Assignment: Analyzing Biblical Eloquence

My students are reading St. Augustine's On Christian Doctrine. Augustine discusses and analyzes the eloquence of scripture. We will do the same. Here is their assignment for Tuesday, November 17:

Find an eloquent or poetic passage from the Bible which you comment on rhetorically. Look for passages that are appealing not because of their content or doctrinal importance necessarily, but because of their pleasing expression. The passage you choose should be paraphrased and/or quoted and briefly analyzed. This can be a single verse, a passage, or even an entire chapter.

Title your post "Biblical Eloquence in [passage reference]"
Use the label "biblical eloquence"

In essence, I'm asking you to do something similar to what Augustine models in Books III and IV when he observes and analyzes scriptural eloquence. For a specific example of him doing this, see Book IV Chapter 7 (pp. 77, paragraph 11 in the PDF).

Be sure that you both identify one or two rhetorical elements and then discuss their significance -- why the rhetorical elements are needed for the author or speaker to make his or her point, or why knowing these rhetorical aspects improves our ability to understand that passage, or what the function or effect is of this form of expression. See the two example posts below as a guide, or browse through the completed posts of prior students.

The love of God in Christ Jesus

In perhaps one of my favorite testimonies written, the Apostle Paul states,

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Two topics of invention are readily noticeable in this passage, the first being the use of adjuncts, describing something by its characteristics. Since love is not an object and we cannot picture it or even physically see it, only the manifestation of it. 

Paul also incorporates the use of Degree by showing that God's love is more powerful and these, seemingly powerful obstacles are less.

Instead of simply saying that god really loves us, which I believe is the underlying message of this passage, Paul instead begins to put into perspective this love that God has for us through His Son. Greater than any height or any depth, more transcendent than time, stronger than angels or demons, more powerful than life and even death.  

God's love is ever present, ever constant and everlasting. It is available to everyone. Our perfect Father in Heaven loves us perfectly, despite our imperfections. 

The Body of Christ

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

In verses 25-27 of the tenth chapter of Paul's 1st epistle to the Corinthians Paul beautifully compares us to a body. He illustrates the body and how there are different parts that have their own purpose but all of the parts work and function together in harmony, this is a great application of the topic of invention of parts/whole. The scripture reference is also a metaphor, representing us and our relationship with Christ. We aren't literally the body of Christ, but are a in integral part of His work and purpose, as though we were a part of His body, and play our own part that contributes to some form of a harmonious whole, as our bodies do. The use of a metaphor extends the meaning of these brief verses to something far more profound than simply saying something like, "...we all have a part to play, and jobs to do for Christ..." Obviously there is more meaning than that, but that's the beauty of the metaphor, through the metaphor Paul talks about Charity, Christ's work and purpose, and the role that we play in it all!

 

Strong and of a Good Courage

Have not I commanded thee? 

Be strong and of a good courage;

be not afraid, neither be though dismayed:

for the Lord thy God is with thee withersoever thou goest.

Joshua 1:9                              

 

Erotema: The rhetorical question. To affirm or deny a point strongly by asking it as a question.*

This scripture opens with a rhetorical question. Today, we use rhetorical questions to state something that is common knowledge. By opening this scripture in this way, he is inviting the command to be strong and courageous to become something we just know. 

Similarity/ Difference: That topic of invention which invites us to consider how something compares and contrasts with others. *

This scripture eloquently defines strength and courage by stating what wouldn't be considered strong and courageous. By doing this, the reader is held responsible for figuring out how to fulfill this command by inferring the opposites of "fear" and "dismay".

Affirmatio:  A general figure of emphasis that describes when one states something as though it had been in dispute or in answer to a question, though it has not been.*

This could be a misinterpretation on my part, but when I read this verse, I read the last line as a clarification of who the Lord is, and felt affirmation of something I already knew to be true. He is your God. This has a very authoritative feel to it and generates quite a different feeling from the rhetorical question that opened. To me, this use of affirmatio was a much gentler way of calling someone to remembrance of things they should already know. 

*All definitions gotten from silva rhetorica*

Have a Heart

First, read without the distractions of markings:
Ezekiel 36:26
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."

Next, focus on the markings:
"A new heart also will I give you, 
and a new spirit will I put within you: 
and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, 
and I will give you an heart of flesh."

Polysyndeton: Employing many conjunctions between clauses, often slowing the tempo or rhythm.

• In this scripture, the repetition of the conjunction "and" adds emphasis to each successive clause. Each clause is saying pretty much the same thing, as well, so the clauses build on each other to underline this heart metaphor. "I am surely going to purify your soul and make you my people," is the message we receive (in the context of the rest of Ezekiel 36).

Antimetabole: Repetition of words, in successive clauses, in reverse grammatical order.

• The antimetabole in this scripture compliments and yet minimizes the effects of the polysyndeton. The switched order of "will I" to "I will" creates a sort of climax in the middle of the scripture, at the colon of the second phrase, making the last two lines the "falling action." 
• The last line repeats what was said in the first line ("A new heart will I give you" / "I will give you an heart"). In this way, this scripture could also function as chiasmus  (repetition of ideas in inverted order). Again, this repeats and emphasizes the idea given in the first line.

Epistrophe: Ending a series of lines, phrases, clauses, or sentences with the same word or words.

• I didn't realize until I split the scripture into its marked and separate lines that this was being used. The repetition of "you" at the end of the first two lines, then "flesh" at the end of the last two, increases the feeling of antimetabole. It also brings focus to the Lord's audience (the House of Israel) and creates an interesting contrast between the flesh of the stony heart and the heart of flesh that the Lord is giving.

The use of these rhetorical devices play really well with the metaphor of the Lord giving us a "new heart." The scriptures are packed full of this stuff, and I never realized!

*Definitions are all from Silva Rhetoricae.

“Yo’ Dogs.” – The Apostle Paul

In the New Testament, from Philippians 3:2, Paul states “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of concision.” The rhetoric inherent in this declaration and warning by Paul really sheds some understanding on what Paul is trying to accomplish in this passage. Below are some of the possible rhetorical figures that Paul is using to create this expression.

Epitheton/Aganactesis This type of language, attributing a person to a quality or specific adjective, in this case is meant to be highly insulting, abusive, or highly critical. Silvia Rhetoricae states that aganactesis is “an exclamation proceeding from deep indignation.” In analyzing these three very negative epithets it is important to put them in context of Paul’s day. The word dog back then was meant to be an extremely derogatory term.

Sarcasm This is the rhetorical use of mockery and/or verbal taunts not done in a polite or joking manner. Paul attempts to use sarcasm here to put down his detractors and give them the appearance as people who should not only be avoided but also not be taken seriously.

The rhetorical analysis of these two figures help us to understand Paul’s mission here on a larger scale. There is no direct message from the gospel’s detractors here, just the detractors themselves is what Paul attacks. Understanding that Paul is directly putting down his and the gospels opponents shows that Paul felt it was important to defend his own apostleship and the authority given to him, an idea that for members of the LDS faith would make a lot of sense. There are also a few more rhetorical figures at work in this passage, such as repetition, which continue to support the idea that Paul felt it was important to put down those that did not have proper authority from God.

Eloquence and Punishment

Proverbs 13:24 reads, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." 

Ellipsis

A proper time-out can do a world of good.

While reading through the verse, one thing of note that I saw was the ellipsis in "his son" and "him."  Perhaps this was scrutinized a bit too much, but choosing to use the word "him" instead of something a little more clarifying does in fact make the phrasing seem a bit different.  Adding to this is the fact that the verse begins with a "He," but this refers to the father and not "his son."  Maybe I stretched this nuance further than it was supposed to be, or misused terminology, but the subtlety did stick out to me. 

Paradox

A tad more obvious than the last instance of rhetoric was the paradox contained in sparing the rod, or punishment, which demonstrated hatred for another, yet chastening (with or without a "rod") displayed an act of love.  When one thinks of loving another, it is usually not in terms of abuse or punishment, physical or otherwise.  Even so, the verse still holds true.  Abstaining from punishing a child in the wrong does lead one to think that is the loving thing to do, but is not allowing the child to persist in their error far worse than correcting them?  Does a parent truly love their child if they give absolute freedom, without even the slightest chastisement?  Obviously, there are different extents that warrant different levels of punishment or tolerance, but I do believe that there is a point when the parent needs to step in and moderate for the benefit of their child's growth.  As evinced in these words that I just shared, the power of the paradox is a potent choice of style in that it spurs thought in the audience.  Handing over the excitement directly to the audience so that they can experiment themselves truly ups the rhetorical value of (probably) most any given case.  

Eloquence of the Lily

Matthew 6:28-

 "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin"

Asyndeton (omit conjunction between clauses). By omitting and between “they toil not” and “neither do they spin” the phrase is much more poetic, the delivery much more elegant to the ears. The way he says it helps you to imagine a serene field of lilies emerging without effort, as though heaven is beckoning them upward. This is a useful approach given what he is trying to teach the people.

Conduplicatio (repetition of a word in an adjacent phrase to amplify a point). So it is not exactly the same word. But it's close. “Neither” is first word in the clause right after the clause that ends with “not”. This is to emphasize a point. These lilies are not needing to work hard, they are being taken care of. To see the effect of this consider this verse in the NIV version of the bible, “see how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.” It feels too choppy, and that takes away from the desired effect of not to worry.

Assignment: Analyzing Biblical Eloquence

My students have been reading St. Augustine's On Christian Doctrine. Augustine discusses and analyzes the eloquence of scripture. We will do the same. Here is their assignment (for Friday, November 14 or Saturday, November 15, 2014):

Find an eloquent or poetic passage from the Bible which you comment on rhetorically. Look for passages that are appealing not because of their content or doctrinal importance necessarily, but because of their pleasing expression. The passage you choose should be paraphrased and/or quoted and briefly analyzed.

In essence, I'm asking you to do something similar to what Augustine models in Books III and IV when he observes and analyzes scriptural eloquence. For another example of him doing this, read ahead to Book IV Chapter 7 (pp. 77, paragraph 11). Be sure that you both identify one or two rhetorical elements and then discuss their significance -- why the rhetorical elements are needed for the author or speaker to make his or her point, or why knowing these rhetorical aspects improves our ability to understand that passage, or what the function or effect is of this form of expression. The passage you analyze need not be long. See the example below as a guide.