ORAT Sample Clauses

ORAT. 8.3.64 [Butler, LCL]). form becomes even more active, as the brain simulates physical participation in a narrative consumed. These diverse examples merely highlight the ubiquity of scholarship that recognizes the importance of narrative as a critical category, not as a generic distinction made only of texts, but rather as a mode of thinking and understanding.29 Hayden White’s comments, written in 1987, are all the more true today: “We have witnessed across the whole spectrum of the human sciences over the course of the last two decades a pervasive interest in the nature of narrative, its epistemic authority, its cultural function, and its general social significance.”30 This emphasis on the construction of narrative as a mode of interpreting experience has a direct impact on understanding the process of constructing and consuming arguments, a process typically referred to as rhetoric.31 Humans understand the world around them and their past in terms of stories constructed, and thus humans may be persuaded through the consumption of discourse that creates coherent sequences, or narratives. An author of discourse places events in context with other events, creating a coherent whole out of disparate elements. In the consumption of discourse, a reader’s self-understanding, itself a narrative construction, has the potential to change. Discourse offers to a reader a configuration of events consumed that, like actual events experienced, can alter narrative self-understanding. It is in this recognition of narrative as the 29 This is the key insight of Crites, who argues “experience is moulded, root and branch, by narrative forms” (“Narrative Quality of Experience,” 308). See also Kort, Story, Text, and Scripture, 8-13. 30 The Content of the Form, x.

ORAT. 9; For an introduction to the three genres in Aristotle and beyond, see ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, “The Genres of Rhetoric,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330B.C.-A.D. 400. For consideration of the threefold system in the study of ▇▇▇▇, see ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, “The Three Species of Rhetoric and the Study of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Epistles,” pp. 25-47 in ▇▇▇▇ and Rhetoric (ed. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and J. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇; T&T ▇▇▇▇▇ Theology; New York: Continuum, 2010), 25-26; ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, “The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11-2:14,” JBL 103 (1984): 223-24.

ORAT. 3.4.1-11). Aristotle’s three-fold system becomes dominant in the Greek and Roman rhetorical traditions. For those adoptions of Aristotle’s threefold division, see Cicero, de Inv. 2.4.12

ORAT. 8.6.4-18). 69 Cicero notes, “Even in cases where there are plenty of specific words available, metaphorical terms give people much more pleasure, if the metaphor is a good one” (de Orat. 3.40.159 [Rackham, LCL]). Ricoeur summarizes these positions as follows: “We can translate a metaphor, i.e., replace the literal meaning for which the figurative word is a substitute. In effect, substitution plus restitution equals zero” (Interpretation Theory, 49). 70 For a review of Ricoeur’s position, specifically his understanding of the polysemy of words, the function of the sentence as limiting meaning potential, and the function of the metaphor to expand meaning potential, see The Rule of Metaphor, 125-33. For a brief summary of his work on metaphor, see Interpretation Theory, 45-69. Essays prior to the publication of this work share similar arguments (see, for example, “Metaphor and the Central Problem of Hermeneutics,” pp. 165-81 in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences [ed. and trans. John B. Thompson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981]). For a discussion of Ricoeur within the context of developing work on metaphor, see Sallie McFague, Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 31-42. His work on metaphor from the beginning begins to spill over into a consideration of narrative. Kaplan suggests “The Rule of Metaphor is, therefore, best seen as a transitional work between the hermeneutics of texts in the 1970s and the hermeneutics of action of the 1980s” (Ricoeur’s Critical Theory, 49). Ricoeur’s work on metaphor and narrative builds upon his previous work on textuality and particularly his notion of distanciation. For a brief summary, see “The Hermeneutical Function of Distanciation,” pp. 131-44 in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (ed. and trans. John B. Thompson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). metaphorical meaning. Though individual words have a range of meanings, a living metaphor is a meaning event that goes beyond this “polysemy of lexical entries” for the terms involved.71 Neither are metaphors simply rhetorical embellishments, substitutes for meaning that could otherwise be conveyed through “an exhaustive paraphrase” of the combination of the two elements.72 Rather, living metaphors, because they are part of a larger work, are language events within a literary context, wherein the tension between the “is” and “is not” forces the mind of the reader to create meaning out of the seemingl...

ORAT. [Heinemann, LCL]). 13 The comments of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ represent the assumptions of many rhetorical critics who seem compelled to choose one mode over the others: “While all the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ epistles exhibit all three species of rhetoric, one species predominates in each letter” (“Three Species,” 27). See similar comments in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, “Genres,” 45-46. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ recognizes the problem many find with assigning Galatians as forensic (“Die Schwierigkeit der These besteht in der exhortatio (Gal. 5:1-6:10), die nicht zu der dikanischen Gattung gehört”) is the same as the problem with reading it as deliberative (“Die Schwierigkeit dieser zweiten These besteht in der ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Entwicklung narratio (Gal 1:12-2:14), die kaum zu der symbuleutischen Gattung gehört”) (“Zur rhetorischen ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇,” ▇▇▇ ▇▇ [1988]: 291). Characterizations of the letter as epideictic have been more rare. See, for examples, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, “Placing the Blame: The Presence of Epideictic in Galatians 1 and 2,” pp. in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (ed. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇; JSNT Supplement Series 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); idem, “Epideictic Rhetoric and Persona in Galatians 1 and 2, “ pp. 181-96 in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (ed. ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇; Peabody, MA: ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2002). Some have suggested that none of the three fits well and have questioned the value of reading Galatians in light of Aristotle’s categories. See, for example, ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 16; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle (SNTS Monograph Series; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 120-66.