Is Diehl correct? (Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not @ivpacademic)

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


Jesus and Elocution

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

Acts / Rhetoric

Quintilian v Stephen

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.[1]” 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


Some items on Quintilian

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) A page dedicated to him, one of many I assume. One for his works, although I purchased one on kindle for 3.99. Some

Other Posts / Rhetoric

Quintilian on the Duty of the Student of Rhetoric

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

Mark / Rhetoric

More with μίμησις

During the Silver Age of Latin literature, which was occurring around the time that the Gospels were being written, the Roman writers were rediscovering what the Greek had already forgotten. One of these tools seem to be μίμησις which, as you know, carries a lot of different meanings, or perhaps nuances. It is, at the base, a rhetorical device of imitation. During the Silver Age as well, literary rhetoric began to develop. Anyway, I digress: Since the objects of imitation are men in action, and these men must be either of a higher or a lower type (for moral

Rhetoric / Romans

Paul’s Use of Prosopopoeia in his Epistle to the Romans

Previously, I posted Quintilian’s boundaries for the use of prosopopoeia, a literary device that allows a speaker to create a fictional dialogue partner. It has been long recognized that Paul employs such a method in Romans 2-4 in dealing with Jewish resentment to Gentile salvation. We will examine Romans 2-3 (chapter 4 is continued from chapter 3 directly and only in Paul’s speech) in light of prosopopoeia as well as move into forgotten episode of Paul’s use of this which I hope to cast in a different light. (While I am sure that this is old work to many,