, rhetorical analysis must not restrict

pathos to the final appeal, but be sensitive to pathetic proofs that are developed or

employed throughout the speech. Here, several helpful questions will guide my

analysis: What persuasive devices engage the emotions or sentiments of the audience?

Does the text primarily threaten (the pathos of fear), promise (the pathos of pleasure),

or both? Is there extensive use of pathetic appeals or does the rhetor rely on the logic

of the argument (logos) or his own authority (ethos) to accomplish his goals?

The completion of the preceding analysis should provide the necessary data for

understanding various aspects of the rhetoric of each lecture. Thus, my analysis of

each lecture will conclude with a synthesis of my findings, including the rhetorical

situation of the lecture, the rhetorical problem addressed by the speaker, and the

strategy (i.e., the convergence of logos, ethos, and pathos) employed by the speaker to

confront and remedy the problem.

Undergirding my conclusions, as well as my analyses, is the a priori

assumption that the speaker/writer was of at least minimal rhetorical competency. In

other words, I assume that each speaker/writer spoke in a self-conscious attempt to

persuade an audience, designed each speech for suasion, and expected that each lecture
82

had at least a reasonable chance at success. It is my judgment that this initial

assumption is confirmed by the rhetorical analysis of the lectures. Thus, throughout

this dissertation, I will support this thesis with evidence of careful rhetorical

composition and artistry in the ten lectures of Proverbs 1-9.
Summary: Rhetorical Criticism

This chapter has established the theoretical foundations and the practical

procedures for my rhetorical analysis of the ten lectures of Proverbs 1-9. My

methodology does not exist in a vacuum. Consequently, I have sought to define my

practice of rhetorical interpretation vis-a-vis both ancient and contemporary rhetorics.

Rhetorical criticism has had a long history in the interpretation of biblical texts.

However, as my survey has demonstrated, this history has not been static. Primarily

due to the influence of modernism, rhetoric suffered a sharp decline in the late 19th

and early 20th centuries. Conversely, the surge of postmodernism in more recent

years has reawakened interest in rhetoric.

Like its ancient counter-part, contemporary rhetorics includes a plurality of

both harmonious and competing theories. Each of these contemporary practices raises

or emphasizes important critical issues in the discussion of rhetoric. Thus, in assessing

these methods, I have been able to address the underpinnings of my own method.

Against Muilenburg's rhetoric, I define rhetorical criticism as the systematic analysis of

the suasive features of a discourse. With The Postmodern Bible's New Rhetoric, I

agree that rhetoric is the tool of ideology. However, their practice of rhetorical

criticism as cultural criticism is not the goal of this dissertation. My rhetorical theory

83

also fits within the interpretive analytics proposed by Vernon Robbins, primarily as an

my aim does not include the correlation of diverse methodology or rewriting the

history of the wisdom tradition in ancient Israel.

The contemporary rhetorician to which I an most indebted is George Kennedy.

Although our practices differ slightly, I, like Kennedy, rely heavily on the conceptual

theory and terminology of ancient Western rhetoric. Thus, my rhetorical analysis will

concentrate on the artistic proofs of the ten lectures as a means of understanding the

rhetorical situation, the rhetorical problem, and the rhetor's strategy for resolving this

problem. With this definition in hand and having already situated this dissertation

within the interpretive web of Proverbs 1-9, I now turn my analysis of the ten lectures.

Chapter Three
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUP I:

THE CALLS TO APPRENTICESHIP
The ten lectures of Proverbs 1-9 appear to assert similar propositions. They

address a "son" or "sons," urge the son(s) to listen, not forget, or guard the father’s

teaching, and affirm the value of this teaching.¹ However, a curious diversity exists

within this similarity that scholars have yet to explain adequately.² Nineteen different

Hebrew verbs occur in the initial appeals of the lectures (e.g., listen, pay attention,

guard).³ While many of these terms are synonymous, or near synonymous, others

suggest varied emphases in the father's rhetorical objectives. The father also affirms

the value of his teaching in different ways. At times, he claims that his teaching is the

key to a successful life (e.g., 3:1-2, 3:21-22). At other times, he affirms his teaching

by promising that it will rescue the son from the seductive rhetoric of the alien woman

_______________________
¹ Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs, 34.
² Whybray (Proverbs, NCB [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994], 23-24) writes: "It

is remarkable - and no satisfactory explanation has been found for this - that although in

every case the language used is similar, it is never quite identical: a remarkable number of

synonyms is used, and often the same words occur in slightly different combinations." (italics

mine)
³ fmw (1:8, 4:1,10), wFn (1:8, 6:20), Hql (2:1), Npc (2:1, 7:1), bwq (2:2, 4:1,20, 5:1), hFn

(2:2, 4:20, 5:1), xrq (2:3, 7:4), Ntn (2:3), wqb (2:4), wpH (2:4), Hkw (3:1, 4:5), rcn (3:1, 21,

5:2, 6:20), zUl (3:21, 4:21), bzf (4:2), rwq (6:21, 7:3), dnf (6:21), btk (7:3), rmx (7:4), rmw

(4:21, 5:2, 7:1, 2)

85

(e.g., 6:20-24, 7:1-5). Further, there is remarkable variety in the rhetorical strategies

This dissertation will address the diversity within the ten lectures and thus

breach the present scholarly impasse by the use of rhetorical criticism. It is my thesis

that the ten lectures of Proverbs 1-9 may be classified into three groups or subsets on

the basis of their rhetoric, namely their differing propositions and rhetorical strategies.

Against the conclusion of form critics, I maintain that the various combinations of

verbs in the propositions do not make the same appeal.⁴ Rather, analysis of these

verbs reveals three distinct groups: 1) verbs which urge the son to listen to the father

and receive his wisdom (fmw, wFn, Hql, hFn), or to actively pursue the

acquisition of the father's wisdom (Npc, xrq, Ntn, wqb, wpH), 2) verbs which

emphasize not forgetting (Hkw), abandoning (bzf), or losing (zUl) the father's

instruction, and 3) verbs which advise the son to guard (rcn) or keep watch over

(rmw) the father's teaching.

The three groups of verbs correspond to three different types of lectures (see

table 1). One group of lectures (1:8-19, 2:1-22, 4:1-9, 4:10-19) utilizes the first group

of verbs to urge the son to listen to the father's instruction and actively pursue

wisdom. Significantly, these lectures do little more than appeal for apprenticeship.

The actual teaching of the father is not explicated. Another group of lectures (3:1-12,

3:22-35, 4:20-27) employs the second group of verbs that emphasize not forgetting

_______________________

yet the basic meaning is always the same."

Table 1.--Concurrence of Verbs in the Propositions of the Ten Lectures

the father's teaching (with incidental use of the third and first groups).⁵ These lectures

do explicate the teaching of the father through a series of concise imperatives on a

variety of subjects. Finally, a third subset of lectures (5:1-23, 6:20-35, 7:1-27) takes

up the group of verbs that stress the importance of guarding and watching over the

father's instruction. This appeal corresponds to the longest lectures (with the exception

of 2:1-22), which provide sustained teaching on a single topic, namely, the danger of

the strange/foreign woman. Thus, in each lecture, the nuance of the opening appeal

_______________________

listen occur in all three types of lectures (e.g., 4:20-21, 5:1-2; see Table 1). Nonetheless, each

lecture places emphasis on one of these three categories.

87

corresponds to the content of the lecture.⁶ Form critics have overlooked this

In this and the next two chapters, I will test the validity of this rhetorical

classification of the lectures into three subsets. In this chapter, I will examine the

rhetoric of the first group or type of lecture, namely the four lectures that urge the son

to listen to the father and actively pursue wisdom, but that do not explicate the actual

teaching of the father. Chapters four and five will offer analysis of the second and

third groups, respectively.