In her essay “Anti-Imperial Rhetoric in the New Testament,” Judith A. Diehl, a New Testament professor at Denver Seminary, suggests anti-imperialist language in already suspect (because they were new) writings “could have resulted in the death of the ones communicating opposition to the ruling authorities and/or the audience to whom they wrote.” (43)
Is this accurate? I would counter that there are several barriers in existence between her statement and the allowance of a hidden anti-imperial stance in the Gospels and/or the rest of the New Testament. There are reasons to hide things in plain sight. We’d also have to assume the Emperor or someone connected to the Emperor cared enough to read the Gospels and/or Epistles. As Frederick Ahl suggests, Quintilian was able to get past the Flavian censors when he mentioned Lucan once. Then there is Statius and Martial. Lucan got caught, by Nero, but his wife still published his works.
It was entirely possible to write against the Empire, as I would like to hope I have demonstrated in my recent work, without the Empire taking note — and with other Christians not only taking note, but building upon it. The best anti-imperialist rhetoric comes from the hidden sources, hidden right under the Emperor’s nose. We see this in Latin orators/poets, so how is it we should not allow for this in a little known Jewish sect? The Jews had long perfect anti-imperialist writings, or polemical writings rather. The Christians just learned from those around them.
Again, I am not convinced every word in the NT drips with anti-imperialism, but there are aspects clearly evident.
Rhetoric class, more with Quintilian. John 14-16 in view.
I note that chapter 14, the reader should be able to pick up on several speeches. There is 14.1-7 which begins the long speech, albeit it is itself interrupted by a question from Thomas (14.5) followed by a brief answer. 14.8 has Philip asking a question which is answered in 14.9-21. Judas asks a question in 14.22 which is answered for the rest of the chapter. In 14.1-7, with the break of Thomas’ question in 16.5, the speech displays several elements which are similar, at least, with elocution. As throughout the entire speech, the image of Jesus and the Father is repeated at length (Geminatio) in 14.1-7. In this passage as well, Jesus’ character is developed as the one who is the mediator between the disciples and the Father, and later, between the Spirit and the disciples. There is also a picture of climax in 14.1-3 as well as 16.27-28. This section, if taken as a whole, would serve to persuade the audience to pay attention to the words of Jesus, as he establishing himself as the unique one who is in relationship with the Father, so much so as to return from the Father to united the disciples with God.
What follows in 14.9-13 contains further geminatio as well as interrogatio (14.9) which is also found in 16.5, 19, 31. In this section, unlike the previous one, there is a small ornament, in which Jesus gives to the future works of the disciples an embellishment, in that they will do greater workers than he. This section may fit the excitement role as it builds up to an onward looking promise for the disciples that as Elisha mirrored but outperformed Elijah, so too the disciples will outperform Jesus.
Throughout 14-16, the use of metaphors is used to describe What comes after the departure of Jesus. It is variously called the Advocate, the Spirit of Truth, and the holy Spirit. There is no clear delineation of who or what this is supposed to be in this passage, however, there is no question from the disciples regarding this entity; therefore, we must assume that the language which Jesus was using was well within line of perspicuity. Further, in 14.18, there is the metaphor of orphan which would establish a parental relationship between Jesus and the disciples. Finally, in 14.30, there is the metaphor of ‘ruler of the world’.
Evidentia may be found in 15.1-6 in which the attempt at establishment the relationship between Jesus and the disciples is further explained. It is also present in 15.17-25 in which Jesus is speaking about the relationship between the disciples and the world through his experience with the world. There are strong images and words employed here, such as sin, hate, slaver and master. Finally, the strong image of the woman who is in labor is used to give reassurance to the disciples that the mourning and pain of worldly hatred may last for a while, but that one day it would be over, and that this day would break forth with joy. Interesting in the use of figures of speech and thought, as well as evidentia, is the implication by Jesus that he was using these things all along, but that soon nothing would be needed to veil his words. (16.25) Following this is the disciples’ words seem to declare that Jesus is now speaking plainly, without the use of figures of speech (16.29-30).
Finally, there also seems to the character of Jesus developed according the “manly, noble, chaste” requirements of Quintilian (8.3.6). He is trying to still his followers (14.27), promises to return (14.28), follows his Father’s command (14.31), and has suffered the same persecution of the disciples. Further, Praeterito can be found in 14.28-30 16.12-14, 23. Obscurity is on the part of the disciples who admit that they now understand Jesus. Further, there seem to be no antiquisms. Taken as a whole, the speech of Jesus answers questions, entices the audience to add to the speech for the things that they do not know, contains little ornament, and fits nicely into the middle style.
This is an assignment, etc…. Again, this is just the first stage, with lots of dialogue to follow.
The summary of VI.2 is simply that the orator must know the proper uses of emotion in appealing to a judge. The Roman Rhetorician begins the book by starting at the end of the Argument, the peroration, and advises the reader that this part in particular is “chiefly concerned with the feelings.” Like Aristotle before him, and against Plato before them both, the nature of human emotions is allowed to play a part in the decision making process of the audience; perhaps to the extent that it is one of the greatest assets to the speaker. To this end, Quintilian cautions against treating these emotions “cursorily” and urges the position that nothing greater is to be studied in the “whole art of oratory.”
He goes on to cite the “number of pleaders” who could establish proofs, but is more warm to those who can “seize the attention of the judges.” He writes, “Proofs in our favor, it is true, may make the judge think our cause the better, but impressions on his feelings make him wish it to be better, and that he wishes he also believes.” In this, we find that Quintilian is speaking more regarding, as Lopez pointed out, of the forensic style of rhetoric, and as such, is concerned with using emotional appeals to declare someone innocent. The emotional appeal is to be powerful enough to incite the judge, regardless of proofs, to connect to the person on trial, perhaps to see himself on trial. Of course, there is danger in this, I would state, in that as Quintilian notes, “passion overpowers the sense of sight, so a judge, when led away by his feelings, loses the faculty of discerning truth; he is hurried along as it were by a flood and yields to the force of the torrent.” To this end, the Roman Orator notes that pathos in the conclusion will excite judges, but the use of ethoswill soothe them. If may be advisable then, not to incite the judges to anger at yourself in the concluding statement, if one hopes to survive the trial.
Like Aristotle before him, Quintilian relies upon the character of the speaker (2.18) to be a force in making the argument. In the court room, the speaker must possess the “virtues which he ought to praise” in his client. To contrast this, a “bad man” must speak ineffectively or else his sincerity will be challenged. Thus is the connection made in the minds of the jurists between the speaker and the client, and perhaps reliant upon ethos. If the speaker is thought to defend only for fame or wealth, it may be argued that the defense of the client could be seen as mocking the needed ethos of the jurist, in that if the speaker cared nothing for the client, then why should the judge. I note here Quintilian’s further limitations on the speaker, in that the speaker should be “calm and mild”, lacking “vehemence” and “elevation.” A good speaker by these standards would be one not just emotionally connected to his client, but a bridge between the client and the judges. As an arbiter, the speech must not raise the client above the judge nor seek to anger the judge in such a way as that is the last emotion felt before making a decision.
The argument using pathos is one which seems to be the most difficult, because it is the one most in danger of going wrong. Pathos is focused on the negative, in that Quintilian states that it is to be used in “exciting anger, hatred, fear, envy or pity.” Any of these emotions can easily turn on the client and cause a hard view from the jurist. Quintilian gives the example of fear, in that fear can lead to several outcomes. In this, he goes into the use of words to give a more effective blow to the person. (2.23). This idea of “language adding force to things unbecoming, cruel, or detestable” could not have been profitable for a novice in the courtroom, especially if there was not an established connection of ethos. The ancient writer cautions that our language be so tempered as to use the same emotions “we would wish to excite from the judge.”
Finally, 2.29-36 deals with the phantasiai, or visions, which Quintilian defines as “images by which the representations of absent objects are so distinctly represent to the mind that we seem to see them with our eyes and to have them before us.” He goes on to give credit to the orator who can represent things so vividly that one can actually ‘see’ them. This is important for the judge, then, in order to establish both pathos and ethos so that the jurist can feel the evils “of which we complain.”
In examining Stephen’s speech (Acts 7), I must extend it to Acts 6.8-16 so that the events which sets up the drama are in view. In 6.8-15, Stephen is arrested due the “wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.” The charged leveled against Stephen was that he was blaspheming Moses and God (6.11) and was made complete with false witnesses (6.13). The author alludes to the almost favorable position of the Council when he writes that to them, Stephen’s face was like an angel (6.15). Unfortunately, however, Luke records that Stephen was ultimately, in a fit of rage, put to death. If compared to Quintilian’s rules, Stephen failed in his defense, but if Stephen is seen as speaking for Christ, with Christ as the client, then Stephen was successful. In the narrative of Acts, speeches are regularly given in defense of Christ, so that here, Stephen, especially with the phantasiai in the peroration, can be seen to defend Christ and to establish a co-vindication.
In defense of himself, Stephen is successful in inciting anger and in having that anger influence the judges (7.51-43), but in doing so, he failed to properly place this in the argument, as the use of pathos caused Stephen’s immediate order of execution. Of course, no ethos could readily be established because Stephen was a Hellenized Jew, whereas the Council members were Palestinian Jews listening to other Palestinian Jews. Further, he failed in not using vehemence (Quint, VI.2.19; Acts 7.51-53) or elevation (Acts 7.60). He failed as well in using the “middling sort of eloquence” and in using the “temper of mind” which he sought to excite from the judges.
However, if the defense was of Christ, then Stephen is better seen as the Orator and Christ the client who needs vindicated. While the arrest charge was originally about Stephen’s supposed blasphemy (6.11), the final charge is laid against Stephen’s preaching of Jesus’ words (6.14) which leads to the High Priest asking for the validity of the words of Christ (7.1). In this context, Stephen’s speech is then seen as the usual defense of Christ given with the usual Jewish recapitulation of Hebrew history. Jesus is set against the history of Israel and against the promise of a Prophet Like Moses. The idea of human resistance against God’s Divine Messenger is prevalent, but Stephen does not claim this role for himself but is securing the verdict for Christ. To that end, Stephen elevates himself above the need for the Council, in declaring that Christ is vindicated because he, Stephen, can see him, Jesus, standing at the right hand of the God using a technique similar to Quintilian’s phantasiai. Further, Stephen establishes the ethos between him and Christ with his final words (cf Acts 7.59/ Luke 23.46; Acts 7.60/ Luke 23.34). Finally, Stephen doesn’t vindicate himself with the Council, but Luke is able to show the reader what is going above the human will. Stephen, in speaking for his client, shows that the client is indeed γενόμενον (Luke 23.47) and is thus vindicated by the audience.
The vindication of Christ (i.e., that he is resurrected) is the emotional appeal, in that the Council, and through them, many in Israel, had failed to heed the Scriptures and crucified the Son of God who had been prophesied by Moses and was the culmination of Israelite History.
 The translation which I will be using is John Selby Watson’s, Quintilian. Institutes of Oratory, 2010 (Kindle Edition), ed. Lee Honeycutt
 Quintilian notes later, 2.14, that the “ethos ought especially to prevail between persons closely connected.” Perhaps if there is no ethos, or if the ethos is muted by the prosecution being closer in connection to the judges, then pathos is the only appeal left.
 Regardless of interpretation, the fact that to the Council, Stephen’s face was supernatural, should give the sense to the reader that the Council was in a good predisposition to hear Stephen’s case.
 2.14-40 defended Christ as the Son of David/Messiah and cast blame upon those who had killed him. 3.11-26 can be seen to defend Christ as the Prophet Like Moses. 4.8-1, 19-20; 5.29-32 defends the superiority of Christ’s command to that of the Council as well as the outpouring of the Spirit.
 There is not enough space to connect Luke’s use of Wisdom (of Solomon) (See Peter Doble’s monograph, The Paradox of Salvation, 2005, SNTS), but I would contend that vindication is in Luke’s mind here. (Compare Wis 3.1-3, 7; 5.1-5)
To Quintilian, rhetoric is “the good man speaking well.” (He seems to use the terms “rhetoric” and “oratory” interchangeably, placing much more stress in Book II on the latter term.) He divides it into 3 components: the art, the artist (artificer), and the work. Quintilian explains that:
Art=The knowledge of speaking well.
Artist (Artificer)=Has acquired the art of rhetoric. It is “his business to speak well.”
Work=That which the artificer achieves; that is, “good speaking.” (here)
Nor is it sufficient to have read the poets only; every kind of writer must be carefully studied, not merely for subject matter, but for vocabulary. . . . Unless the foundations of oratory are well and truly laid by the teaching of literature, the superstructure will collapse. The study of literature is a necessity for boys and the delight of old age, the sweet companion of our privacy and the sole branch of study which has more solid substance than display.
It is important that we study, in fine detail, even the most sacred of texts. I’ll be arrogant for a moment. I find in students today the absolute refusal to question what they have in front of them. To exegete is to blaspheme. To seek to question a long standing Tradition, interpretation or hermeneutic is tantamount to questioning YHWH himself. I find these students completely lacking in intellectual integrity and their professed love of Christ. Yet, we must. Yes, I say even question God a time or two, in order to know how or why people believed what they did. To find out why believe or what we should believe – or if orthodoxy is even necessary. We must be circumspect to know that not everyone, perhaps not even a majority of like-minded individuals have believed the same way, not even parents and children.