Winner of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies 2015 F. W. Beare Award Did Paul have formal training in Greco-Roman rhetoric, or did he learn what he knew of persuasion informally, as social practice? Pauline scholars recognize the importance of this question both for determining Paul’s social status and for conceptualizing the nature of his letters, but they have been unable to reach a consensus. Using 2 Corinthians 10–13 as a test case, Ryan Schellenberg undertakes a set of comparisons with non-Western speakers—most compellingly, the Seneca orator Red Jacket—to demonstrate that the rhetorical strategies Paul employs in this text are also attested in speakers known to have had no formal training in Greco-Roman rhetoric. Since there are no specific indicators of formal training in the way Paul uses these strategies, their appearance in his letters does not constitute evidence that Paul received formal rhetorical education.

The Apostle Paul lived and breathed in a Hellenistic culture that placed high value on the art of rhetoric, and recent advances in rhetorical criticism of the New Testament have resulted in a new emphasis on the rhetorical aspect of his letters. As many scholars have pointed out, however, it is not clear to what extent ancient rhetoric actually influenced Paul and his writing or how important rhetoric is for interpreting the Pauline corpus. This volume, containing contributions from major figures in the field, provides a nuanced examination of how ancient rhetoric should inform our understanding of Paul and his letters. The essays discuss Paul's historical context, present innovative advances in and trenchant critiques of rhetorical theory, and offer fresh readings of key Pauline texts. Outlining the strengths and weaknesses of a widely used approach, Paul and Ancient Rhetoric will be a valuable resource for New Testament and Classics scholars.

This volume provides an up-to-date introduction to the diverse ways the Bible is being interpreted by scholars in the field.

This study examines educational motifs in 1 Corinthians 1-4 in order to answer a question fundamental to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians: Do the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians contain a Pauline apology or a Pauline censure? The author argues that Paul characterizes the Corinthian community as an ancient school, a characterization Paul exploits both to defend himself as a good teacher and to censure the Corinthians as poor students.

This book argues that Paul, as God’s accountable steward, seeks not to dominate the Corinthians but to empower them to mature in their understanding and conduct themselves appropriately under the cruciform authority of Jesus Christ. It invites readers to revisit the merely negative notion of power in deconstructionist power discourses and reconsider the importance of good uses of power in building up a faith community.

This interdisciplinary study focuses upon two conflicts within early Christianity and demonstrates how these conflicts were radically transformed by the Greco-Roman rhetorical and compositional practice of mimesis--the primary means by which Greco-Roman students were taught to read, write, speak, and analyze literary works. The first conflict is the controversy surrounding Jesus's relationship with his family (his mother and brothers) and the closely related issue concerning his (alleged) illegitimate birth that is (arguably) evident in the gospel of Mark, and then the author of Matthew's and the author of Luke's recasting of this controversy via mimetic rhetorical and compositional strategies. I demonstrate that the author of our canonical Luke knew, vehemently disagreed with, used, and mimetically transformed Matthew's infancy narrative (Matt 1-2) in crafting his own. The second controversy is the author of Acts' imitative transformation of the Petrine/Pauline controversy--that, in Acts 7:58--15:30, the author knew, disagreed with, used, and mimetically transformed Gal 1-2 via compositional strategies similar to how he transformed Matthew's birth narrative, and recast the intense controversy between the two pillars of earliest Christianity, Peter and Paul, into a unity and harmony that, historically, never existed.

In Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1-9, Justin King argues that the rhetorical skill of speech-in-character (prosopopoiia, sermocinatio, conformatio) offers a methodologically sound foundation for understanding the script of Paul’s imaginary dialogue with an interlocutor in Romans 3:1-9. King focuses on speech-in-character’s stable criterion that attributed speech should be appropriate to the characterization of the speaker. Here, speech-in-character helps to inform which voice in the dialogue speaks which lines, and the general goals of diatribe help shape how an “appropriate” understanding of the script is best interpreted. King’s analyses of speech-in-character, diatribe, and Romans, therefore, make independent contributions while simultaneously working together to advance scholarship on a much debated passage in one of history’s most important texts.

What accounts for the seemingly atypical pattern of scriptural exegesis that Paul uses to interpret Exodus 34 in 2 Cor 3:7-18? While previous scholars have approached this question from a variety of angles, in this monograph, Michael Cover grapples particularly with the evidence of contemporaneous Jewish and Greco-Roman commentary traditions. Through comparison with Philo of Alexandria's Allegorical Commentary, the Pseudo-Philonic homilies De Jona and De Sampsone, the Anonymous Theaetetus Commentary, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Seneca's Epistulae morales, and other New Testament texts, Paul's interpretation of Exodus emerges as part of a wider commentary practice that Cover terms "secondary-level exegesis." This study also provides new analysis of the way ancient authors, including Paul, interwove commentary forms and epistolary rhetoric and offers a reconstruction of the context of Paul's conflict with rival apostles in Corinth. At root was the legacy of Moses and of the Pentateuch itself, how the scriptures ought to be read, and how Platonizing theological and anthropological traditions might be interwoven with Paul's messianic gospel.

At the heart of Paul’s Corinthian correspondence is a historical puzzle. How did the relative calm of 1 Corinthians deteriorate into the chaos of 2 Corinthians, and what role did the so-called Jewish “super-apostles” play in that conflict? This book proposes a new solution: it was Paul, not his rivals, who shot the first volley in the Corinthian conflict. Paul’s claims of unique authority—for instance, as the architect atop whose foundation all others must build (1 Cor 3:10) and the Corinthians’ father while others are mere pedagogues (4:15)—would relegate other leaders to lesser positions. His contention that accepting financial support put an obstacle before the gospel (9:12) would jeopardize the livelihood of apostles who relied on such support. Finally, Paul’s claim that he becomes “lawless to the lawless” (9:21) or that “circumcision is nothing” (7:19) could throw into question Paul’s own Jewishness (cf. 2 Cor 11:22). By reading the Corinthian correspondence against the grain—imagining how Paul’s letter might have backfired for an audience who did not yet take him as scripture—this book explores how misunderstandings and misinterpretations can fracture church communities and cause a ripple effect of conflict and accusation.