University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Clouds of witnesses: A rhetorical analysis of narrated witness in the Gospels.

(USC Thesis Other)

Clouds of witnesses: A rhetorical analysis of narrated witness in the Gospels.

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been rqiroduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the orignal or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be
from aiy type o f computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photogr^hs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletioiL
Oversize materials (e g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Ifowell Information Compai^
300 North Zed) Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CLOUDS OF WITNESSES: A RHETORICAL
ANALYSIS OF NARRATED WITNESS IN THE GOSPELS
by
Daniel Timothy Durbin
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Speech Communication)
Copyright 1996 Daniel Timothy Durbin
December 1996
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number; 9720217
Copyright 1996 by
Durbin, Daniel Timothy
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9720217
Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNTVERSm r PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
D a n ie l T. D urbin
under the direction of ftJA Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR O F PHKOSOPHY
te Studies
D ate.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Daniel Timothy Durbin Walter Fisher
CLOUDS OF WITNESSES: A RHETORICAL
ANALYSIS OF NARRATED WITNESS IN THE GOSPELS
This study broadens the rhetorical approach to the New
Testament and applies it to Gospel narratives. Contemporary
methods of rhetorical criticism of the New Testament are examined
and critically assessed. They are found to unnecessarily limit
the focus of rhetorical criticism of the New Testament to
argumentation units, linguistic units found in descriptions of
argument in Greek and Roman rhetorical theory. A broader
approach incorporating contemporary rhetorical and narrative
theory is proposed.
This broader approach focuses on the use of the testimony of
witnesses as a rhetorical proof in the Gospels. It employs
Alison Trite's description of the evolving understanding of the
term "witness" during the New Testament era and Paul Ricoeur's
conception of authoritative witness in the Bible to illuminate
the Gospels' use of witnesses. Further, it suggests Walter
Fisher's notion of characterological coherence as a means for
assessing the rhetorical force of the Gospels' characterization
of their witnesses.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Two types of Gospel witness are described, immediate witness
and ancient witness. Immediate witnesses are found to gain
authority through having directly witnessed events to which they
testify. The multitudes are shown to act as immediate witnesses,
at once calling miracle narratives into being and lending the
authority of mass witness to the Gospels' interpretation of those
narratives. Mary and Joseph are shown to act similarly as
witnesses to the nativity.
Ancient witnesses are found to gain authority through the
transcendent message to which they testify. Jesus and John the
Baptist are described as ancient witnesses who offer
authoritative witness to an absolute initiative. The authority
of their witness is demonstrated by their total engagement in
that witness. Empowered works and dying for their witness act as
proofs of their total engagement in the absolute.
Conclusions concerning the rhetorical use of witnesses in
the Gospel form are drawn and further research examining the
rhetoric of New Testament narrative is suggested.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. RHETORICAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT......1
The Critical Approach: Its Development
and Scope
Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible
Significance of this Study
II. RHETORIC AND NEW TESTAMENT NARRATIVE.......... 54
New Testament Rhetoric and Narrative
Literary Criticism and Biblical Rhetoric
Witness in New Testament Rhetoric
Witness and the Rhetoric of Narrative
Conclusions
III. IMMEDIATE WITNESS AND HISTORICAL VALIDATION
IN GOSPEL NARRATIVE...........................123
The Witness of the Multitudes
Identifying with the Baptist as
Witness and Skeptic
The Disciples as Perpetual Witness
Nativity Narratives and Individual
Witness in the Gospels
Conclusions
IV. ANCIENT WITNESS AS AUTHORITATIVE
INDUCEMENT.................................... 180
The Baptist as Ancient Witness
Jesus as True Witness of the
Absolute
Witness to the Raising of Lazarus
Conclusions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1X1
V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS................. 219
Further Implications
and Future Research
REFERENCES............................................... 238
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER ONE: RHETORICAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Rhetorical criticism of the Bible, like many recent
critical methods such as narrative criticism, composition
criticism, and literary criticism, has grown to be seen as
an answer to some of the difficulties implicit in historical
criticism of the Bible. For much of this century, scholars
have been concerned with developing methods that are able to
account for the complexities of meaning in the text (see,
for instance, Hahn 10, 19-20; Neill and Wright 337). They
have been especially concerned with the tendency of
historical criticism to focus on the circumstances
surrounding the text to the exclusion of the claims and
meaning within the text (Kummel 363, 405, Neill and Wright
248) .
Redaction criticism, narrative criticism, literary
criticism, and rhetorical criticism have all been attempts
to move the main focus of biblical criticism back to the
central meaning of the text. Rhetorical criticism has come
relatively late to the field (only in the last twenty-five
years). It has developed in response to James Muilenburg's
call for a critical method that examines rhetorical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
constructs within the biblical text ("Form Criticism and
Beyond" 1-2).
Rhetorical criticism of the Bible has grown in two
directions corresponding to the two Testaments. Rhetorical
criticism of the Old Testament has been taken up by scholars
such as Robert Alter, Dale Patrick, Allen Scult, and
Margaret Zulich. They have drawn on a variety of critical
tools for their work. Alter, especially, has drawn heavily
on literary criticism. Rhetorical criticism of the New
Testament has been taken up by scholars such as Burton Mack,
Vernon Robbins, and Charles Robbins. These scholars have
taken a much more limited view in developing their
theoretical perspective for examining rhetorical discourse
in the New Testament.
Trying to distinguish rhetorical criticism as a
discrete critical approach to the New Testament, scholars
such as Mack have sought to distance it from other critical
approaches. So, while a narrative critic like Mark Powell
recognizes rhetorical aspects of New Testament narratives.
Mack wants to limit the study of New Testament rhetoric to
the examination of rhetorical or "argumentation units" (Mack
Rhetoric and the New Testament 21, Powell 14-15). These
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
"units" represent formal patterns of argument consistent
with those found in Roman rhetoric. Thus, Mack focuses on
one type of rhetorical activity that, he argues, may be
found in common rhetorical handbooks from the New Testament
era. He offers the works of Aristotle and Cicero and the
Rhetorics ad Herrenium as illustrations of rhetorical works
whose approaches to rhetoric would have been recognized in
the social world of the New Testament.
Mack's focus on "argumentation units" alone seems
overly limited, but his approach is reasonable, given the
historical presuppositions of his critical method. To
understand the reasons for his clearly distinguishing
between "rhetoric" and "narrative" approaches and for the
narrow limits of his approach, we must explore the
development and presuppositions of critical approaches to
Scripture during the evolution of historical criticism of
the Bible. An exhaustive review of the development of
critical approaches to New Testament study is not necessary,
but anyone seeking such a study would do well to inspect
Werner G. Kummel's classic examination of the subject.1 My
purpose is only to identify several key intellectual and
critical developments that have shaped the tightly focused
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
historical approach Mack employs. Ultimately, I want to
show that the limited focus of Mack's approach is not
warranted by the nature of the text but it does derive some
justification from the political and intellectual exigencies
of attempting to define a field of study in New Testament
criticism. The first part of this review will focus on the
critical contributions of several key figures in the history
of biblical criticism. The remainder of the review will
highlight the various critical schools that have been built
on the foundation laid by these important figures.
The Critical Approach: Its Development and Scope
In his study of New Testament criticism, Kummel found
critical study of the text occurring as early as the second
century (13-14). Of course, this was not the case with the
vast majority of hermeneutical study during the Christian
era. Like most precritical approaches, St. Augustine's
essentially devotional and philosophical hermeneutic, the
biblical typologists of the Middle Ages, the scholars of the
monastic tradition, and even the early reformers were more
interested in establishing theological systems and promoting
devotional piety than with a social, historical, or textual
criticism of the New Testament. While there may have been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
some protocritical study of the New Testament early in the
Christian era, historical and textual criticism as a
scholarly discipline began in earnest in late eighteenth
century Germany. German scholarship developed a
rationalistic approach to biblical study that moved
authority over interpreting the text ' s meaning from the
church and the text to the rational and critical faculties
of the scholar. The sense that the scholar rather than the
text itself made final critical judgments concerning the
text ' s meaning was furthered by the discovery of variant
readings within the biblical text. For instance,
translations of the New Testament by Johann Jakob Wettstein
and Johann Bengel pointed out variants in different New
Testament texts.
These authors pointed up differences between the
"received text" (commonly accepted in the church as the true
New Testament text) and earlier more reliable New Testament
manuscripts (Kummel 48-49). Textual criticism as a
scholarly discipline grew from this challenge to the
received text and the resultant comparison of manuscripts to
determine, as closely as possible, the original text of the
New Testament (Metzger 124-126). Through a variety of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
historical and critical analyses, textual criticism compared
the various texts that were still extant to determine the
original New Testament text. This developing freedom in
critically comparing variant manuscripts of the New
Testament text to each other to find the historically "true"
text further opened scholarship to the larger possibility
that there might be value in critical studies of the New
Testament's authorship and message as well as its text.
Extending the critical study of the New Testament from
textual variants to the history of its initial writing,
Johann S. Semler published his Treatise on the Free
Investigation of the Canon. He differentiated between the
Word of God and the biblical text. He contended that the
Bible is historically bound and should be studied in its
historical context (Kummel 63). Semler was especially
interested in divorcing the historical investigation of the
text from "edifying concerns," so that the historical
orientation of the text would be the only feature that
informed our interpretation of its meaning (Kummel 66-67).
Semler's approach is extremely important for current
criticism. His assumption that biblical interpretation
should begin with the historical context of the text became
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the foundational presupposition of contemporary biblical
criticism, including rhetorical criticism of the New
Testament. For instance, as literary criticism of the New
Testament evolved into a formal study during the middle and
late twentieth century, it worked as an "adjunct" to
historical criticism by supplying information about the
genre and literary types readers of the New Testament era
would have recognized within the text (Petersen 18). In a
similar way, rhetorical criticism has sought argumentation
units New Testament authors (redactors) and readers would
have recognized from the practice of rhetoric or argument in
Roman society and from the works of Quintilian and Cicero
(Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament 25).
The historical context of the original texts became the
guiding principle of the work of Johann Michaelis, Johann
Griesbach, and subsequent critical scholarship. Michaelis
applied the historical approach to the canonical form of the
New Testament. He questioned whether large portions of the
New Testament should even be considered canonical (Kummel
70). Griesbach furthered Semler's approach of classing New
Testament manuscripts in groups according to their probable
origins and established many of the fundamental rules of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
textual criticism (Metzger 119-120). Griesbach directed
much of his historical analysis to the interrelationships
among the synoptic Gospels. He attempted to identify the
chronology of their writing and the common sources they drew
on (Kummel 75).
The importance of these and subsequent studies is that
they laid a scholarly foundation for research that
considered the historical data surrounding the New Testament
divorced, as Semler called for, from its "edifying" or
purely theological concerns. This sort of emphatically
historical investigation was brought into English-speaking
academe by Herbert Marsh, a student of Michaelis, Connop
Thirlwall, and Edward Pusey. Marsh and Pusey introduced
much of the historical interest of the German critics in
their own work, while Thirlwall made his greatest
contribution in a translation of Friedreich Schleiermacher's
Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke (Neill and Wright
9) .
The divorce of historical investigation from an
interest in the theological appeals of the text was
furthered by the work of David Friedrich Strauss and, most
importantly, Ferdinand C. Baur. Strauss took a radical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stance in his critical study of the life of Jesus by
presupposing the nature of all miracle accounts as mythical
(Strauss 71). He stepped beyond the rationalistic arguments
of his day taking, as Kummel pointed out, a position that
criticized rationalism for not completing its project
(Kummel 121). Criticism, for Strauss, should not have only
questioned individual texts or events related in those
texts, but also should have restructured the New Testament
as a whole under a rationalistic philosophy.
Ultimately, Strauss found almost the entire gospel
account mythical. While his method did not significantly
influence New Testament scholarship over time, it was, for
two reasons, very important for the development of the
critical approach. First, it further established the tools
of biblical criticism as grounded in rationalism and the
interest of biblical criticism as historical. Strauss
developed an extensive critical apparatus for
differentiating between "myth" and history in biblical
narrative (e.g., "When the narration is irreconcilable with
the known and universal laws which govern the course of
events..." it is "unhistorical;" Strauss 71). Strauss then
used the conceptions of "historical" and "unhistorical" or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
"mythical" to analyze the character of the Gospel accounts
throughout the remainder of his two-volume study. Thus,
Strauss' work continued moving biblical criticism away from
a concern with the appeals the text made to a concern with
the historicity of the text's narrative. As we shall see,
conterr^orary critical approaches, such as rhetorical
criticism, developed as a reaction against this disinterest
in the text's meaning and significance.
The second reason for Strauss' importance to nineteenth
century biblical criticism is the impact his work had on
F.C. Baur and, through Baur, on the Tuebingen school of
biblical study. The importance of the Tuebingen school to
biblical criticism can hardly be overestimated. Its work
has dominated the development of twentieth century biblical
criticism and it continues to influence criticism today.
Baur established the essential critical stance of the
Tuebingen school. While he did not commit himself
completely to Strauss' mythical presuppositions concerning
the text, he did take a critical stance similar to and, in
some ways, beyond Strauss' position.
Baur applied Hegelian philosophy to the study of the
New Testament, especially Hegel's dialectical conception of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. He attempted to show
this pattern occurring in the origin and development of the
New Testament. So, for Baur, the New Testament ultimately
grew dialectically, a synthesis of Jewish Christianity and
Pauline Christianity (see Harris 181-185; also Ladd 43,
Neill and Wright 23). This emphasis on the debt early
Christianity owed Judaism confirmed historical criticism's
methodological commitment to finding the origin of biblical
theology and its construction in the religious and social
context surrounding it. So, even now, it is common for
rhetorical criticism of the New Testament to seek rhetorical
constructs in the text's setting from which the authors
might have drawn to influence their readers.
While Baur's philosophical ground was soon discarded,
the move he made was significant for biblical criticism in
several ways. First, it justified the use of the best
contemporary philosophical positions as perspectives for
biblical criticism (which, for instance, is fundamental to
Rudolf Bultmann's use of existential philosophy in Jesus
Christ and Mythology). Also, it emphasized the historical
development of the early Christian church from its
relationship and tensions with Judaism. This emphasis would
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
help shape the historical perspective of the Tuebingen
school and would help direct criticism to questions that the
history-of-religions study that would soon dominate the
discipline would seek to answer (Jewett, Christian Tolerance
15, Kummel 207). Finally, this move further locked the
focus of biblical criticism on the history of the early
church and on the evolution of the New Testament within the
church.
Form criticism, which studies the formation of the New
Testament, especially the synoptic Gospels, from their
preliterary stage (as orally transmitted sayings of Jesus,
miracle narratives, historical narratives, etc.) to their
textual form, was an outgrowth of this focus on the history
and evolution of the New Testament. Having begun to
construct an "historical" New Testament text from later
discovered manuscripts, scholars turned to reconstructing
the oral traditions that became the New Testament. Within
the discipline of biblical criticism, this program of study
further entrenched the notion that the New Testament text
was best understood by examining the historical causes that
brought it into being.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
Of course, the history-of-religions school took an even
firmer stance on the presupposition that New Testament
origins could be best explained through direct historical
causality. Initially, they applied what amounted to an
evolutionary approach to the problem of early church history
and the New Testament text. The history-of-religions school
attempted to show that the early church grew or evolved out
of religious ideas current in the Jewish-Hellenic world that
saw its birth (for example, identifying Paul's Pharisaic
background and the Greek mystery religions as sources of
early Christian belief). Depending on one's perspective,
the work of the history-of-religions school continued to
confine or sharpen the focus of New Testament study on the
history surrounding its formation. Source criticism, the
study of the sources of the text we now call the New
Testament, which had been the fundamental critical inquiry
guiding these early critical scholars, continued to grow
more complex with this growing interest in the birth and
early formation of the Christian Church.
Source criticism and the other schools of biblical
criticism were greatly impacted in the first half of the
twentieth century by the work of Karl Barth and Bultmann.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Following World War I, these two key figures subtly altered
the approach of biblical criticism. This shift opened new
doors for seeking the meaning of the New Testament text.
For Barth, the meaning of the text could be sought through a
theological approach to the text. Barth attempted to
distinguish between the scientific or historical approach to
biblical studies and the theological approach. He contended
that the historical approach teaches us about the
development of the text but, by its nature, cannot explicate
its meaning (Barth, Romans viii-x). Historical criticism is
interested in the human construction of the text, while
theology should be interested in the divine revelation
within the text. For Barth, this meant that theologians
should be primarily concerned with finding the "word of God
to men" in the text (Barth, Christ and Adam 31-32, Barth,
Word of God 43-44).
Bultmann took a different approach to essentially the
same goal. Rather than miss the theological meaning of the
text, Bultmann, himself a major form critic, saw historical
criticism as distancing the meaning by approaching the text
from a "scientific" world view rather than the
"mythological" world view within which the text was written
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
(Jesus Christ and Mythology 37). Bultmann averred that the
text's meaning was to be found in its mythological language
(Jesus Christ and Mythology 18). So, Bultmann's well-known
demythologizing process sought the central meaning or
"preaching" (kerygma) of the text by peeling back and
examining the layers of myth which surround it. Those
layers of myth express the text's kerygma and so point to
the central meaning of the text. The critic must find the
text's meaning in the mythology and express it in non-
mythological (for Bultmann, existential) terms.
Barth and Bultmann's attempts to salvage and display
the text's meaning have had a profound effect on
contemporary critical approaches. Biblical criticism is no
longer content to theorize concerning the origins of the
text. It now seeks to comment on the meaning of the
finished text for its authors/redactors and readers.
Redaction criticism, composition criticism, literary
criticism, narrative criticism, and rhetorical criticism
have all been positive steps in this direction.
Each of these approaches, to a large extent, has
focused its attention on the meaning of the text. At the
same time, each has worked to find and place that meaning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
within its historical context. Further, each of these
approaches has claimed a distinct domain and focus for its
study. Redaction criticism and literary criticism are
perhaps the best established modes of criticism, and they
have the greatest bearing on the development of rhetorical
criticism of the New Testament.
Redaction criticism attempts to go beyond form
criticism by examining how the "evangelist's theological
purpose" shapes the editing and placement of material in the
text (Perrin 24). Redaction criticism directs its attention
toward the significance of the finished text and its attempt
to impact its world. While redaction critics are more
specifically concerned with the redactor's editorial
construction of the text, their interest in the text's final
construction and in the influence of the redactor's
"theological purpose" on that construction is exceedingly
important for the rhetorical approach. Rhetorical criticism
of the New Testament is also primarily concerned with the
finished text and the way the text is constructed to impact
its audience (Mack 21). Rhetorical critics approach the New
Testament as a suasory text and seek to understand the
construction and suasory force of its appeals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Literary criticism is more concerned with the artistic
construction of the New Testament. Petersen has argued that
literary criticism of the Bible owes much to Hans Frei ' s
watershed study of The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative in
eighteenth and nineteenth century hermeneutics (Petersen 20-
22). Following an essentially Barthian approach, Frei
contended that biblical criticism failed to explicate fully
the meaning of the text in its original context because of
its lack of interest in biblical narrative. Before the
critical approaches gained ascendancy, a "realistic" reading
of biblical narrative had been common (Frei 6,16). However,
Frei contended that this reading of biblical narrative faded
during the growth of critical studies. So, Frei called for
an approach that would once again consider the literary and
narrative qualities of the text. Though, in many respects,
Frei's distinction between the "realistic" and the critical
reading of the text mirrors Barth's distinction between a
scientific or historical reading and a theological reading
of the text, his work did impact and lend further
theoretical support to literary approaches to the text.
Separate schools of literary and narrative criticism had
already started focusing critical tools on biblical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
narrative. This focus led literary critics to once again
deal with rhetorical qualities of the text.
Literary criticism's emphasis on the power of narrative
and groupings of narratives both as expression and as
received address is worth noting. Biblical narrative's
presentation as "received address" implies a rhetorical act
in which the recipient of the address is supposed to be
affected by the narrative (Powell 15). Though he has
focused exclusively on Old Testament narrative and poetry,
Alter has also noted the fundamentally rhetorical nature of
biblical literature (Art of Biblical Poetry). Further,
Northrop Frye has clearly linked the narrative design of the
gospel message with rhetorical purposes (The Great Code BO
BS) . However, the strict rhetorical approach adopted by New
Testament scholars has typically avoided discussing the
rhetoric of narrative.
Rhetorical critics of the New Testament have sought to
distinguish their work from that of literary and narrative
critics by eschewing New Testament narrative and literary
art. However, their debt to literary criticism is
significant. The current school of rhetorical criticism
follows literary and narrative criticisms' lead in focusing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
on the "meaning" of the text within its historical context
rather than continuing to focus on the text's development.
The rhetorical school has also been interested in the final
product, the New Testament in its finished form, the form
that held meaning and significance for its original readers
and followers.
Mack, Vernon Robbins, and Charles Robbins, the current
leaders in developing a rhetorical approach to the New
Testament, have attempted to identify rhetorical criticism
as a discrete approach to biblical criticism. Like literary
criticism, it seeks to be an extension of and to step beyond
form criticism (Petersen 7, Muilenburg 1-2). This
rhetorical approach has drawn on the presuppositions of
historical criticism. It takes a rational historical
approach to the New Testament that assumes the text to be
the product of a specific historical, theological,
philosophical, and rhetorical context. The rhetorical
approach assumes that understanding the text grows from
understanding its historical world (the world in which its
rhetorical or argumentation forms were common). So, in
examining the text, rhetorical critics seek rhetorical forms
consistent with those that might have been currently
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
available and recognizable to the New Testament authors and
readers.
Further, rhetorical critics have contended that the
essential meaning of the New Testament text and its
significance are not found in form criticism's
reconstruction of the text's evolution but in the final form
the text took before its readers. For rhetorical critics,
the text's importance lies in its suasory appeals to its
readers. These appeals are most clearly seen within the
finished text.
While Mack has attempted to establish a consistent
theoretical position for rhetorical criticism of the New
Testament, this has not been always the case, as I will
demonstrate. As Mack has noted, rhetorical criticism of the
New Testament did not grow directly from literary criticism
but from a "rough and tumble" interaction of critics seeking
to understand the social history surrounding the New
Testament text (Rhetoric and the New Testament 13). Often,
this meant that there was no consistent critical approach
for rhetorical critics of the New Testament.2 Without a
consistent approach, rhetorical critics did not have a
distinct body of research on which to draw. Mack developed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
his narrow conception of rhetorical criticism of the New
Testament to deal with these concerns. I will begin tracing
the growth of this critical approach by addressing the
development of rhetorical criticism of the Bible and then
focus on the school of rhetorical critics who examine the
New Testament.
Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible
I want to begin by quoting at length Mack's
justification for developing a formal approach to rhetorical
criticism of the New Testament. It describes and helps us
understand the lack of consistency in early rhetorical
criticism of the Bible and why many critics did not seem to
recognize or draw on other critics who were doing
essentially the same work.
Since the mid-1970s, rhetorical studies
of early Jewish and Christian texts have
burgeoned. A certain elan is to be noticed,
though there is no single network of
scholars in conversation about the approach,
no school, acknowledged master, or canon of
methods at the center of this activity. It
is also the case that there has been no
programmatic essay or slogan to announce its
presence. And only infrequently has it
even occurred to anyone to attempt an
explanation for the rest of the guild of
biblical scholars as to why rhetorical
criticism may be important.
(Rhetorical Criticism 2-3)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
As Mack's statement attests, rhetorical criticism of
the Bible has had a short but lively history, and it is
virtually impossible to identify its origins or its
theoretical configuration. Most writers identify the early
attempts to establish rhetorical criticism as a discrete
field of biblical research with Muilenburg. In 1969, when
president of the Society of Biblical Literature, Muilenburg
called on critical scholarship to move beyond form criticism
into a study of the rhetorical and linguistic constructs
within the text (2-3).
Biblical scholars who first took up Muilenburg's call
tended to conceive of rhetorical criticism as a "special
type of form criticism" (Rittersbach 68). This "special
type" of criticism was considered to be linguistic, an
analysis of the "structural patterns" that make up a
literary unit within the text (Anderson xi, Rittersbach 68).
The concern of rhetorical criticism for these scholars was
discovering how a unified whole was created out of separate
language units within the text. They were clearly less
concerned with the final "meaning" of the text and its
rhetorical forms than with the construction of the text.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Martin Kessler, for instance, followed this method in
studying Genesis 7. He divided Genesis 7 into two
linguistic constructs. He then compared different accounts
of the same event (i.e., two accounts of the animals
entering the ark) in each construct to indicate how the text
was constructed (Kessler, "Rhetorical Criticism of Genesis
7" 6-7). As with Kessler, other early studies were not
concerned with, as Mack has described it, the social history
of the text, its setting, its "purpose," or its intended
audience and effects. They were primarily concerned with
the linguistic devices used to construct a finished text
(Ridout 75).
Given this emphasis, it was often difficult to
distinguish this "rhetorical" criticism from form criticism.
Both were concerned with the development of a finished text
from fragments or individual language units. Both were
concerned with identifying the separate language units that
make up the text as a whole and the linguistic devices that
allow for this construction.
Given these similarities, it is not surprising that,
despite brief popularity among several biblical scholars,
early rhetorical criticism all but disappeared within five
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
years of the first publication of Muilenburg's address in
1969. Studies by Kessler, Muilenburg, David Ritterspach,
and George Ridout, all produced shortly after Muilenburg's
first calls for rhetorical criticism, represent the bulk of
this research. While many of the studies that fell into
this school of research are very useful concerning the form
and structure of the biblical text, it is difficult to see
how their analyses differ from those of form criticism and
why the authors could not have come to the same conclusions
through essentially the same method in purely form critical
studies.
During the early 1970's, as rhetorical criticism was
being introduced into the field of biblical criticism, Hans
Dieter Betz published a critical study of the Epistle to the
Galatians which, under the guise of a literary analysis,
began more directly to address questions of a rhetorical
nature, questions concerning the use of suasory appeals and
classical rhetorical forms in New Testament argument. Betz
did not acknowledge the work of Muilenburg and his
followers. His study attempted to evaluate the Galatian
letter as reflecting Greek rhetoric and letter-writing. He
contended that his study of Galatians, and of Greek and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
Roman rhetoric and epistolography, indicated that Galatians
offered a rhetorical argument in the classical tradition to
establish its case (Betz 353).
Galatians, according to Betz, is "an example of the
'apologetic letter' genre" (354). As an example of that
genre, Galatians is open to analysis according to the
structure of classical Greco-Roman letter-writing derived
primarily from Cicero and Quintilian. The primary letter
divisions Betz derived from this tradition are the
prescripts, exordium, narratio, propositio, probatio,
paranaesis, and postscript. Betz applied these divisions to
Galatians and found a seven-fold letter structure following,
ultimately, a Platonic pattern of apologetic argument (378).
Betz' examination of Galatians is extremely important
for the development of the rhetorical approach in biblical
criticism, because he clearly demonstrated epistolary
structure from the classical rhetorical tradition within a
New Testament epistle. This demonstration opened the door
for scholars to inspect the entire New Testament text for
classical rhetorical constructions. Further, Betz' use of
the letter structure, found in Quintilian and Cicero,
offered a critical construct for later rhetorical critics to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
apply to the New Testament. Although he acknowledged the
primacy of Aristotle in the classical rhetorical tradition,
Mack drew almost exclusively on the rhetorical forms or
"patterns of argumentation" found, again, primarily in
Cicero and Quintilian for his analysis (Rhetoric and the New
Testament 41-42). Mack's use of these patterns is quite
consistent with Betz' use of Roman letter structure.
Betz' approach to Galatians led to several critical
studies that drew on classical rhetoric to examine the
arguments made in Galatians. James D. Hester applied Betz'
analysis to the Galatians 1:11-2:14 text and found that
2:11-14 acts as a digression from the preceding text (233) .
Robert Hall questioned Betz and Hester's identification of
Galatians with the apologetic form of letter-writing. He
contended that Galatians is a form of deliberative oratory
(277). Hall attempted to demonstrate that Galatians is more
coherent and unified when interpreted as deliberative rather
than apologetic and he outlined the epistle's arguments as
such (286-287) .
It is worth noting that Hall maintained that "modem
rhetorical theory has advanced beyond ancient rhetoric"
(277). He specifically cited Lloyd Bitzer's 1968 conception
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
of the rhetorical situation. However, he justified limiting
his criticism of Galatians to constructs from Roman rhetoric
by asserting that the text of Galatians reflects at least
some knowledge and use of the modes of argument of Roman
rhetoric (278). Hall's justification is significant because
it forms part of the theoretical basis for the limited scope
allowed rhetorical criticism by New Testament critics until
now.
The other formal justification for its limited scope is
that, according to Mack, (and, before him, Wilhelm
Wuellner), contemporary rhetorical criticism directs us back
to classical rhetoric for critical criteria for assessment
of New Testament rhetoric. According to their reading,
Chaim Perelman's emphasis on "argumentation" directs critics
to the classical form of argument found in Aristotle's
Rhetoric and especially to the Greco-Roman tradition (Mack,
Rhetoric and the New Testament 20, Wuellner, "Where is
Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?" 449-450).
As recently as 1989, Joop Smit took up classical
rhetoric as a critical tool in studying Galatians. Smit
acknowledged that Betz' work was significant in bringing
classical rhetoric to bear on the Galatians text (1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
However, Smit, like Hall, disagreed with Betz'
identification of Galatians as apologetic. Without
acknowledging Hall's work, Smit also contended that
Galatians is a deliberative address (1). Smit emphasized
the spoken character of Galatians, conceiving it as a speech
later put into letter form. He also contended, like Hall,
that this conception of Galatians brings greater unity to
the text as a whole (Smit 24). The fact that Smit could
take up essentially the same argument as Hall and not
acknowledge or, apparently, even know of Hall's work once
again indicated that rhetorical criticism was a fast
developing approach with no consistent or recognized body of
work.
During and following the Galatians controversy,
Wuellner and George Kennedy made strong claims for the
utility of using classical rhetorical theory to examine the
New Testament and attempted to identify its critical focus.
More than any other scholars, Kennedy and Wuellners' work
directly influenced the present school of research. In
fact, their research provided much of the theoretical basis
for current rhetorical criticism of the New Testament.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Wuellner published his first study of biblical rhetoric
in 1976, just as the controversy over the rhetoric of
Galatians was heating up. Drawing heavily on Perelman,
Wuellner studied how Paul's epistle to the Romans influenced
its "audience's adherence to certain theses" ("Romans" 330).
Wuellner justified bringing rhetorical theory to the text by
claiming its ability to free scholars from the "impasse"
created by the clash between form criticism and genre
criticism in studying Romans ("Romans" 330) . Notably,
Wuellner's justification was consistent with that offered by
literary criticism of the New Testament (Petersen 8). This
justification would also be used to support the rhetorical
approach to New Testament criticism.
Again following Perelman, Wuellner studied Paul's
epistle on the basis of the "judgment" of the audience
toward which it was directed ("Romans" 335) . While Wuellner
used terms from classical rhetoric to describe portions of
Romans, it is significant that, as early as 1976, he used
Perelman's rhetorical theory for his analysis. In fact,
Wuellner concluded his study with an extended appeal to his
fellow biblical scholars to take up the tools of
contemporary as well as classical rhetorical theory to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
further biblical research. However, New Testament scholars,
such as Mack and Robbins, would largely ignore Wuellner's
call and continue drawing almost exclusively on Roman
rhetoric for their research (Mack, Rhetoric and the New
Throughout the next decade, Wuellner continued to argue
for the necessity of a critical discipline based on a
rhetorical approach to the New Testament text. In 1987, he
asked and answered the question, "Where is Rhetorical
Criticism Taking Us?" Rhetorical criticism, he contended,
takes us beyond the study of language as simply a reflection
of reality to a study of the "social aspect of language" as
it is used to communicate with and influence others ("Where
is Rhetorical Criticism" 449) . As Mack noted, rhetorical
critics of the New Testament have taken up this interest in
the "social aspects of language" and have sought rhetorical
forms that could be observed within the historical
development of the first century church (Mack, Rhetoric and
the New Testament 28-29) . As already mentioned, the desire
to produce "social histories" was part of the drive that led
to the current focus of rhetorical criticism of the New
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Testament and that distinguished it from earlier forms of
research, such as that propounded by Muilenburg.
When Wuellner critically assessed what had and had not
been done with rhetorical criticism and the Bible through
1987, he mentioned Muilenburg and the short-lived school
that grew up around him. Wuellner described them as
"victims of the fateful reduction of rhetorics to
stylistics" ("Where is Rhetorical Criticism" 451). When
rhetoric becomes a matter of stylistics, its studies become
either linguistic analyses or studies of tropes and figures
indistinguishable from those of literary criticism ("Where
is Rhetorical Criticism" 452).
So, in order to develop a critical discipline distinct
from literary and narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism
needed to focus on a distinctly "rhetorical" subject matter.
For rhetorical critics of the New Testament, the formal
"argumentation" of the text would become that subject
matter. Rhetorical critics of the New Testament saw the
text's argumentation as based in the classical "canons" of
rhetoric, the rhetorical forms they believed would have been
most likely recognized in New Testament society. This logic
led directly to the approach espoused by Mack, Charles
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Robbins, Vemon Robbins, and Hester. To establish a
critical discipline whose work was clearly distinct from
what literary critics and narrative critics were already
doing with the text, these scholars thought it necessary to
narrow the focus of their research to units of argument
explicitly identified in the rhetorical theory of Cicero and
Quintilian.
Wuellner noted the narrow focus of New Testament
scholars who use only classical rhetoric as a critical
perspective from which to study Scripture. He claimed that
Kennedy, in codifying a method of rhetorical criticism from
classical rhetoric, placed us at a crossroads where we must
choose which rhetorical theory to rely on for each text of
the Bible. Wuellner mentioned the work of Perelman, Kenneth
Burke, and Edwin Black as possible alternatives or
complements to the neo-Ciceronian systems of critical
judgment ("Where" 462-463). He maintained that rhetorical
criticism of the Bible should advance beyond a method which
could only be used to study texts clearly following patterns
of formal argument (a very limited number of New Testament
texts). Given the variety of rhetorical devices used within
any text, theories of rhetorical inquiry of Scripture should
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Offer an array of rhetorical criticisms to further
illuminate and invigorate study of all biblical texts
("Where" 462; see also Wuellner, "Hermeneutics" 35).
Kennedy also acknowledged the limitations of founding
criticism solely on rhetorical forms found in Roman
rhetoric. He recognized the problems inherent in applying
criteria developed in Greek and Roman society primarily for
judging the quality of arguments conducted in the civic
sphere to texts written predominantly in a Jewish culture to
express what its authors believed to be divine revelation
(6). Kennedy allowed that, to some extent, this difficulty
would remain with the rhetorical critic's project no matter
what. Greek forms of proof and Jewish forms of revelation,
he maintained, will always remain different in a number of
ways (Kennedy 8).
However, rhetorical criticism of the New Testament has
not yet examined many of the forms of proof in classical
rhetoric. As I have noted, rhetorical critics have almost
exclusively grounded their research in the structure of
argument found in Cicero, Quintilian, and the Rhetorica ad
Herennium (Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament 27-28) . We
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
can easily distinguish between the broad array of artistic
and inartistic proofs offered in Aristotle and the forms of
argument in Roman rhetoric and letter-writing. But, before
we discuss these proofs, let us note Kennedy's citation of
additional limitations in studying the New Testament as
formal argument.
Kennedy noted that the New Testament text (certainly
closer to the Greek world than the Old Testament and the
focus of Kennedy's study) did not carry its message to its
audience through "rational persuasion" but as an
"authoritative proclamation" based in the death-resurrection
narrative of the life of Christ (Kennedy 6). The "speaker"
of this proclamation was often identified as God in the
Scriptures, not a human author. Any persuasive power the
text might have was said to be from God "softening the
heart" of the reader rather than from the specific claims,
arguments, or proofs of the text (Kennedy 8). Thus, the
text claimed that it did not attempt to persuade but that it
allowed God to touch the heart of individuals by opening to
readers a recognition and then proclamation of divine truth.
However, even if the experience of a "softened" heart was a
primary proof of the text's authority, the presumed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
authority of God behind the text also acted as a proof of
the text's authority. To interpret this softening as an act
of God, one must have already assumed that God was working
through the text. Thus, divine authority was already
presumed for the text.
Further, in practice, the New Testament also relies on
human authority to present its case. When the author of
John's gospel claims that readers know what he relates is
true because he personally witnessed it, he relies on the
authority of himself, a human witness, to persuade his
audience (John 19:35, 21:24). Nonetheless, Kennedy is
correct in indicating the role of God in biblical claims for
authority. Even the author of John, though in practice a
human authority, is assumed authoritative because he acts as
a witness of God; he is sent by a divine or "ultimate
initiative" (a term we shall return to later, it refers to
divine calling, the source of authority for the sent witness
in the Gospels).
Kennedy justified a rhetorical approach to the New
Testament by contending that rhetoric is a universal
activity and its universality means that individual
rhetorical acts, when critically studied, call for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
rhetorical criticism. While the New Testament may at times
pursue a form of conviction distant from that of common
argument in Greek society, it does often give reasons why
the reader should accept its claims. And, Kennedy insisted,
in giving reasons, the New Testament performs a rhetorical
act (Kennedy 8). This justification should have directed
rhetorical critics of the New Testament to examine all
avenues of rhetorical activity taken within the New
Testament. Justification may take other forms than that of
structured or formal "argument." For instance, a text such
as the New Testament may justify its claims through
narrative or, as I have noted, through the divine authority
it assumes behind its message. However, those who
ultimately adopted the rhetorical approach took their
reasoning from Kennedy's next assertion.
Kennedy insisted that when reason giving appeared in
Roman texts, it had to convince readers who were well-
schooled in Roman rhetoric. Therefore, the New Testament,
to succeed as it did, had to give arguments consistent with
the precepts of Roman rhetoric (Kennedy 9). Kennedy's
claims here are not entirely convincing when one considers
the very real possibility that the New Testament's success
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
in convincing many Romans of the truth of its claims was due
to the power of its central narrative rather than its use of
Roman rhetorical or "argumentation" form.
However, Kennedy's contention appealed to New Testament
critics seeking to develop a distinct critical approach to
New Testament rhetoric. The essential logic of this
contention continues to direct the work of rhetorical
critics of the New Testament.3 Rhetorical acts call for
rhetorical criticisms and, where the New Testament text
clearly takes up the form or style of Roman rhetoric, a
rhetorical criticism grounded in Roman rhetoric is useful.
Keeping in mind that Mack, Robbins, and other New
Testament critics are trying to distinguish the rhetorical
approach from the narrative and literary approaches, it is
not surprising that they draw on Kennedy's logic as the
foundation for their discipline. Examining rhetorical units
in the New Testament within the context of Roman rhetoric
does distinguish their interests from those of literary and
narrative critics. It also places their research clearly
within the bounds of historical criticism of the New
Testament. Further, it fulfills the calls of Muilenburg and
Wuellner to step beyond form criticism. Rhetorical critics
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
take the next logical step and seek formal constructs within
the finished text. They also begin the work they set out to
do two decades ago; they are developing social histories.
Rhetorical critics of the New Testament are placing the
argumentation structures of the New Testament within the
popular argumentation forms of their social world. So, the
tight focus of rhetorical criticism of the New Testament has
been useful in accomplishing or beginning to accomplish many
of the ends these rhetorical critics seek.
However, one is still left with several questions about
the reasonableness of developing so tight a focus for
rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. For instance,
how are we to understand New Testament narrative, which is
clearly not written in the form of Roman argument, yet still
seeks conviction through suasory appeals "that ye might
believe?" Do we read these appeals as rhetoric or as
narrative? What about the use of witnesses as proofs
supporting the New Testament's interpretation of events?
Or, what about the use and reuse in a variety of forms of
central narratives, especially the death-resurrection
narrative, as appeals? The New Testament clearly calls for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
a broader array of rhetorical criticisms than what these
critics allow.
It should be noted that in his survey of rhetorical
criticism of the New Testament, Mack never alluded to the
extensive work undertaken in the field of rhetorical
criticism. Here, he would certainly have found critics
dealing with the rhetoric of biblical narratives. For
instance. Dale Patrick and Allen Scult have examined
rhetorical aspects of biblical narratives. In fact, Scult
has shown an interest in the relationship between rhetoric
and biblical hermeneutics for several years. He has argued
in support of a growing interest in the field of rhetoric
for the study of sacred texts (Scult, "Relationship" 228).
With Michael Calvin McGee and J. Kenneth Kuntz, Scult has
demonstrated the rhetorical power of the biblical creation
narrative in promoting the authority of the text.
Patrick and Scult also examined the rhetorical force of
biblical narrative in their Rhetoric and Biblical
Interpretation. Drawing on, among others, Frei's seminal
work in narrative theology, Patrick and Scult attempted to
develop a means of studying biblical narrative from a
rhetorical perspective. They centered their narrative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
method by identifying the genre characteristics of
individual narratives. For instance, when the authors
sought to identify the rhetorical claims of historical
narratives in the Old Testament, they did so on the basis of
the form or genre of historical narrative represented and
the kind of truth claims that form of historical narrative
typically assumed (Patrick and Scult 51, 53-54) .
However, as New Testament critics contend, this means
of studying the narratives of the biblical text is not
exclusive to the field of rhetorical study. Form criticism
has already shown a continuing interest in the literary
genres of New Testament texts (Travis 153). Literary
criticism and narrative interpretation are both concerned
with genre criticism (Petersen 18). While this is not
sufficient reason to avoid Patrick and Scults' approach,
rhetorical critics of the New Testament have, as mentioned
above, strained to clarify their approach by distinguishing
their work from other critical approaches. And so, these
critics have purposely avoided this kind of critical
strategy.
In these critics' defense, Patrick and Scults' approach
is directed toward the Old Testament rather than the New
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Testament. Further, Patrick and Scult limited the focus of
their critical method to biblical texts that are clearly
narrative in nature. They did not pursue the somewhat
murkier waters of epistolary narrative or many gospel
narratives where the distinction between obvious narrative
or mythos and formal argument is less clear.
There is still a troubling gap between Patrick and
Scult's work and that of the school of critics Mack
represents. This gap is especially troublesome because, as
I have noted and as Kennedy himself and others have noted,
the arguments in New Testament epistles find ultimate
authority in a proclamation based in a wide configuration of
narratives centered in one central death-resurrection
narrative (Kennedy 6, Thiemann "Radiance" 29, Wood 11).
Mack neither attempts to indicate the manner in which the
central message or proclamation in Scripture or in
individual scriptural texts is established by biblical
narratives nor how that proclamation and those narratives
lend authority to biblical texts. Patrick and Scult do much
to indicate the authoritative force of biblical narratives
but do not indicate how the proclamation built from those
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
narratives grants authoritative weight to individual
arguments within the New Testament text.
In the end, Mack is in danger of repeating Muilenburg' s
mistake of so limiting the scope of rhetorical criticism
that it loses its utility as a discrete approach to New
Testament rhetoric. Similar to Muilenburg's "extension" of
form criticism, limiting rhetorical criticism to the
examination of argument forms reduces this research to a
study of specific linguistic constructs and may allow it to
miss much of the suasory discourse that appears in the text
in constructs other than "argument forms." However, if an
approach can be outlined that begins with Mack's perspective
and expands that perspective to utilize contemporary
rhetorical theory as it is appropriate to the text, that
approach could accomplish several significant critical ends.
It could help explicate the social history of the text by
demonstrating the text's use of recognized patterns of
argument, as Mack desires, and, at the same time, identify
and critically assess rhetorical appeals within the text
that Mack's approach does not.
Since gospel narratives do not induce belief through
argument forms alone, such an approach is necessary if any
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
research that is consonant with Mack's approach is to
discuss the rhetorical appeals of the Gospels. I would like
to propose just such an approach. My study begins with the
tight focus of Mack's rhetorical approach to the text. That
is, it begins with Aristotelian notions concerning rhetoric.
However, my study then broadens its approach, drawing on
contemporary theories in rhetoric in order to understand the
suasory force of gospel narratives.
In this study, I am especially concerned with the use
of the testimony of witnesses as a rhetorical proof in
gospel narratives. I will demonstrate that gospel
narratives are constructed as the testimony of witnesses to
narrated events and their meaning. In other words, the
foundational proof around which gospel narratives are
constructed is the testimony of witnesses.
The rhetorical use of witnesses in the Gospels is an
excellent place to start because there is a formal
discussion of the suasory value of witnesses in Aristotle's
Rhetoric and because these witnesses appear in gospel
narratives (and are part of the construction of those
narratives) and not just in simple argument forms.
Aristotle offers some essential grounding in the rhetorical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
use of witnesses. Thus, we may begin an examination of
gospel witness with Aristotle. At the same time, notions of
"argument forms," as explicated by Mack will not encompass
or explain the narrative use of witnesses in the Gospels.
So, we must go beyond Mack and draw on more contemporary
theories.
In exploring the testimony of witnesses as rhetorical
proofs in the Gospels, I am not asserting that the Gospels
use no other rhetorical proofs to support their
representation and interpretation of events. Of course, the
Gospels use a variety of proofs to support their
interpretation of events. For instance, they consistently
use miracle accounts as proofs of the unique character of
Jesus' message and mission. The miracles often convince
individuals or the multitudes and, by extension, should
convince the reader (e.g., Mark 10:46-52). More directly,
the Gospel of John claims to narrate the words and works of
Jesus so "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God" (John 20:31).
However, given the nature of the Gospels as "witness,"
the narrated works of Jesus, including his miracles, can
only be accepted as accurate or true representations if the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
gospel witness is accepted as a true representation. If the
reader does not accept the reliability of those who
supposedly witnessed the miracles, the miracles cannot be
accepted as actual proofs of Jesus' character. Thus, the
rhetorical force of miracle accounts relies on the reader
having accepted the construction of immediate eyewitness in
the Gospels.
Beyond immediate "eyewitnesses," the Gospels use
witnesses whose authority comes from a higher divine or
"ultimate" source. My study will show that the testimony of
these witnesses binds together the various proofs used in
the Gospels. The proofs offered by miracles and by
references to the law and the prophets exist as
demonstrations of the ultimate nature of this authoritative
witness. A miracle exists as a miracle because it is the
testimony of the divine or absolute initiative to the
absolute and authoritative nature of a particular witness's
testimony. This will all be discussed in my examination of
"ancient" witness in the Gospels. For now, it is important
to note that the testimony of witnesses is foundational in
the gospel form; it both grounds and provides coherence for
the rhetorical proofs offered within the Gospels.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Significance Qf this SJaidy
This study offers an important extension of rhetorical
criticism of the New Testament. As I have noted, it
attempts to keep Mack's conception of rhetorical criticism
from confining the study of suasory discourse in the New
Testament to an examination of one set of linguistic
constructs. By this, I hope to keep rhetorical criticism of
the New Testament from falling into the same difficulties
rhetorical criticism of the Bible did following Muilenburg.
This danger is clearly present. Outside Mack and Vernon
Bobbin's study of argument forms in the Gospels, little
significant research has been done on New Testament rhetoric
following Mack's approach. Recent rhetorical research, like
that of Robert S. Reid's study of parallelism in the Gospel
of Mark, bears almost no relation to Mack's work. In fact,
Reid's work comes much closer to the analysis of chiasmic
structure put forward by form critics such as Martin Best.
While little has been done with Mack's conception of New
Testament rhetorical criticism, as I have noted, scholars
such as Alter, Patrick, and Scult have begun developing a
significant body of research on Old Testament rhetoric using
a broad set of critical tools and theory to guide their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
research. The present study should broaden Mack's
conception of New Testament rhetoric, so that it can examine
narrative discourse as well as argument forms. A broader
approach should allow for greater analytic power, a fuller
understanding of gospel rhetoric, and a significantly better
heuristic appeal for New Testament rhetorical criticism.
Beyond expanding Mack's conception of New Testament
rhetoric, this study also begins to develop a rhetorical
conception of the Jesus of the Gospels. It begins
describing the character of Jesus that the Gospels
constructed to lend credibility to their interpretation of
his life and meaning. That character is represented as
having credibility to lend because of his nature as the key
witness to truth, the only direct witness to God. Thus, the
suasory force of the Gospels resides in the role of witness
taken up throughout their narratives by characters who were
supposed to have related the basic information and
interpretations on which the Gospels were formed.
In explaining the significance of this conception of
the Jesus of the Gospels as the central witness to God, I
need to comment on the relationship between my work and that
of the Jesus Seminar. The key factor in distinguishing my
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
research from that of the Jesus Seminar resides in our aims.
The Jesus Seminar seeks to complete or, at least, push
forward the search for the "historical Jesus" (Five Gospels
2-3) . Seminar scholars attempt to discern the "real"
sayings and actions of the "historical Jesus" in the various
narratives that make up the Gospels.
I am less concerned with the "historical Jesus" than
with the Jesus of the Gospels. Part of this focus grows
from what I have discussed of rhetorical criticism's concern
with the rhetorical construction and appeals of the
completed text. However, the reasons for and utility of my
focus go beyond the simple fact that I am pursuing a
rhetorical analysis. I believe that a fuller understanding
of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is at least as
important as a conception of the "historical Jesus." There
are two primary reasons for this.
First, I think that any search for the "historical
Jesus" is problematic from the start. I am especially
concerned with the problem of primary evidence in this
search. Much of the primary evidence used to support
described qualities of the "historical Jesus" must be taken
from narratives that cannot really be taken as more
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
"historical" or less mythical in nature or content than the
Gospels. For instance, the scholars of the Jesus Seminar
describe the historical Jesus as a "laconic sage," a
character type found in much Near Eastern literature
comparable, as the scholars point out, to the character Gary
Cooper played in Westerns (Five Gospels 32). The key
problem with this description is that the "laconic sage" is
as much a literary construction of Near Eastern religious
narrative as the son of God was of the mystery religions.
The primary illustrations the scholars draw of the laconic
sage are Elijah and Elisha, the Hebrew prophets whose
stories are also largely told in the Bible. It simply does
not follow that because several characters from the same
general narrative tradition have a consistent quality that
the quality is therefore accurately attributable to an
actual historical individual on whom one of those characters
might be based.
It would seem more likely that this was simply another
character trait applied to "holy men" in order to give them
and their sayings greater authority. At this point, my
approach is helpful. Given my focus, my approach allows us
to recognize each of these traits or versions of Jesus and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
Other religious characters as rhetorical constructions which
represent a set of social values and theological ideas.
This further supports the primary reason I believe
understanding the Christ of the Gospels is as significant as
finding the "historical Jesus."
Even if an "historical Jesus" does exist and can be
distinguished from the Gospels' Christ, he is not
necessarily as significant to history as the Jesus of the
Gospels. If he existed distinct from the Gospels, the
"historical Jesus" had little of the impact on history that
the Jesus of the Gospels did. The Christ of the Gospels
irrevocably changed western civilization. The social and
theological values that the Christ of the Gospels embodied
laid much of the foundation for Christian culture. If, as
Mack seeks, we want to describe the social history the New
Testament grew from and impacted, we will understand that
history far better through understanding the manner in which
the Christ of the Gospels was shaped by and shaped that
history than by describing or creating an "historical
Jesus."
As an alternative approach, this study offers a
rhetorical conception of the Gospels and the Jesus they
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
describe. It examines the construction of Jesus and the
gospel narratives that describe him as rhetorical appeals.
Further, it demonstrates a collection of gospel narratives
that interact with their social world, using witnesses as
rhetorical proofs in a manner that is supposed to be
convincing to their immediate readers. So, while this
inquiry says much about the rhetorical form of the Gospels,
it also comments on perceptions of persuasion and
reliability within the social world of the Gospels.
The next chapter takes up where this one leaves off.
It describes in detail the Aristotelian conception of
witnesses that I will apply to the Gospels. It also
outlines the contemporary theories of narrative and rhetoric
that I will draw on to complete my analysis. Thus, I begin,
like Mack, by drawing on Aristotle and expand on Mack's
perspective by drawing on Paul Ricoeur's understanding of
biblical witness, Walter Fisher's conception of narrative,
and Frank Kermode's description of gospel narrative. These
theories are drawn together into one consistent approach to
gospel narratives, an approach that illuminates their
rhetorical use of witnesses.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Chapter Three applies this theory to the role of
immediate witnesses in the Gospels. It describes the
multitudes and various individual characters as immediate
witnesses, witnesses whose authority and persuasive force
come from their direct involvement in events and the
consistency of their character and witness to those events.
Chapter Four explains the role of ancient witnesses in
the Gospels. These witnesses carry the authority of the
absolute initiative that calls them into being. That is,
their authority is supposed to come directly from God or
from having borne direct witness of God. The witness of
Jesus (the ultimate in ancient witness) is described in this
chapter as carrying the force of a direct witness to the
absolute. The consistency in Jesus' witness and character
testify to the absolute nature and authority of his message.
The final chapter draws the varying strands of this
study together. It summarizes the findings of the previous
chapters and comments on the utility of the study and on the
conception of Jesus and the Gospels developed throughout the
study. It concludes with several recommendations for
further research in the rhetoric of the New Testament.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
Chapter Notes
1. Though Kummel' s work. The New Testament: The History of
the Investigations of its Problems was published in 1972, it
continues to be the most complete critical examination of
New Testament criticism.
2. The broad array of approaches that have claimed a
rhetorical focus include Betz Galatians. Betz "Literary,"
Brunt, Cosby, Fiorenza "Rhetorical," Forbes, Hall, Hester,
Jewett Christian Tolerance. Jewett "Following," Jewett
Thessalonian. Kennedy, Kurz, Lampe, Mack and Robbins,
Robbins, Charles, Robbins, Vernon K. Jesus. Robbins, Vernon
K. "The Woman," Scult, McGee and Kuntz, Smit, Warner, Watson
"Philippians," Watson "2 John," Watson, "I Corinthians,"
Wuellner "Paul's." And, representing rhetorical criticism
of the Old Testament, Allen, Gitay, Kessler "Rhetorical
Criticism," Ritterspach, and Zulick, "The Agon of Jeremiah."
3. Those who have followed Kennedy's method to a great
extent include Cosby, Forbes, Lampe, Mack, Charles Robbins,
Vernon Robbins and Watson. Fiorenza draws on Kennedy and,
where useful, follows Lloyd Bitzer's conception of the
rhetorical situation in her work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
CHAPTER TWO: RHETORIC AND NEW TESTAMENT NARRATIVE
In the preceding chapter, I examined the current state
of rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. My discussion
indicated a critical discipline whose gaze is tightly
focused on the "argumentation units" found in both the New
Testament and in Aristotelian rhetorical theory. I
contended that this focus limits the discipline's ability to
comment on New Testament narrative and rhetoric.
In this chapter, I want to propose an approach to New
Testament rhetoric that significantly broadens the approach
Mack and Robbins have espoused and that may begin to
illuminate the rhetorical dimensions of New Testament
narrative. Where Mack and Robbins conceive of rhetoric as a
genre of New Testament literature distinct from New
Testament narrative, I want to give it a much larger place
in the text, especially in New Testament narratives. To do
this, I will first discuss the rhetorical character of New
Testament narrative. My discussion will maintain that New
Testament narrative has been broadly recognized as
rhetorical by literary critics. Further, I will contend
that New Testament narrative may be seen as formally
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
rhetorical within the rhetorical tradition of Aristotle.
The link between New Testament narrative and Aristotelian
rhetoric is reflected in each text's use of "martus" or
witness.
This chapter will argue that New Testament narrative,
as found in the Gospels, uses the testimony of "witnesses"
as the foundation for its historical and theological claims
and that the New Testament's use of "witness" is consistent
with Aristotle's use of the same concept in his Rhetoric.
Thus, the gospel form may be more fully understood by
examining how the rhetorical form of witness is intrinsic to
its persuasive power and its ultimate authority. I will
identify several qualities of witnesses found in Aristotle
that may be used to illuminate the Gospels' use of witness.
Since the Gospels use narrative to establish the authority
of their witnesses, I will draw on the conception of
characterological coherence found in Walter Fisher's
narrative paradigm to develop a means of assessing the
rhetorical efficacy of the Gospels' characterization of
witnesses. This chapter will conclude by pointing out
several ideas Paul Ricoeur puts forward concerning the
biblical use of witness which may be used to help clarify
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
the Gospels' use of witness in their claims for religious
authority.
New Testament Rhetoric and Narrative
Even Mack, who determinedly employs the structure of
argument and letter-writing found in technical or Roman
rhetorical thought for his analysis of the text, recognizes
some of the limits of his approach to New Testament
rhetoric. He acknowledges that the New Testament is "a
distinctively mixed bag" of rhetorical strategies and forms
(Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament 35). The New
Testament does not use standard argumentative forms alone to
make its case. It supports its largest contentions with a
"curious mix of myth and logic" (Mack, Rhetoric and the New
Testament 23). The New Testament arguments that more easily
fit the structure of technical rhetoric assume the
established truth of those larger mythic or narrative
contentions.
The idea that the New Testament's arguments are
essentially grounded in a narrative framework is not unique
to Mack. Amos Wilder claimed that the New Testament has an
"addiction to narrative" in presenting its particular
religious claims (35) . Herbert Schneidau asserted that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
narrative is the essential form in which the New Testament
establishes its doctrinal claims (132). Frye also contended
that narrative is the fundamental ground on which not only
the New Testament, but also the entire Bible builds its
case. This, Frye asserted, makes the Bible unique among all
religious texts. From the parables of Jesus to the
"historical" narratives "vaguely called 'non-fiction'," the
entire New Testament bases its proclamation on a foundation
of narrative (The Great Code 198).
Schneidau also noted that scholarship has often assumed
that the Bible "consists of a set of doctrinal propositions
with illustrative stories" (132). But, he quickly pointed
out that those who look at the Bible simply as a catalog of
doctrinal points miss the "storial character" of its writing
and the consequences that type of writing brings to the
doctrinal argument the Bible builds (132-133). Simply put,
the Bible and, particularly, the New Testament builds its
argument on a narrative foundation.
While Mack has recognized the Bible's use of logic and
narrative to establish its case, I have noted that he does
not consider the rhetorical use of narrative within the
scope of rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
asserted that classical theory only discussed the pathetic
use of narrative as illustration and was not concerned with
its appeal as a distinct form of persuasion (Mack, Rhetoric
and the New Testament 79). Likewise, Mack claimed that
contemporary narrative theory has just begun to explore the
possible rhetorical aspects of biblical narrative.
Therefore, he contended that we cannot yet discuss "the
rhetoric of the Gospels as narrative compositions" (Mack,
Rhetoric and the New Testament 79).
Thus it is that, in their study of rhetorical
constructs in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
three essentially narrative texts), Mack and Vernon Robbins
again distinguished between the narrative or "literary"
elements of the synoptics and the discursive or rhetorical
elements (32). Mack and Robbins limited their study to
formal arguments made in the synoptics (e.g., arguments over
working on the Sabbath) and sought patterns of argument from
Roman rhetoric in those arguments. Maintaining this
distinction between narrative and rhetoric seems
contradictory or at least reductionist. While they may be
examining formal arguments, the arguments are themselves
part of a story being told.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Because they limit their scope to the forms of
persuasive appeal found in technical rhetoric, Mack and
Robbins fall into several other difficulties. First, if the
key narratives of the New Testament are a central part of
its argument, then not discussing the persuasive structure
and strategies of those narratives leaves us missing much of
the power of the text. Further, if the more obviously
structured arguments of the New Testament assume the
legitimacy of the larger contentions supported by these
narratives, then we will have considerable difficulty
assessing the rhetorical force of the more obvious arguments
if we have no means of assessing the rhetorical strategy of
the narratives on which they build. We cannot really
understand the rhetoric of formal argument unless we
understand the rhetoric of the narrative on which it is
based.
Assessing the rhetorical qualities of New Testament
narrative clearly must be considered an important move in
developing a rhetorical criticism of the New Testament.
But, Mack and Robbins' arbitrary distinction raises the
question of whether or not New Testament narratives are
really rhetorical texts. Mack, Robbins, and those who
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
assume their theoretical perspective do not view rhetoric as
a formal persuasive act true to all New Testament
literature, including narrative, but as a genre of New
Testament writing defined primarily by the construction of
formal argument found in Cicero and Quintilian.
However, my entire project hinges on assuming a much
larger role for rhetoric, especially rhetoric as described
by Aristotle. I am arguing that rhetoric is not simply a
genre of New Testament literature but is characteristic of
New Testament narrative as a whole. That is. New Testament
narrative is constructed and redacted for overtly rhetorical
purposes. To say that the Gospels are rhetorical documents
is not new, of course. Many literary critics have commented
on the rhetorical nature of these texts (Frye, The Great
Code 80-85, Kermode 113, Trigg 120). However, there is a
distinction between recognizing rhetorical qualities within
a text and arguing that the text is constructed around
recognizable rhetorical proofs found in Aristotle's
Rhetoric. At least one rhetorical critic has found an
Aristotelian concept within the early development of the
Christian faith, and I will draw on his argument to
elaborate my claim.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
James Kinneavy, in Greek Rhetorical Origins of
Christian Faith, offered a foundational role to rhetoric in
New Testament literature. He argued that the fundamental
appeal of the New Testament, its appeal for belief, is drawn
from the similar appeal for belief (pistis) found in
classical rhetoric. Kinneavy argued convincingly that the
New Testament conception of faith is much the same as the
conception of persuasion in classical rhetoric. He allowed
that our understanding of the educational background of the
majority of New Testament writers is too limited to make
conclusive arguments concerning their knowledge of Greek
rhetoric and, thus, of the rhetorical use of "pistis" (Greek
Rhetorical Oricrins 146) .
However, Kinneavy showed significant semantic evidence
that the New Testament authors consistently used pistis in a
manner consonant with that of Greek rhetoric (Greek
Rhetorical Origins 132-133) . That is, the New Testament
concern with building belief may in itself be viewed as a
rhetorical concern. Further, the New Testament, by its own
admission, sought to promote belief. It attempted to
persuade readers through narrative and formal argument to
accept the truth of its central contentions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
If we accept Kinneavy's argument, we can see that the
entire New Testament had recognizable rhetorical intent and
foirm for first century readers. If the New Testament really
drew on the conception of belief found in classical
rhetoric, then, within its historical context, its entire
literary structure was constructed around a rhetorical
motive. It should not be difficult for anyone who accepts
the rhetorical criticism taken up by Mack and Robbins to
also accept Kinneavy's claims. If New Testament authors
were familiar with the specific forms of classical
rhetorical argument, they should also have been familiar
with the much more basic notion of "belief" in classical
rhetoric.
Accepting Kinneavy's claims leads to some very specific
conclusions concerning New Testament narrative. Primary
among these is that New Testament narrative was openly
rhetorical within the classical tradition. New Testament
narrative, in the Gospels and elsewhere, was rhetorically
structured. It was gathered and constructed to engender
belief or "pistis" as conceived in classical rhetoric. This
is very important to my project because I am attempting to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
demonstrate that the use of witnesses in New Testament
narrative is rhetorical in its intent and function.
The Gospel of John overtly states its rhetorical intent
in what many scholars believe to be its original ending.
John 20:31 states that, "These are written that ye may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." As Frye
has said of the final warning in Revelation, even if this
statement were not added by some later redactor after the
New Testament canon was essentially set, it is difficult to
believe that it was not at least considered an appropriate
conclusion for all four Gospels that precede it. Martin
Warner has also noted that John's concluding statement
clearly identifies this gospel's narrative as rhetorical in
intent. Warner contended that this statement identifies the
entire Gospel of John with the Aristotelian definition of
rhetoric (153). Kinneavy further argued that, even if one
were to follow only the understanding of rhetoric in the
classical era, John's statement would assert that the
narratives found in the Gospel of John were essentially
rhetorical in nature (Greek Rhetorical Origins 132). He
also contended that the use of pistis in other narrative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
contexts in the New Testament allows this same
interpretation.
Kinneavy is not alone in recognizing the rhetorical
nature of New Testament narrative. Frye observed that
story-telling throughout the Bible has both a poetic
function and a "social" or rhetorical function. Biblical
stories function as inducement to a "program of action" for
a given society; Israel in the Old Testament and the church
in the New Testament (Great Code 49). As social
inducement, biblical narrative relies on rhetorical forms
and appeals, figures of speech, and so on to lend suasory
appeal to its claims (Great Code 53).
Mark Allan Powell has noted the difficulty of
developing a literary approach to the Gospels because of
their character as social inducement. He concluded that the
Gospels cannot be looked on by literary critics as simple
fiction or "self-consciously imaginative literature,"
because the authors appeared to believe that the accounts
they were writing were essentially true and worthy of belief
(3-4). Powell recognized the difficulty this poses for
literary critics who specialize in "imaginative literature."
The Gospels were not written primarily as "made-up" stories
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
to appeal to readers' imaginations. Gospel stories function
as rhetorical appeals. They seek adherence to a set of
beliefs through a "narrative depiction of reality" (Powell
4) .
Michael Goldberg identified the appeal of narratives
such as those found in the Gospels with stories of a "life
lived" (195). That is, Gospel narratives helped justify a
set of religious beliefs through their representation of a
life lived in accordance with those beliefs (Goldberg 195).
Like Powell, Goldberg recognized the importance of these
stories being perceived as true. Denying the notion that
the truth of these stories was unrelated to their religious
assertions, Goldberg argued that the claim that Gospel
narratives were "in some basic way essentially true" was
part of what justified these stories and their message (47).
If biblical narratives, especially the Gospels, are
essentially rhetorical in nature, it would seem that we
should find rhetoric dealt with in some way in literary
criticisms of the text. And, if we briefly review the work
of literary critics, we can see that they do often find
themselves dealing with the rhetorical function of New
Testament narrative.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Literary. Criticism and Biblical Rhetaric
Literary criticism of the Bible has its origins in the
writings of literary critics of the last century, especially
Matthew Arnold (Wilder, Early Christian 12). Arnold was
interested in the Bible's role as the "indispensable
background, the three-fourths of life" at the base of
western society and life (Essays in Criticism 162). He was
concerned with its ability (as a literary text) to shape
social contexts by moving readers to live in a given manner.
He assumed that the Bible's social impact was essentially
good and reflected the "natural truth" (as opposed to the
"superstitious" doctrine) which really lies at the heart of
the biblical message (Essays in Criticism 161, Essavs
Religious 153). Already with Arnold, we can see rhetorical
concerns being assumed. The Bible's social force and its
ability to induce readers to act in a certain way are
rhetorical qualities.
The "Bible-as-literature" school that grew from
Arnold's work also showed interest in the text's social
force. The assumption of this school was that the Bible's
ability to continually influence the social order of western
culture grew from its "transcendent" literary qualities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Given that these "Bible-as-literature" scholars tended to
begin with an assumption that the Bible was a literary
masterpiece and that their work was to explain its social
impact by making manifest the text's literary greatness,
their concerns were generally not critical. Mary Ellen
Chase, for instance, confined her interest in the Bible to
its vast literary "delights" (13). P. C. Sands attempted to
demonstrate the "literary genius" of the New Testament and,
more specifically, of the Gospels to modern readers (32).
The "Bible-as-literature" school largely disappeared
around the mid-twentieth century as literary critics began
taking a more critical stance toward Scripture. Around this
time, Amos Wilder and T. R. Henn attempted to revivify
interest in literary criticism of the Bible. Henn's study
took a more critical stance than "Bible-as-literature"
authors but continued to focus on the literary significance
of the Bible in western culture (Henn 34). Wilder moved
slightly away from this approach and began to focus
attention on the more structural and genre-oriented
interests of recent literary criticism.
Wilder actually asserted that his interest was in the
rhetoric of the New Testament text. However, his study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
focused primarily on the New Testament's literary
consistency rather them on its suasory appeals. Wilder
attempted to show that the New Testament text is
characterized by revelation in several different genre (the
dialogue, the parable, the poem, etc. 22-23). He was
especially concerned with showing the New Testament in a
less fragmentary light than either past literary critics or
biblical critics had.
Wilder's "rhetorical" analysis reflected a conception
of rhetoric primarily as a matter of style. However, his
interest in demonstrating the unity and consistency of the
New Testament is one that many later literary critics of the
Bible have shared. Historical criticism of the Bible, with
its analytical method and its concern to identify individual
pericopes (New Testament textual fragments drawn from
various sources) has tended to look at the text in a
fragmentary way. Wilder and subsequent literary critics
have attempted à more synthetic method, to show consistent
use of various literary forms throughout the Bible.
In examining consistent literary patterns within the
Bible, scholars such as Frye, William Beardslee, Norman
Petersen, and Norman Habel have had to deal consistently
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
with rhetorical activity in the text. Petersen, for
instance, discussed the "author's" rhetorical intent in
developing a specific narrative or poetic sequence. The New
Testament "writer selects and combines events" out of his
"world...for his own purposes" (Petersen 47). These
purposes are ultimately rhetorical insofar as, within their
poetic or narrative form, they "imply or express...a set of
propositions about [the narrative's] actors and their
actions in time and space" (Petersen 40). In other words,
the literary form, as taken up by the New Testament authors,
expresses a set of ideas about the individuals it represents
and directs the reader toward accepting those ideas
(Petersen 40-41). Thus, the literary form of a New
Testament narrative is essentially rhetorical. When the
Gospel form promotes belief in the messianic nature of Jesus
or in its reconstruction of events in the life of Jesus, it
acts as a rhetorical form.
While Petersen, Beardslee, and Habel developed their
critical positions from literary study that had already
appeared in biblical criticism, Robert Alter and Frye began
with critical theory from the field of literary criticism
proper and applied that theory to the text. Because Alter
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
and Frye did not feel obliged to build their theory from
work already done in the biblical studies field, they had
the freedom to develop theories of biblical criticism that
took in a broader set of literary ideas. Further, in
developing their larger and more conplex theories of
biblical literature, they discussed in a more comprehensive
manner the relationship between rhetoric and the literary
form of the text.
The question of rhetorical intent lies at the base of
Frye's theory. He was concerned with understanding the
possible reasons why a biblical author might have invented
and/or used a given narrative in a given context. He
contended that historical criticism had spent so much time
attempting to place biblical narratives into religious
traditions that it had often not asked why the author or
redactor took up that particular narrative and how they were
using it to gain assent for its message from readers (Great
Code XVII). Like other rhetorical critics, Frye was
interested in studying the "end product" rather than the
evolution of the text to see how the form of the Scripture
may have influenced the "body of assumptions and beliefs"
the reader holds (Great Code XVII-XVIII).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Within that "end product," Frye found an array of
rhetorical devices and purposes in the language of the
biblical text. According to Frye, the language of the Bible
precludes "rational" or "scientific" argument in the
contemporary sense of the words (Great Code 27, 37). The
Bible's language is one of "exhortation," not historical or
scientific recounting (Great Code 27-28). This, Frye
asserted, tends to make the Bible's language closer to
"poetic" than "scientific-journal" in nature. But, this
"poetic" language is itself closer in form and intent to
classical rhetoric than to poetry. Even if it is not
"scientific" history or recounting, its "exhortation"
induces belief in its recounting and interpretation of
events.
As rhetoric, Frye identified biblical writing with
oratory (an identification rhetorical critics of the New
Testament have continued making). But, Frye did not
identify the individual forms and structures within the text
as oratorical units. He identified the text with oratory in
its overall intent and form, maintaining that the Bible,
like "oratory at its best," uses metaphorical and poetic
language, all the figures of speech, in "a context of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
concern and direct address to its audience that poetry as
such does not employ" (Great Code 27). In other words, the
Bible engloys literary forms for rhetorical purposes. It
uses them to "guide" readers into following its teaching.
Thus, Frye concluded that the "essential idiom" of the Bible
is the idiom of rhetoric (Great Code 28).
Like Bultmann, Frye saw the Bible as "kerygma" or
proclamation (Great Code 29). He contended that the
kerygmatic mode of rhetoric in the Bible is most fully
realized in the Gospel accounts. The Gospels are the
proclamation of the Christ event. However, he insisted that
there is not enough difference between the use of language
in the Gospels and the rest of Scripture to avoid extending
this identification to the whole text (Great Code 29).
Kerygma, of course, does not typically function as
straight argument. And, this is not how Frye saw it. He
accepted the identification of kerygma with revelation.
That is, kerygma typically functions as revelation of a
"truth" that readers (or listeners) are expected to
recognize and to accept as true.
Frye was not the first to identify the kerygmatic
nature of the Bible. He recognized the significance of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
idea in Rudolf Bultmann's theology (Great Code 30). More
recently. Dale Sullivan built on Frye's identification of
kerygma as a rhetorical form. Sullivan identified the New
Testament as rhetorical proclamation. He extended this
notion by asserting that the New Testament is a rhetorical
proclamation of "truth" (Sullivan 328-329). Sullivan's
conception of "truth" remained somewhat sketchy at the end
of his essay. But, his contention that "truth" or the
proclamation of the text resides in its rhetorical structure
and that it should be studied in that structure is
significant (Sullivan 328). If the text's proclamation is
found in its rhetorical structure, then any study that seeks
to understand the text's proclamation is, in effect, a
rhetorical study. This supports the notion that an
examination of the rhetoric of the gospel form, such as I
propose, is not only possible but is also natural if we are
to understand the means by which the text proclaims its
"truths."
Although Frye emphasized that the basic structure of
Scripture is rhetorical, especially the Gospels, he held
that it is essentially mythos or narrative. Thus, Frye
agreed with Bultmann in seeing mythos as the vehicle for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
proclamation of Scripture's kerygma. However, Frye did not
agree with Bultmann's demythologizing approach to the text.
In pursuing demythologizing, Bultmann took a philosophical
view of myth. He identified myth with an "obsolete" world
view that accepted the notion that the natural order could
be "perforated" by the supernatural and so attempted to
"demythologize" kerygma from the mythic form of the Gospels
(Bultmann 36). However, Frye approached the text from a
literary critic's perspective. For him, "myth is the
linguistic vehicle of kerygma... to 'demythologize' any part
of the Bible would be the same thing as to obliterate it"
(Great Code 30).
Frye's claim that biblical narrative is rhetorical
assumes that biblical writers drew on the rhetorical tools
of their time in order to move their readers to action (or,
again following Kinneavy, belief). Further, it is also to
assume that biblical narrative was constructed, to some
extent, following the authors and redactors understanding
of rhetoric. Thus, the logic of seeking rhetorical tools
and constructs in biblical (including the New Testament)
narrative (including the Gospels) is clearly supported.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Frye went so far as to show that every literary form in
the Bible exists for rhetorical rather than purely literary
purposes. Myths or narratives act as rhetorical calls for
"things to be done or specified actions" (Frye, Great Code
48) . Biblical metaphor is "not primarily literary in
intention" but uses "rhetorical forms" to point beyond
itself to concepts and beliefs that the reader is expected
to accept (Frye, Great Code 53, 55). Biblical "typology is
a form of rhetoric, and can be studied critically like any
other form of rhetoric" (Frye, Great Code 80) .
Frye's argument that all the literary forms in
Scripture fulfill rhetorical purposes leads us to a question
that lies at the center of much literary criticism of the
Bible and especially of the New Testament. If narrative
accounts structure events for rhetorical purposes, how are
we to conceive of and critically assess the ostensibly
"historical" accounts of the Bible? Historical criticism
assesses the text as history, but, the correlation between
text and history has not been a primary concern of literary
criticism (Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative 14-15; Frye,
Great Code XIII). Do the "historical" narratives of the
Bible (such as the Gospels) claim to be strictly historical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
accounts? Or should we understand them as intentionally
fictional?
Alter maintained that the best way to understand the
"historical" writings of the Bible was as "prose fiction"
(Art of Biblical Narrative 24). He contended that the
intent of biblical narrative was largely literary art and
pleasure and that theological meaning and intent were
secondary concerns (Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative 19; see
also 79-80) . However, as I have noted, Frye recognized all
literary devices in the Bible as primarily rhetorical in
intent. Further, as Roger Trigg argued, we cannot simply
claim that biblical writers, especially New Testament
writers, were writing fictions and only used criteria for
narrative fictions to assess them because the writers
clearly do not see themselves as writing fiction (128). No
matter how we conceive of their ability to distinguish
between "what was historical and what was not. New Testament
writers must be seen as trying to write a true account of
real events" (Trigg 126).
By the same token, even if New Testament writers were
trying to write "true accounts" and whether or not anything
they wrote was historically accurate, the authors structured
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
the accounts in such a way as to engender "pistis" or
belief in the reliability of their accounts and
interpretation of events (Frye 53; Kermode 105; Kinneavy
140). As noted, it was crucial for gospel narratives and
the religious convictions they put forth that readers
recognize their stories as essentially true (Goldberg 47).
The structure of their "historical" accounts is certainly a
narrative structure. But, it may have been a structure
designed for aesthetic appeal and for rhetorical ends. The
aesthetic appeal is, of course, important to the text. But,
it is important primarily as it supports the rhetorical
result, as it engenders belief, belief in the accuracy of
its report of events as well as in its doctrine.
Significantly, Trigg also insisted that historical
criticism must move beyond the confines of its modern
scientific "prejudices" and take up a rhetorical study of
"historical" accounts in the New Testament. He claimed that
historical criticism needed to "turn from the criteria of
the lab to the criteria of a court of law" in assessing the
historical narratives of the New Testament (Trigg 130). The
lab, for instance, assumes that a miracle account is false
because "miracles cannot happen...therefore, this alleged
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
one did not." However, the court of law can "test the
veracity of witnesses" and discuss different levels and
degrees of truth and fiction in the accounts of the text
(Trigg 130-131).
The relationship Trigg observed between the New
Testament accounts and testimony is important because it
hints at a type of rhetorical activity occurring in the New
Testament which is not fully history and not fully fiction
but uses characteristics of both. A witness must structure
his/her testimony to engender belief in its representation
of events. The struggle within the New Testament to
engender belief that Kinneavy identified as rhetorical
accomplishes the same end as the testimony of witnesses.
Further, as I will show. New Testament narrative employs
witness and eyewitness, especially in the Gospel accounts.
My examination of the Gospel witness will demonstrate that
the rhetorical structure in which, according to Frye, the
text ' s proclamation is made takes on the form of eyewitness
testimony. This form not only engenders belief in the
message and meaning of the text but fosters identification
in readers. Given its significance for my analysis, I will
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
discuss the testimonial character of New Testament rhetoric
in some detail.
Witness in New Testament Rhetoric
Having discussed the rhetorical nature of New Testament
narrative, I now want to develop my argument concerning the
New Testament's use of "eyewitness testimony." I want to
examine New Testament narrative in a way that rhetorical
critics of the New Testament may recognize and find
immediately useful. Following the approach of New
Testament rhetorical criticism, I will identify the New
Testament's use of eyewitness testimony as a recognized
rhetorical form by demonstrating that the New Testament's
conception of eyewitness testimony is consistent with the
understanding of eyewitness testimony found in Aristotle's
Rhetoric. As I indicate the rhetorical background for the
New Testament's understanding of eyewitness testimony, I
will also indicate criteria in Aristotle's Rhetoric that may
be used in understanding and assessing the rhetorical form
employed in the Gospels.
C. A. J. Coady has noted the reliance of "an
historically oriented religion like Christianity" on
"testimony-based beliefs" (16). While Coady's work
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
effectively argues for the iitç)ortance of testimony to
virtually all forms of proof, his point about Christianity
is especially helpful. From the Gospels forward,
Christianity authorizes its message through testimony. It
overtly claims a message grounded in historical events which
are attested to by witnesses. The reason for accepting
John's representation of events is because they represent
the testimony of "the disciple who bears witness of these
things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness
is true" (John 21:24).
The relationship between "martus," or "witness," in the
New Testament and its use in Aristotle's Rhetoric has been
recognized by biblical scholars. The Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament recognizes the debt the New Testament
use of "martus" or witness owes to Aristotle's Rhetoric
(Kittel 476). The concept of witness in Greek literature,
especially in the jurisprudential sphere, had been fully
explicated by Aristotle in his Rhetoric (Kittel 476).
Trites also acknowledged the existence of Aristotelian
notions of witness behind the New Testament's use of martus
(New Testament Concept 9-10). Trites took a special
interest in the jurisprudential character of martus. He
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
wanted to show that the New Testament was written as a
"legal" defense of the historicity of certain events
(Trites, New Testament Concept 78).
Trite's use of the legal metaphor is helpful in several
ways. As Triggs pointed out, the legal metaphor reminds us
that the "precedent" assumed by historical criticism is not
the same as the "precedent" assumed by New Testament authors
(130). New Testament authors appeared quite willing to have
their historical narratives tested as the testimonies of
witnesses. They consistently claimed the authority of
eyewitness testimony for their characterizations of events
and people, an authority most salient in a courtroom
setting. The author of the First Epistle of John, for
instance, went to great lengths to identify the gospel
message with witnesses who "have seen with our eyes...have
looked upon and our hands have handled" (I John 1:1) . The
author of John's gospel identified his accounts of
"historical" events with the testimony of those who saw the
events first-hand (see John 1:32, 20:26-30) . The author of
Luke based the historicity of his gospel account on it
having been passed on to him from eye-witnesses (see Luke
1:1-5).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
But, even more to the point, Paul Ricoeur noted that
the social function of testimony is, by its very nature,
identified with the courtroom ("Hermeneutics of Testimony"
124). Eyewitness testimony is a proof advanced by an
advocate to influence a judge or jury concerning events and
their meaning (Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics of Testimony" 124).
In this setting, false testimony invites our most negative
social sanctions, because false testimony is not simply a
mistake made concerning events but an attempt falsely to
influence the judge or jury and, through them, to falsely
influence justice (Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics of Testimony" 128-
129) .
Trite's legal metaphor also directs us toward a
correlation between the New Testament's conception of
witness and Aristotle's conception of forensic discourse.
Ricoeur observed that Aristotle's Rhetoric set the
philosophical presuppositions concerning the nature of
testimony on which the New Testament's use of testimony was
built (Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics of Testimony" 126-127).
Further, he noted that the relationship between Aristotelian
and New Testament concepts of testimony was based in the
juridical advocacy. The "ritual of swearing or of promising
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
which, qualifies as testimony, the declaration of a witness"
established an authority for testimony that, in both the
judicial and canonical settings, distinguished testimony
from simple observation, deliberation, or argument (Ricoeur,
"Hermeneutics of Testimony" 124). And, the notion of
testimony justifying assertions, characterizations,
depictions, and recountings of events, which is so important
to New Testament narrative, assumes an advocate who presents
the testimony and a judge or jury who pass judgment on the
veracity of the testimony (Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics of
Testimony" 123-124) .
While the juridical setting has a definite bearing on
the Aristotelian and New Testament conceptions of testimony,
both Aristotle and the New Testaments' conceptions apply to
broader circumstances than the courtroom. The Theological
Dictionary notes that some forms of martus (marturion, for
instance) "have no special affinity for the courts or law
generally" (Kittel 477). And, many eyewitness claims in the
New Testament are clearly directed toward the public forum
rather than the strictly judicial courtroom setting.
Further, the New Testament and, specifically, the
Gospels are not legal briefs but collections of narratives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
The Gospels do not present an argument over which a judge
deliberates. They offer stories in which they invite the
reader to share and for which they claim the authority of
witness. Thus, the Gospels do not represent forensic
witness, per se, but narrative authorial witness. Witnesses
in the Gospels authorize the narratives in which they
appear. Gospel witnesses tell the story and lend the
authority of eyewitness testimony to gospel narratives.
This "aesthetic" or poetic use of witness (as opposed
to a jurisprudential use) is accommodated in Aristotle's
theory. Kathy Eden noted that Aristotle recognized a close
relationship and interaction between forensic proof and the
conviction brought on by poetic fiction (8). Of course,
Aristotle illustrated various witnesses with examples from
fiction, especially the plays (Eden 9). However,
Aristotle's own construction of poetic was, according to
Eden, a rhetorical construction based in the function of
"tragic discovery" as a proof (9-10).
Thus, narrative functions rhetorically by drawing
readers into the story and directing them toward some
conclusive "recognition." This "recognition" changes the
way in which they see and understand their world. Further,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
the plausibility and truth of narratives can be supported by
the corroborating evidence of witnesses (Eden 15).
Witnesses might support the representation of facts or of
character in a narrative (Eden 15). So, at one and the same
time, witnesses assert and confirm the "truth" of the
narratives to which they testify. Their testimony carries
the presumption of truthful or "factual" representations of
the world. Again, the word "martus" conveys this quality.
Martus or testimony, in its various forms, is presented
as a "factual" recounting of events or character, and as
such is a form of proof (Kittel 477). Or, as Ricoeur put
it, martus "confers the sanction of reality" ("Hermeneutics
of Testimony" 122). But, martus is not only a proof for
"facts" ascertainable by direct empirical observation, it
may also support "views or truths" (Kittel 478). The "views
or truths" the speaker proclaims always are acquired through
personal experience or knowledge. Thus, the witness to
"truths," in martus, is to truths of character, actions,
sayings, meanings, and events experienced or observed
(Kittel 478).
Aristotle recognized the distinction between observing
and witnessing external events and experiencing and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
witnessing internal "truths." He identified immediate
witnesses to external events as recent in contrast with
ancient witnesses (Aristotle 86). His fundamental
distinction between recent and ancient witnesses involves
their relative distances from the disputed matter. Recent
witnesses testify directly to the disputed matter while
ancient witnesses are more "detached" (Aristotle 85-86) .
This distinction between recent and ancient witnesses is
important because it indicates the nature of rhetorical
authority identified with each type of witness, an
assumption of authority that is crucial in the Gospels.
Recent witnesses are authoritative because they have
immediate knowledge of the facts or of the personal
character of those involved in a situation (Aristotle 87).
Yet, recent witnesses have distinct limitations. Recent
witnesses may be mistaken, may be biased, or may simply lie.
Aristotle's famous discussion of the use of torture to
procure testimony illustrates these concerns (Aristotle 88).
Aristotle claimed that one may easily discount
testimony taken under torture. Someone who is telling the
truth will often make any number of false charges when
tortured to be let off more easily. By the same token.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
someone who is lying will often put up with the most dire
torture to make his lies seem true (Aristotle 88). Thus, a
recent witness who has a stake in the proceedings may lie
and an honest witness may be coerced into lying.
The liabilities of relying on a recent witness
emphasize the strengths inherent in more "detached" ancient
witnesses. Ancient witnesses are "notable persons" whose
judgments are already recorded (Aristotle 84). In many
respects, ancient witnesses carry greater authority than
immediate witnesses because they "cannot be corrupted" by
direct involvement in the dispute (Aristotle 86). Further,
they are recognized or "notable persons." So, their
authority derives from some unique quality or credibility
within their person and not from their direct involvement in
a given dispute.
However, Aristotle also describes limitations to
ancient witness. Since it does not come from an involved
party, the preponderance of ancient witness is only
indirectly related a present circumstance. In some
instances, ancient witnesses, such as prophets and
soothsayers, may comment on the specifics of a given
situation (Aristotle 85). But, the greatest strength of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
ancient witness is its ability to testify concerning
perennial truths (Aristotle 84-85) . Because of its
disinterested nature, ancient witness may offer perennial
truths that apply to a broad set of circumstances. The
presunption is that an ancient witness is an authoritative
source of wisdom, truth, and/or knowledge concerning a
present circumstance (Aristotle 84).
This presumption is especially critical for New
Testament rhetoric. By using ancient witness, New Testament
texts assume authority. The practice of using an apostolic
or early Christian author has obvious rhetorical
significance in the New Testament or in an apocryphal work.
The apostolic author gives the text the voice of an ancient
witness who is presumed to be authoritative. His/her
authority not only comes from his/her role as "apostle, " but
also from his/her character as direct witness to the Christ
or (because of the unique, now distanced, circumstance of
his/her direct witness) ancient witness. Thus, an author
who was not an actual apostle, such as Luke, must draw
authority from the witness of others, ancient witnesses with
presumed knowledge concerning the events (see Luke 1:2) .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
The presumed authority of ancient witnesses is also
important for the New Testament in its use of the Law and
the Prophets. As Kermode noted, the use of "types and
testimonies" from the Old Testament was a primary proof
offered throughout the New Testament to validate its
witnessing of truth (106). As in Aristotle, the testimony
of ancient witness took precedence over that of immediate
witnesses in the New Testament. In fact, the use of the Old
Testament as ancient witness was so thoroughgoing in the New
Testament that Kermode asserted, "The entire Jewish Bible
was to be sacrificed to the validation of the historicity of
the Gospels" (107).
While Aristotle's conception of witness may be found
within the New Testament's use of witnesses, the use of
"witness" evolved over time, and the New Testament
understanding and use of witness went beyond his view.
Trites identified five major stages of development for the
Greek word "martus" between its purely legal use and its
identification with martyrdom. Though Trites did not
distinguish between immediate and ancient witnesses in his
analysis, the stages he identified are helpful in discussing
the New Testament's use and reshaping of earlier
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
conceptions. Of course, these stages are not discrete.
Reaching a new stage of usage does not make earlier meanings
of the word obsolete (Trites, "Martus and Martyrdom" 72) .
So, the New Testament meaning for martus subsumes several
earlier meanings.
The five stages of meaning for martus are:
1. A witness in a court of law with no expectation of
death.
2. A man who testifies to his faith in a lawcourt and
suffers death as a penalty for his witness.
3. Death is regarded as a part of the witness.
4. "Martus becomes equivalent to 'martyr.' Here the
idea of death is uppermost, though the idea of witness is
not entirely lacking."
5. "The idea of witness disappears," and all forms of
martus refer to martyrdom (Trites, "Martus and Martyrdom"
72-73) .
Aristotle's notions of martus do not significantly
exceed the first stage. However, we may see elements of the
second stage in Aristotle's conception of ancient witnesses.
As I have noted, ancient witnesses often testify to
perennial truths, beliefs, or ideas accepted as true by the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
cotnmunity. These truths are not "objective" truths in that
they are not strictly empirical as with historical "facts."
These "truths" are experiential beliefs or notions whose
truth derives from the unicpie knowledge and character of the
testifier. Their testimony is accepted as true because of
the authority of the ancient witness (Aristotle 85).
Thus, ancient witnesses may bear witness to matters of
faith, beliefs not directly verifiable. Further, the very
fact that the ancient witnesses have testified to these
beliefs lends them authority. The New Testament clearly
builds its case on the authoritative testimony of this sort
of ancient witness. It does so not only by employing
ancient witness, but also by its use of Old Testament texts.
The New Testament's use of the Old Testament draws on
the authority of ancient witness to support claims
concerning the Messiah. Trites maintained that the New
Testament's use of Old Testament texts existed in the
setting of Jewish religious courts. In this setting,
evolving Christian doctrine was defended by the authority of
Old Testament prophecy and teaching (Trites, New Testament
Concept 218) . While the notion of New Testament writers
trying to convince a Jewish religious court may seem
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
plausible, the really significant point here is the use of
Old Testament prophecy and teaching as a form of ancient
witness.
Prophecy and teaching relate to two of the major
functions of ancient witnesses in Aristotle's theory. As
mentioned earlier, Aristotle recognized the ability of
ancient witnesses to comment on present events through
statements of recognized truths (historical and perennial;
what might be called their teachings or lessons for us) and,
in the case of prophets or soothsayers, through prophecy
(85-86) . While Trites may to a great extent be correct in
saying that early Christian uses of witness appealed to the
Jewish religious court, the use of the Old Testament
indicates a rhetoric that could appeal to a larger
community. The New Testament's use of Old Testament witness
is consistent with the recognized use of ancient witness in
the judicial world of Greece and Rome. So, while the New
Testament may have testified in an essentially Jewish
setting, its use of Old Testament witness would have easily
been recognized in a broader Greco-Roman setting by those
familiar with the common uses of ancient witness. In fact,
given that the tremendous growth of the early Christian
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
church was, of course, primarily seen in the Greek speaking
Roman world, not the Jewish world. New Testament appeals
would seem to have had special efficacy in the social world
of Rome.
Given that the New Testament uses Old Testament witness
in a manner consistent with Aristotle's theory, it would be
useful to discuss the New Testament's use of Aristotelian
witness in its own context and to examine how the New
Testament reaches beyond Aristotelian conceptions of witness
in its use of the term. While Aristotle's conception of
witnesses did not go far beyond the first stage, the New
Testament covered several stages of meaning in its use of
martus. Trites pointed out that the Apocalypse reached at
least a stage three level of meaning ("Martus and Martyrdom"
80). While earlier books did not always reach that advanced
stage of meaning, the New Testament did offer several stages
of meaning for martus.
The New Testament's use of evolving meanings for martus
is not surprising given that the New Testament canon is made
up of numerous disparate texts, many written decades apart.
Further, the meanings given to martus by its setting in
early Christian witnessing and by the early identification
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
of witnessing with martyrdom would make a swift evolving set
of meanings for martus in the New Testament appear highly
likely. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
also points out that the very nature of the gospel
proclamation led the New Testament canon into using several
meanings for martus.
The Theological Dictionary emphasizes that the Gospel
witness recognized and used the twin concepts of martus as
"witness to ascertainable facts" and as "witness to truths,
i.e., the making known and confessing of convictions"
(Kittel 489) . The New Testament use of martus applied these
meanings to the "gospel proclamation and to the
circumstances in which they took place" (Kittel 489). The
gospel proclamation occurred within a set of "historical"
events. At least part of the New Testament's use of martus
referred or witnessed to the occurrence of these events
(John 21:24, for instance, "This is the disciple who bears
witness of these things...and we know his witness is time").
The strength of this witness derived from its being
ostensibly offered by a person with "direct knowledge"
(Kittel 489). Under these circumstances, the witness in the
gospel accounts-was very similar to Aristotle's
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
understanding of "immediate" or direct witness. However,
the use of witness in the Gospels encompassed a broader set
of meanings, including the meaning Aristotle gave to
"ancient" witnesses.
While "historical" events are the context of Gospel
proclamation, text recounting relies on those who can
witness to the "truths" inherent in the events. So, the New
Testament witness must be one who proclaimed "truths" as
well as historical facts. The fundamental function of New
Testament witnesses was to make known the "truth" concerning
the Christ. The very nature of martus in the New Testament
is one that calls into being proclamation (Kittel 489).
And, this proclamation, while it may claim to represent
historical facts, is primarily an interpretation and
explication of those facts. Since, these witnesses presume
to testify from a special knowledge of the "truths" they
explicate, a knowledge that is no longer available to the
reader (direct contact with Jesus and his witness from the
Father), they act as ancient witnesses.
So, to a great degree, the gospel witness involved both
immediate and ancient witness. But, we should note that not
all "witness" offered in the Gospels has the character of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
both immediate and ancient witness. Often, the multitudes
and even the disciples (when they act as viewers rather than
participants in events) act as witnesses to events that they
see but whose deeper meaning or significance they do not
immediately recognize. This dual use of witness will be
important to my examination of immediate witnesses in the
Gospels. For now, we need to explore more fully the
relationship between witness that offers an authoritative
interpretation of events and witness that recounts what was
seen.
Ricoeur is helpful in explicating the link between
interpretive testimony and testimony recollecting observed
events. Riceour named the two "confession-testimony" and
"narration-testimony," respectively ("Hermeneutics of
Testimony" 134). He contended that confession-testimony
finds its genesis in narration-testimony,- "It is not
possible to testify for a meaning without testifying that
something has happened which signifies this meaning"
("Hermeneutics of Testimony" 133). Thus, it is the nature
of testimony to build its case, its interpretations, from a
narrative of human events.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Ricoeur also noted that the distinction drawn between
confession-testimony and narration-testimony is a relatively
modern notion. The modern mind, grounded in historical
criticism, distinguishes between witness of the historical
Jesus and of the resurrected Lord. This distinction would
be far less clear to the pre-modem mind which would
recognize a "profound unity between testimony about facts
and events, and testimony about meaning and truth" (Ricoeur,
"Hermeneutics of Testimony" 136). Given this close
identification of event and meaning, the narration of events
in the New Testament's world would naturally assume a level
of meaning implicit in those events.
Of course, this is not to deny that the Gospels attempt
to induce belief in the historical accuracy of their
accounts. As Kermode has noted, however the text may have
developed, it was essential for gospel narrative to "seem
factual;" the Gospels must "sound like history" (112-113).
Lest the Gospels "should be disbelieved or misunderstood or
corrupted, there was a need for realism" (Kermode 121).
There was "an equal need" for this witness to carry "the
structure of testimonia. so that this sequence should seem a
piece of, even the crown of an historical development
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
perceptible to the eye of the interpreter" (Kermode 121).
Thus, the force of the gospel's interpretation of events was
grounded in the belief or conviction that the interpretation
represented an accurate recounting of those events.
Moreover, this conviction was grounded in the representation
of gospel narrative as the accurate and authoritative
testimony of witnesses.
The rhetorical work of the advocate, the New Testament
author/redactor, involved inducing the reader to see and
accept the same meaning from the events s/he did. The
eyewitness nature of the author's testimony acted as further
inducement to accept his set of interpretations. So,
narration testimony was a key rhetorical component through
which the New Testament encouraged acceptance of (belief in)
specific interpretations of the world based in professed
observations of the world and in authoritative knowledge of
the world.
Ricoeur asserted that testimony exists as rhetorical
narrative acting to engender belief in the hearer. He
observed that testimony "transfers things seen to the level
of things said" (Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics of Testimony" 123).
Testimony is not the perception of an event but "the story.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
that is the narration of the event" (Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics
of Testimony" 123). As a narrative construct, testimony
puts forward a set of meanings concerning events that the
hearer is expected to take as being "true" in the same
manner that the report of events is taken as "true."
"Testimony as story," he wrote, "is thus found in an
intermediary position between a statement made by a person
and a belief assumed by another on the faith of the
testimony of the first" (Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics of
Testimony" 123).
Testimony, then, is a dynamic rather than static
persuasive form. It exists as a proclamation of core
convictions concerning reality. In the New Testament, these
convictions constitute perennial truths whose meaning in the
hearer's world will be consistent with their meaning in the
narrative world' of the speaker. The manner in which witness
rhetorically shapes New Testament narrative needs to be more
fully explored. To further this investigation, we need to
briefly return to Aristotle and discuss the rhetorical or
suasory appeal of witnesses. This discussion will lead to
an examination of the rhetorical function of narrative.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
Witness and the Rhetoric of Narrative
Aristotle identified the testimony of witnesses as an
inartistic proof (24). Witnesses were not created by the
rhetor for specifically rhetorical ends but existed on their
own. Artistic proofs must be "invented" by the rhetor,
inartistic proofs need only be "used" (Aristotle 24). The
suasory force of witnesses existed within the witnesses
themselves. Specifically, it existed in the perceived
character of witnesses, their ethos. However, this poses a
problem from the start.
What if the witness's character is only revealed in the
narrative that the witness is supposed to be authorizing?
This is the problem I have identified as Booth's paradox.
Often in ancient, especially biblical, narrative, one of the
characters within the narrative is supposed to be validating
or authorizing the narrative's message. Booth illustrated
this from the book of Job. The author of Job draws on the
testimony of God (the ultimate Authority) to support the
validity of his•judgments concerning truth, holiness, and
justice. However, we only know the character of God and the
fact that God supported these judgments from the narrative
itself (Booth 4). God's testimony is part of the narrative.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
The evangelists clearly offer this sort of testimony.
For instance, both Luke and John assert that the claims of
their narratives are warranted by the reliable testimony of
witnesses (Luke 1:1-4; John 19:35) . Kermode has noted this
use of testimony in the Gospels and has identified it with
third person narration. Kermode asserted that testimony
lends the presumed authority of third person narration to
the narrative (116). Third person narrative, he argued, is
not only important to the Gospels but is also a fundamental
feature of all history writing. It creates the illusion
that the narrative offers a pure reference to historical
events (Kermode 117). As Kermode contended, this illusion
is a "rhetorical device" (117). It convinces readers that
the story's representation of events is true by constructing
that narrative representation from authoritative testimony.
The story carries the authority of its "source," of the
witness who relates it.
But, this leaves us in the same difficult
circumstances. The story carries the authority of a source
whose authority is known to us only through the story. The
proof that should stand on its own is part of the message it
is sustaining. Yet, this paradox does not lessen the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
rhetorical intact of the testimony. That impact is grounded
in the narrated character of the witness and, if the
narrative's author can manifest a sufficiently trustworthy
character in the witness, then the witness's testimony can
be rhetorically effective. How, then, does the author of
the narrative (gospel) manifest such a character in a
convincing manner within the narrative?
I want to answer this question by drawing on Walter
Fisher's conception of narrative rationality. In the
present study, I am less concerned with Fisher's larger
claim for the paradigmatic status of narrative in human
communication than with the manner in which he has asserted
that narratives sustain their claims. Fisher described
narrative rationality as the "logic" of all sorts of
discourse that lays claim on an audience's reason (47). He
identified "probability" or "coherence" and "fidelity" or
"truthfulness and reliability" as the basic components of
that logic (Fisher 47). Kermode noted two similar qualities
in rhetorically effective narrative. He wrote that a
"'convincing' narrative convinces mainly because it is well-
formed and followable" (Kermode 118). That is, a convincing
narrative is one that is consistent and well-structured
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
(coherent) and one that can be followed, one whose values
and truths are recognized (fidelity).
Fisher identified three types of coherence:
argumentative or structural coherence, material coherence,
and characterological coherence (47) . Since the proof of a
witness is found in that witness's character, I am most
concerned with characterological coherence. Fisher also
recognized the central importance of character. He wrote,
"Whether a story is believable depends on the reliability of
characters, both as narrators and as actors" (Fisher 47).
Following Fisher's formula for characterological
coherence, we may explain the rhetorical effectiveness of
the characters identified as New Testament witnesses by
demonstrating consistency between their narrated character
and their testimony. Fisher used this basic formula to
explain the rhetorical effectiveness of Ronald Reagan.
Briefly reviewing Fisher's assessment of Reagan's rhetoric
will help illustrate his conception of characterological
coherence.
According to Fisher, Reagan's effectiveness was largely
based in the consistency between Reagan's narrative of
American history as informed by the "central values of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
American Dream" and Reagan's perceived character (146). It
is worth noting that, though there may have been events
within Reagan's life that correlated with the fulfillment of
the American Dream, his character, as perceived during his
presidential campaigns, was largely created within the story
he and his supporters told. Though Reagan was a public
figure, he was the primary narrator who repeatedly told the
story of his growth from a small market radio announcer to a
Hollywood actor and, finally, to a presidential candidate
and who interpreted that story as a fulfillment of the
American Dream. Further, it was well known that Reagan
often embellished the stories of his life to emphasize its
coherence with the values of the American Dream. So, the
story and character that had the greatest rhetorical impact
were largely a creation of Reagan's narrative. Yet,
Reagan's central story of the fulfillment of the American
Dream had such overwhelming power and his narrated character
was so consistent with the story's values that his narrative
was tremendously effective.
This point is especially important for me because, as I
have indicated, any knowledge of the witnesses within gospel
narratives is learned almost exclusively from the text.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Thus, I must contend that a character that is largely
understood from a given narrative may act in a manner that
is so consistent with the message and values of the
narrative that he becomes an effective and authoritative
witness to that message. Further, throughout the Gospels,
the burden of proof is carried by the testimony of
witnesses. The Gospels are not written as rational or
reasoned argument but, as I have stated, as narrative
proclamation and that proclamation is known through and
attested by the testimony of witnesses.
Given these points and the fact that the Gospels claim
to testify concerning events unique in human existence,
events that have no other "true" witness, the burden on
gospel witnesses is immense. The foundation for belief in
or adherence to the proclamation of the Gospels is almost
solely dependent on the reliability of these witnesses.
This is not necessarily unusual to or even problematic for
the Gospels. As Fisher noted, when a narrative fails other
tests or other criteria for judging it are not applicable,
it may still prove rhetorically effective if it offers a
potent story whose key characters (in the case of the
Gospels, witnesses) cohere to the values represented within
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
the story (145-146). Before I examine characterological
coherence in the Gospels, I need to more fully discuss the
manner in which that coherence is developed and how that
character can form and sustain the proclamation of the text.
Characterological coherence is essentially
characterological consistency. Fisher defined character as
"an organized set of actional tendencies" (47). A character
is identified and developed by the actions they typically
take in given circumstances within the narrative. If the
actional tendencies of a character "contradict one another,
change significantly, or alter in 'strange' ways, the result
is a questioning of character" (Fisher 47). In order for
the reader to trust a character, the character must act
"characteristically" (Fisher 47). That is, the character
must act in a manner that is consistent with their actional
tendencies.
Largely, this test is applicable to gospel narratives.
However, the gospel narratives have a distinct storial
pattern that modifies part of this characterization. One of
the consistent patterns in gospel narratives is that
characters will interact with the Christ (especially the
risen Christ) and be completely changed by their meeting.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
This impact largely results from the unique nature the
Gospels claim for Jesus' ministry. The Gospels presuppose
that the miracles Jesus performs and the resurrection of
Christ are events that are not common in human existence.
When they witness these unique events, characters,
especially those who will bear "true" or uniquely
authoritative witness to the Christ, will be changed, often
radically changed.
At this point, we need to return to Aristotle's
distinction between ancient and immediate witnesses.
Immediate witnesses gain authority simply by witnessing an
event and are reliable only so far as they bear consistent
testimony concerning that event. So, it is not necessary
for immediate witnesses to events to have been radically
changed by those events. However, it is necessary for those
witnesses to react in a consistent way and in a manner that
would be coherent to readers of the Gospels. Since
immediate witnesses, especially in the Gospels, are often
exhibited solely for their testimony, their characters are
not adequately developed to establish a set of actional
tendencies to which they should cohere. Thus, to
effectively persuade readers of the reality of those events,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
immediate witnesses must react to them in a way that is
coherent, that is, consistent with the manner in which
readers believe they, or any reasonable person, would react.
For instance, since the Gospels claim to be relating events
unique in human existence, if an immediate witness or
witnesses observe Jesus performing a miracle, they should
react in shock, wonder, amazement, surprise, should remember
such an unusual event, etc. They should certainly not react
as if miracles were everyday occurrences.
Of course, this seems like a rather thin means for
determining the suasory power of immediate witnesses
(especially when compared with the extensive means I will
presently offer for judging ancient witnesses). And, up to
a point, it is. However, this follows from the nature of
immediate witnesses. As I have noted, since an immediate
witness gains his or her authority primarily on the basis of
having seen or been involved in the disputed event, it is
difficult for that person to gain further validity as a
witness separate from the event itself. This is especially
true in a narrative where the witness is described only
within the context of the event for which they testify.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
However, further proof supporting the witness's
credibility may be put forward in the structure of the
narrative. This "proof" grows from character
identification, one of the fundamental qualities that define
narrative form. It is a truism to say that characters in
good narrative are typically drawn to lead audience members
into identifying with them. Audiences are induced to
identify with the sufferings of the hero, the love of a
romantic couple, the sense of adventure a young boy feels on
his first sea voyage, etc. In the same manner, audience
members, readers of the gospel, are led to identify with
immediate witnesses.
The audience does not simply judge the credibility of
an immediate witness in the Gospels in the manner of a jury
which is asked to judge a witness in a court of law. The
reader of the Gospels is invited into the story through
immediate witnesses. Immediate witnesses encourage readers
to see what they saw in the manner in which they saw it.
Thus, by identifying with immediate witnesses, the reader
believes and lives in the narrative. So, the reader does
not simply judge whether or not an immediate witness's
response to an event is consistent with the way in which a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
reasonable person would respond. The reader enters the
narrative and says, "That is how I might respond." The
reader recognizes himself in the narrative and, through
this, also recognizes the truths portrayed in the narrative.
When we examine the function of immediate witnesses in
the Gospels, we will not just describe the reasonableness or
rationality of an immediate witness's response to narrated
events (though this will, of course, be an important part of
the study). We will actually investigate the way in which
an immediate witness's reasonable response induces the
reader to identify with him or her and, thus, to see the
events described as "real" and to recognize the truths of
the truths s/he tells. While this close audience
identification is imperative for immediate witnesses, it is
less important for ancient witnesses. Again, this grows
from the qualities inherent in ancient witnesses. One of
their fundamental characteristics is distance from their
audience or readers, a distance that is grounded in their
authoritative voice.
Ancient witnesses take on a special authority that
distinguishes them from immediate witnesses. In the
Gospels, this authority is largely created by the radical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
change brought about within them from having experienced the
Christ event. Since anyone who witnessed the actions of
Jesus may be a potential immediate witness, the change
effected in ancient witnesses must be striking and
conclusive if it is to distinguish them from immediate
witnesses. This may seem to conflict with the notion of a
consistent pattern of actional tendencies as inducement to
accept a character's testimony. However, a closer look a
characterological coherence will indicate the possibility
and utility of such changes.
Within Fisher's concept of characterological coherence,
we may say that characters who are radically changed by a
given set of events should demonstrate some consistent
pattern of change and that change should be consistent with
the ethos that the witnesses are supposed to convey. In
other words, if three characters meet the risen Christ and
that meeting radically alters their actional tendencies, it
should alter their actions in a consistent way. They should
reflect actional tendencies consistent with each other (that
is, consistent with characters who have been through the
same extraordinary events) and consistent with the message
of the risen Lord. Any inconsistencies in their altered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
actional tendencies should recognizably follow from the
character or actional tendencies they had demonstrated
before the change. In other words, characters should change
in a consistent way and if they do not those inconsistencies
should be explainable from their previous character.
If these characters are to act as witnesses to the
Christ, these changes must not only be consistent but must
affirm the "ideas/images" and values at the core of the
gospel message (Fisher 144). If these characters act in a
manner that contradicts the gospel message, they undermine
that to which they bear witness. However, if the change in
their character makes their actions tend to greater
consistency with the ideas/images they affirm, then the
change itself becomes a powerful rhetorical force, a witness
to the validity of their message. As I have noted, this
change may be less significant and extreme for immediate
witnesses. However, it is very important for witnesses who
claim a special or authoritative status in the narrative to
reflect that uniqueness of character in their actions. One
way to do that is to demonstrate the changed character that
is consistent with the message. But, what specific actions
may we look for that reflect or affirm that message? What
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
core values of the gospel message do these witnesses
represent or enact?
To answer these questions, I will return to Ricoeur.
Ricoeur identifies a pattern of action within biblical
witness that values self-sacrifice and, ultimately,
martyrdom. Of course, the value of self-sacrifice and
martyrdom are central to the message and actions of the
cross. Jesus, the central figure and model of the Christian
gospel, enacted the ultimate form of self-sacrifice, giving
his life for others. This value is promoted through the
proclamation of the gospel and those who proclaim the
gospel. Those who bear witness concerning Jesus, identify
with his actions and, thus, reflect a high level of
characterological coherence with the character of whom they
testify. Ricoeur identified these actions with the
"absolute" nature of the gospel message.
As we have noted. New Testament narration-testimony
acts as proclamation, as kerygma. Its function as witness
assumes proclamation and its testimony to "absolutes," or
perennial truths, grants it the role of proclamation (Kittel
489). The New Testament proclaims absolute convictions
through the medium of individual testimony to material
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
events. As the New Testament seeks to affirm absolute
convictions for readers caught in contingent human
circumstances, it naturally employs proofs in a manner
consistent with the reader's contingent circumstances.
Thus, Ricoeur can call New Testament testimony "absolute-
relative, " rhetorical means ettployed to proclaim absolute
convictions ("Hermeneutics of Testimony" 151).
The absolute character of New Testament claims leads to
distinct types of narration-testimony in the text. Ricoeur
drew a "fourfold meaning" from the communication of absolute
convictions in biblical and prophetic narrative. This
fourfold meaning offers an especially helpful description of
the values that give rise to New Testament narratives. With
slight modification, it may also be used to identify and
understand rhetorical strategies that generate New Testament
narrative. Discussing the fourfold meaning in some detail
will clarify its utility.
The witness in New Testament narrative is not "just
anyone who comes forward and gives testimony" (Ricoeur,
"Hermeneutics of Testimony" 131). The absolute convictions
that give rise to New Testament narrative call the narrator
into being. The one who testifies is motivated or sent by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
the very "truths" that he is called to proclaim. He is "one
who is sent in order to testify" (Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics of
Testimony" 131). Thus, the witness not only enacts but
embodies the basic human values of integrity, personal
conviction, and special knowledge. This phenomenon is
related to the notion that witnessing in the New Testament
implies both perceiving and proclaiming (Kittel 489). But,
it also identifies the role of the witness with the role of
the apostle (literally, "the sent one"). So, identification
with apostolic calling is an important characteristic of the
testifier in the New Testament. The witness who perceives
and interprets events properly is one sent (an apostle) to
testify concerning those events.
If a true witness is sent, then his/her testimony must
"come from somewhere else" (Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics of
Testimony" 131); The testimony must actually originate with
the one who sent the witness. In this sense, divine
inspiration or origination is assumed in the character of
the apostolic witness. The apostle witnesses or testifies
to absolute things. The origin of this witness is in the
absolute, the divine itself. The divine lends credibility
to the testimony by sending forth the witness. Thus, for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
instance, Jesus' assertion that his witness concerns the
"Father" who "sent" him, validates his testimony (John 8:14-
18). The "Father" validates Jesus' testimony by sending him
to witness. Jesus' testimony is true because he has been
sent by the "Father," the divine of which he bears witness,
to testify.
Witnessing of the divine means that the witness does
not testify concerning the "isolated and contingent" only
but about the "radical, global meaning of human experience"
(Ricoeur, "Hermeneutics of Testimony" 131). While witnesses
in the New Testament may testify concerning specific
historical events, the meanings they attach to these events
will be "global," they will be relevant and true for all
human experience. The absolute nature of the divine to
which they witness leads to a witness that is true and
significant under all circumstances.
It is important to keep in mind that this testimony
ultimately takes the form of proclamation. As those sent to
bear witness to the divine, whose message is for all people.
New Testament witnesses do not simply repeat what they have
seen, they proclaim or divulge God to the world. Even those
who, like the disciples, at first do not seem to recognize
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
or understand the significance of what they witness, finally
become part of the sacred proclamation.
Ultimately, this proclamation is not singly verbal. It
involves the "total engagement of the witness" (Ricoeur,
"Hermeneutics of Testimony" 131). The witness cannot
proclaim through words alone that which is absolute and true
for all people under all circumstances. The witness
proclaims or bears witness to the absolute nature of his
testimony through his actions. Since these actions exist as
part of the proclamation of the absolute, they must end in
the "absolute" action, the "sacrifice of a life" (Ricoeur,
"Hermeneutics of Testimony" 131).
This is how witness in the New Testament and early
Christian literature begins to move to its fourth level of
meaning, the level of the martyr. Witness that "proceeds
from an absolute initiative as to its origin and content"
takes on the extreme in both its words and actions (Ricoeur,
"Hermeneutics.of Testimony" 131). The beheading of John the
Baptist, the stonings and other deaths of the Apostles and
early witnesses and, of course, the cross are inevitable
parts of the New Testament and early Christian witness.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
Thus, Ricoeur offers us an outline of characteristics
or actional tendencies we should identify with those who
have been radically altered by the events they witness.
This radical alteration derives from the fact that they are
bearing witness to the absolute. Since the absolute is
cotiplete unto itself, it does not simply modify these
witnesses, it literally calls them into being. So, the
"change" in these characters is consistent with the nature
of the proclamation to which they testify.
Further, since these witnesses see and testify
concerning absolute events and meanings, their actions
should take on the characteristics of the absolute. In the
end, the witnesses' absolute testimony leads them to
absolute action in offering their lives for their message.
Since this absolute action reflects the absolute nature of
the testimony, martyrdom itself becomes an inducement to
believe and follow the witnesses' proclamation. The fact
that many witnesses will offer their lives for the testimony
they present implies that their testimony is true. Further,
by being martyred, a witness even more fully takes on the
characteristics of an ancient witness. They become
distanced from the reader, their testimony becomes set, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
they carry the authority of witnesses with no further
personal stake in events. So, the authority of their
witness begins to reflect the set and absolute nature of
their message.
Finally, as I have indicated, the authority of these
ancient witnesses is grounded in their experience of the
living Jesus. The authority of the "ancient" or distanced
witness grows from its nature as direct testimony of the
Christ. New Testament witnesses claimed to have seen,
touched, and heard the Christ in bodily form, something
their readers presumably were unable to do. Thus a gulf or
horizon of experience existed between New Testament
witnesses and New Testament readers. This gulf lent an
added authority to the interpretation of events and
proclamation of truths offered by ancient witness within the
Gospels.
Conclusions
I have described two distinct types of witness that we
should find in the Gospels. From Aristotle, I characterized
the immediate witness as one whose authority derives from
having seen a set of events. They need not be able to
explain those events. But, immediate witnesses must react
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
in a manner with which the reader of the gospel may identify
and which the reader may recognize as reasonable. If
immediate witnesses react in this manner, they can bear
reasonable testimony and make the gospel narratives appear
"factual" and true.
However, immediate witnesses often bear little
testimony concerning the meaning of the events they have
seen. Given their limited utility, the quantity of
immediate witnesses is often as important as their quality.
If a multitude bears consistent testimony concerning an
event and the reader can identify with that testimony, then
the sheer bulk of witness can lend greater weight to the
testimony. The implication within the narrative that a
number of individuals who act in a manner perceived as
consistent and reasonable testify concerning an event
induces the reader to accept the narrative's depiction of
that event.
A second way in which immediate witnesses influence
readers to accept their representation of events as true is
through identification. If the reader identifies with the
immediate witness's experiences of events, then the reader
may, through vicarious experience of those events, believe
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
the representation of them to be true. Thus, having the
immediate witness act in a manner that is consistent with
how a reader believes they would act offers a potentially
powerful inducement for accepting that witness's testimony
as true.
The characterological coherence of "ancient" witnesses
within the Gospels is a bit more complicated. On one level,
anyone called to bear witness concerning the Christ is
assumed to carry ultimate authority. However, to be
rhetorically effective, these witnesses had to act in a
manner that was consistent with the core values of the
gospel narratives. An ultimate proof of veracity within the
text was the willingness of the testifier to sacrifice even
to the point of martyrdom for the gospel message.
This proof is consistent with the absolute nature of
the message. A message from an absolute initiative, that
is, bearing witness to that which is absolute and absolutely
true, should so totally engage the witness that they, in
essence, become part of the message or proclamation.
Immediate witnesses may bear testimony to only one event
within their broader experience. The testimony of a fully
engaged witness of the absolute becomes their experience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
To be rhetorically effective, their actions must fully
cohere with the proclamation they offer, even to the point
of martyrdom.
Clearly, such proof became central for the early
church. As Trites noted, the very word for witness evolved
into the word for martyr ("Martus and Martyrdom" 72-73).
The appeal of the gospel message was ultimately the appeal
of the martyr. Beyond miracle narratives, sayings, and
formal argument, it was the total engagement of the martyr
within the message that lent greatest rhetorical force to
that message; even back to the central martyr, Christ. So,
recognizing the characterological coherence of "ancient"
gospel witnesses with their message helps to explain the
rhetorical force of the Gospels.
In the next chapter, I examine the use of immediate
witnesses to sustain the reliability of gospel accounts of
events. In Chapter Four, I discuss the function of
"ancient" witnesses in establishing the meaning of the
gospel text and in promoting identification and imitation
within readers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
CHAPTER THREE: IMMEDIATE WITNESS AND HISTORICAL
VALIDATION IN GOSPEL NARRATIVE
This chapter examines how immediate witness is used in
the Gospels to validate the occurrence of events within
gospel narratives. In chapter two, I described immediate
witnesses as those whose authority derives from having seen
or been a part of the events to which they testify. They
must be perceived as reasonable or rational people by those
who hear or read their testimony. However, within narrative
constructs, such as the Gospels, they often exist only for
the testimony they offer and so cannot demonstrate actional
tendencies which reveal their credibility and ethical
character throughout an extended narrative (Fisher 47). One
means of overcoming this difficulty is to offer multiple
witnesses who are portrayed as acting in a consistent and
reasonable manner concerning the events they witness.
Given consistent, reasonable testimony, immediate
witnesses provide historical validation to gospel
narratives. They make the narratives appear realistic and
"history-like." Further, the "testimony" around which the
gospel narratives are built draws together the various
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
narrated events and makes them appear to exist as a unified
historical development (Kermode 121). The storied context
in which testimony is given lends believability to the
Gospels' message and account of events. Since this narrated
form directs the reader to accept both a representation and
a reconstruction of events, it begins to move the reader
toward accepting the Gospels' interpretations of events as
true. Consequently, the suasory power of immediate
witnesses is extremely important for effective proclamation
of the gospel message. They offer a primary inducement to
accepting both the representation and interpretation of
events found in gospel narratives.
An immediate witness may offer truthful testimony
concerning an event without really understanding the
"quality" or meaning of it (Aristotle 86). This is often
the case in the Gospels, and this lack of awareness lends
further credibility to the testimony by indicating a lack of
bias, self-serving aims, or intent to manipulate facts or
the audience. By virtue of their sheer numbers, it is
suggested the testimony must be true, because it cannot be
the case that so many people could agree on what they
experienced unless they experienced the same events.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
A character may function as both an immediate witness
and an ancient witness within gospel narratives. For
instance, when the disciples bear witness to Jesus' words
and actions without fully understanding them (which they are
often portrayed as doing in the Gospels), they function as
immediate witnesses testifying concerning what they have
seen. However, the disciples clearly take on the authority
of ancient witnesses after the resurrection and ascension of
the risen Lord. Of course, the gospel message claimed
authority largely from the disciples' (now apostles')
presumed interpretations of the resurrection event. In this
chapter, I will focus on how the disciples function as
immediate witnesses in gospel narratives, and in the next
chapter their function as ancient witnesses will be
discussed.
The examples of testimony to be examined here are those
used to support representations of various events in Jesus'
ministry. They will show how the disciples and the
multitudes bore "true" testimony concerning Jesus' miracles
and sayings. To better understand the function of immediate
witnesses in lending credibility to narratives with
questionable or controversial historical content, I will
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
probe the nativity narratives. When discussing the nativity
narratives, I will concentrate on the roles of Mary and
Joseph as immediate witnesses in the Lucan and Mathean
nativity narratives, respectively. This exploration will
support two central claims of this study: (1) gospel
narratives persuade through portraying their
representations of events as accurate and truthful, and (2)
gospel narratives constitute a rhetorical proof, the
testimony of eyewitnesses, to authorize a message and give
it suasory force. My analysis will demonstrate that
immediate witnesses convince readers through both
characterological coherence and an ability to draw readers
into the narrative through identification.
The Witness of the Multitudes
Of all the gospel witnesses, the multitudes offer the
most basic form of testimony about Jesus. Since they act en
masse, the multitudes cannot represent personal actional
tendencies. Their actions must be performed and studied as
a whole. However, given this unity of action, it is
possible for the multitudes to demonstrate a collective
version of characterological coherence. As I have said of
all immediate witnesses in the Gospels, if the multitudes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
act and react to Jesus' words and works in a consistent way,
they demonstrate a coherent set of tendencies that testify
to the reliability of their witness. The narrative implies
that the reactions of widely diverse witnesses in varying
circumstances demonstrate consistency because they are all
reacting to the same event.
Though both are important, it should be noted that the
multitudes convince primarily from their quantity rather
than from the quality of their individual testimony. We
cannot test individuals within a multitude to see if they
are reasonable and ethical witnesses. But, we are led to
presume that, given a large enough group, some within the
multitudes must have been reliable witnesses. Further, the
early followers of Christ, those who started the church, are
assumed to have come from the multitudes (though, it is
important to note that they were now followers or Christians
rather than inquiring multitudes). So, the multitudes share
an implied set of reliable (later, authoritative) witnesses,
witnesses with whom early Christian readers could on several
levels identify.
I will draw all four Gospels into my discussion of the
rhetorical function of the multitudes and, later, of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
disciples and the Baptist. However, I will begin with the
Gospel of Mark. There are several reasons for beginning
with Mark. First, when discussing how consistent narrative
patterns are drawn together to construct a gospel, focusing
on Mark allows me to deal with a set of narratives that were
actually gathered as a cohesive whole. So, I am able to
discuss how one gospel appropriates various witnesses to
construct its proclamation. Another reason to begin with
Mark is that it is generally considered the earliest Gospel.
As Lane indicates, Mark's early date means that, as far as
can be ascertained, Mark created the "popular" literary form
of the gospel (1). If that is so, then Mark should also
demonstrate the essential or fundamental rhetorical function
of witnesses as part of the evolving gospel form.
Certainly, Mark's Gospel proves the truthfulness of its
message through the use of witnesses. Lane has noted that
Mark uses the testimony of witnesses to Jesus' acts to lend
authority to the various miracle accounts (26). Further,
Mark constantly places references to witnesses' reactions at
the end of miracle narratives which emphasizes the
eyewitness nature of the text. The consistent emphasis on
reactions lends coherence to the witness of the multitudes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
The multitudes all react in a similar way when they perceive
the miraculous works of Jesus.
The multitudes have two storial functions in miracle
narratives. They act as witnesses offering testimony
through their reaction to narrated events and they act as
establishing agents, calling the events into being by their
desire to witness the Christ. By calling them into being
and then reacting to them, the multitudes become a framing
device for these narratives. This framing enhances the
consistency of the narrated events, once again informing
them with the sense of a single pattern of events. The
witness of the multitudes provides both a believable setting
and proof of the miracles of Jesus.
Beginning with the first miracle narratives, in 1:32-
1:45, Mark places the works of Jesus in the center of a
crowd eager to witness the wonders of Messianic miracles.
In 1:32-33, the evangelist establishes the setting of the
first large scale exorcisms and the first leper cleansing
with a reference to the crowd gathered to witness Jesus'
miracles. He tells us that "the whole city had gathered at
the door" where Jesus stood to watch him heal the sick
(1:33) . The ill and demon-possessed were brought to Jesus
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
by the "crowd" (1:32). So, the miracle narrative is put
into motion by the crowd. As they gather to witness the
healings, Jesus performs his miracles.
By setting miracle narratives into motion by gathering
a crowd ("cloud") of witnesses, Mark set the pattern used
throughout the gospel. In 2:1-2 such large crowds gather to
witness Jesus' works that no one is able to approach him.
In verse 12, the crowd is "amazed" at Jesus' healing of a
paralytic. In 3:7, even though Jesus withdraws from the
crowds, multitudes still gather and are awed by his healings
and expulsion of evil spirits. Crowds gather in 4:1, 5:21,
5:34, 8:1, 9:14, 10:1, 10:46, and 11:8. In each case they
gather to see or witness Jesus' teaching and miracles. And,
they are never let down. The crowds are amazed (5:20,
7:37), frightened (5:33, 10:32), astonished (5:42, 10:32)
and overwhelmed (9:15) at Jesus' works. Before the
resurrection, only three miracle narratives begin without
the crowd gathering formula. These are the calming of the
storm (4:35-41), the walking-on-water episode (6:45-56), and
the transfiguration (9:2-13). In each of these episodes,
the disciples take over the crowd's role of witness. In
essence, they constitute a small "crowd." They are gathered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
as witnesses to Jesus' works (4:35-36, 6:45, 9:2) and they
are duly terrified (4:41), amazed (6:51) and frightened
(9:6) by the signs and wonders surrounding Jesus.
The absolute consistency of the actions and reactions
of the multitudes indicates the coherence of their witness.
We are led to assume that these are different crowds in
different towns and cities. Yet, each crowd acts in
essentially the same manner. They all seek some sort of
demonstration that Jesus is the Christ, some showing, and
they react in wonder, fear, and awe when they actually see
the miracles.
That these crowds seek some sort of demonstration that
Jesus is the Christ indicates that they are reasonable
enough to seek evidence rather than blindly accept a claim.
The multitudes who bear "true" witness do not act as an
unthinking mob. The response of the crowds indicates that
they have found the evidence they sought. Reacting in fear
implies that the multitudes recognize Jesus as specially
empowered. If Jesus were simply a conjurer, we are to
assume that the crowd would have demonstrated that they were
entertained. If Jesus were simply another Rabbi, the crowds
should react by following his teaching. However, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
response of awe and fear leads us to believe that the crowd
has witnessed something extraordinary, something that it
cannot explain except by accepting Christ's divinity. Of
course, the narrative implication of this wonder and fear is
that the multitudes will never be able to explain Jesus'
works without accepting that the Christ is among them.
In spite of their essentially faceless nature, the
crowds offer readers someone with whom to identify. From
the very outset of every narrative in which the multitudes
appear, the reader is invited into the story through the
commonness of the crowd. Joining the crowd in witnessing
Jesus' miraculous works, the reader is conferred the role of
reasonable inquirer, someone ready to honor proofs of the
narrative's truth.
By identifying with crowd members, the reader is also
allowed to enter the narrative without making an overt or
personal commitment to the narrative's accuracy or truth.
The reader may simply regard himself as one of the ordinary
people considering the evidence presented. However, once
involved in the narrative, the reader is moved to identify
with the multitudes' response to Jesus' works and, in
identifying with that response, to recognize the truth and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
accuracy of the narrative. As the reader recognizes and
feels the same surprise and awe as the crowds, s/he
literally joins the crowd and, through a consistent
response, acknowledges the veracity of the miracle events.
Since the multitudes, by their nature, have no
individual personalities to develop, their characters are
naturally sketchy in the Gospels. I have only offered a
characterization of the multitudes to illustrate how gospel
narratives use immediate witnesses to create their
credibility, their fidelity to the lives of ordinary people.
As indicated earlier, in three miracle narratives the
disciples take over the multitude's role as witness. To
some extent, this is true of both the disciples and the
Baptist whenever they enact the role of witnesses. They
exhibit actions similar to those of the multitude in
offering immediate witness of Jesus' works.
As the following examination will show, the disciples
and the Baptist offer consistent reactions to Jesus' words
and works and the consistency of these reactions undergirds
the reliability of their witness. Further, the disciples
and the Baptist also call Jesus' actions into being in that
they also seek him and the signs he brings. For instance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
the Baptist introduces the gospel by prophesying the coming
Messiah and declaring that the Messiah has arrived in the
form of Jesus. By declaring Jesus the Christ, the Baptist
effectively brings Jesus' ministry into being. This example
of witness to the Messiah, however, demonstrates a primary
difficulty found in studying the witness function of the
disciples and the Baptist. This difficulty derives from the
Baptist's role as both immediate and ancient witness.
Both the disciples and the Baptist take on the roles of
immediate witness and ancient witness. But the Baptist
often functions as both in the same context. The Baptist's
presence as both immediate and ancient witness requires a
complex analysis, one that is divided between this chapter
and the next. The following section will explore the
Baptist's immediate witness to Jesus and the next chapter
will examine his ancient witness to the Christ event.
Identifying with the Baptist as Witness and Skeptic
If we assume that Mark created the gospel form, then we
can say that he also began the tradition of introducing the
gospel of Jesus with the testimony of John the Baptist.
Matthew, Luke, and John adopt this same stance, thereby
constituting the gospel genre. The Baptist's testimony is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
crucial in establishing the credibility of the gospel as
witness to history and as true interpretation of history.
As the gospel's first witness, one who, as I have noted,
carries the authority of the ancient prophets, the Baptist
establishes the function of gospel witness as confirming
testimony of the Christ.
In fact, the evangelist attempts to identify the
testimony of the gospel of Mark with the testimony of the
Baptist. Mark's gospel and the Baptist both bear the same
witness concerning the same things. Therefore, Mark carries
the same testimonial "authority" as the Baptist. So, if the
Baptist bears the same witness as the Law and the Prophets,
then the gospel also bears the same witness as the Law and
the Prophets. Thus, identifying the Baptist's authority
with the authority of the Law and the Prophets ultimately
trades on the authority of the Law and the Prophets to the
gospel's witness.
As Kermode observed, the link the Baptist establishes
between the gospel and the Old Testament allows the
evangelist to see Jesus in all the Messianic types and
prophecies of the Old Testament (107). In fact, Kermode
argued that, taken to its logical end, this use of the Old
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Testament would lead to its destruction except as a source
for Messianic prophecies and types (107). However, it is
inportant to remember Ricoeur's assertion that the prophet's
role in Israel was that of a witness testifying to what he
had seen (131). The prophet bears testimony to the "vision"
he has witnessed. In so doing, his primary and, given the
permanence of his prophetic words, his most significant
function is that of a witness testifying to the existence of
signs that demonstrate the coming of the Messiah, God's
power breaking into human history, and so on.
Testifying concerning "signs" is a key function of most
witnesses in the Gospels. Ultimately, much of the case made
for Jesus in the Gospels involves reasoning from signs. A
sign (such as a miracle) is offered and attested to by
witnesses (for example, the multitudes). That sign or
miracle is the ultimate proof, an infallible sign that Jesus
is the Christ. As Jesus repeats throughout the Gospel of
John, if he "does the work of the Father," he must be from
the Father, and true miracles are an irrefutable sign that
Jesus is doing the works of the Father (John 8:14-47, 9:4,
10:25-38) . The next chapter will explore the use of signs
as proofs of Jesus' unique calling. Here, it is important
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
to note that prophetic visions testify to signs as proofs of
Christ's divinity.
As the prophets bear witness to a "vision” of the
Messiah, the Baptist bears testimony to a literal "vision"
of the Christ. The materiality of this vision is emphasized
by the Baptist observing a dove descending on the Christ.
While the Old Testament prophets had only mystical visions
of the coming Messiah, the Baptist saw the Messiah
immediately before him and the Messianic nature of the man
before him was proven by a sign, the descending dove. Thus,
even though he carries many of the qualities of an ancient
witness, the Baptist offers testimony to actual "historical"
events, the appearance of the Christ in history, from his
own experience of those events.
The eyewitness nature of this encounter is confirmed by
the fact that the Baptist testifies that Jesus is the Christ
based on what he sees. After John baptizes Jesus, Mark
relates that he sees "the heavens opening, and the Spirit
like a dove descending upon Him." The descent of the dove
marks Jesus as the Christ. The gospel of John is far more
explicit in identifying the Baptist's testimony to Jesus
with his eyewitnessing the descent of the dove. According
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
to John, the Baptist did not even know that Jesus was to be
the Christ until he witnessed the Spirit's descent. Until
he eyewitnessed this event, John testified only to that
which he had been sent to proclaim, repentance and the
coining Messiah.
And, John bore witness, 'I saw the Spirit
descend as a dove from heaven, and it
remained on him. I myself did not know
him; but he who sent me to baptize with
water said to me, 'He on whom you see
the Spirit descend and remain, this is
he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
And I have seen and have borne witness
that this is the Son of God.' (John 1:32-34)
John's claim that the Baptist did not testify
concerning Jesus personally until the descent of the dove is
consistent with Mark's briefer account of the Baptist's
ministry. Mark recounts that the Baptist preached
repentance, baptizing believers in the Jordan River and
having them confess their sins. Mark also relates that the
Baptist preached the coming of the Messiah, though he did
not identify who the Messiah was other than to say that the
Messiah's ministry would supersede his own. Nonetheless,
the Baptist does not testify that Jesus is the Christ until
he actually sees the dove descend.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
Matthew and Luke give similar prominence to the
testimony of the Baptist and, likewise, draw on the
authority of that testimony in their narratives of Jesus'
ministry. Before they present the Baptist's witness, both
Gospels present a nativity narrative (each of which, as we
shall see later, bears its own form of eyewitness testimony
to the Christ). However, like Mark, both Matthew and Luke
begin their narratives of Jesus' ministry with the testimony
of the Baptist. In each case, the passages on the Baptist's
witness are strikingly similar, similar enough to sustain an
argument that they come from the same source (Geldenhuys
24) .
So, Mark sets a precedent for Christian gospel writers
by introducing "the gospel of Jesus Christ" with the witness
of John the Baptist. He establishes a preeminent role for
the testimony of immediate witnesses in the gospel accounts
and, in fact, implies that the gospel accounts, as a whole,
are a form of eyewitness testimony to the Christ. He bases
the authority of the gospel message on the Baptist's
eyewitness testimony and, ultimately on God who, we are led
to believe, sent the Baptist to preach repentance and sent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
the Spirit in the form of a dove to confirm the Baptist's
testimony before his own eyes.
This is all significant because, as with the
multitudes, the Baptist's witness "brings" the narrated
works of Jesus into being. But, where the multitudes called
individual acts into being by seeking them, the Baptist
calls Jesus' entire ministry into being by bearing witness
concerning him. As a "prophet" of the old dispensation, the
Baptist bears authoritative witness of the coming Messiah
(again, I discuss the use of "ancient" witness at some
length in the following chapter). When the Baptist sees the
dove descend on Jesus, he recognizes that Jesus is the
Christ and bears witness "that he is the Son of God" (John
1:32-34) . So, through his witness of the Christ, the
Baptist initiates Jesus' ministry with the testimony of one
who sees the Christ and, because of his place as the last of
the old dispensation prophets, recognizes the Christ of whom
he bears witness.
However, given the Baptist's role as prophet and
ancient witness, the reader may have some difficulty
identifying with him. The reader must take the Baptist's
witness on the authority of knowledge that the Baptist
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
possesses but that s/he does not. Thus, a gulf can exist
between the reader and the Baptist, a gulf that is never
fully bridged. However, the Baptist offers one witness in
the Gospels with which the reader is expected to identify
and which preempts one of the fundamental arguments against
the early Christian faith.
As Paul claimed, the early Christian faith, which
worshipped a crucified criminal as the Son of God, must have
seemed like "foolishness" to the Greeks (I Corinthians
1:23) . Throughout the Gospels, it is quite clear that most
who followed Jesus believed that he was going to conquer
civilization by assuming some sort of military or political
power. If, as Mack has held, we may develop a conception of
the New Testament social world by postulating qualities of
that world from arguments made within the New Testament,
then we can assume that the belief that a new religious
order would be brought in through military or political
force was probably commonly held among those seeking the
Messiah (Rhetoric and the New Testament 17).
Given that Jesus failed to create this force in his
life and that he was executed in the most brutal manner
allowed in the Roman state, it would seem irrational to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
believe that he was the Messiah or to follow his teachings.
But, as I have said, part of the Baptist's witness preenç)ts
this entire line of reasoning. Ironically, it is the
Baptist's failed witness, his questioning of Jesus'
ministry, that accomplishes this.
For one brief moment, the Baptist takes on a key
characteristic of the disciples, Jewish religious leaders,
and some of the multitudes. He fails to understand Jesus'
work. When he hears "the works of the Christ," he begins to
question whether or not this is the real Messiah (Matthew
11:2) . In this doubt, the audience is rather suddenly
invited to identify with the Baptist. Until then, John the
Baptist had been unapproachable, the last voice of the Old
Testament. But, here he voices a question that must have
arisen for many readers. Was this obscure teacher who would
ultimately be crucified really to be taken as the Christ?
Matthew leads into the Baptist's doubt by saying that
Jesus was going to various cities "to teach and preach"
(11:1). Thus, teaching and preaching are the "works" that
led to the Baptist's doubts. Like the multitudes and, we
may assume, early readers of the Gospels, the Baptist seeks
an active militant Messiah, not just a teacher. So, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Baptist sends two of his disciples to Jesus to ask him if he
is the Christ.
While readers may have identified with the Baptist in
his doubts, they would have been drawn even further into the
narrative by these two representatives of the Baptist. Like
the multitudes, these two anonymous disciples act as
ordinary people. Moreover, they exist purely as witnesses.
They are brought into the narrative for only one purpose, to
see Jesus and bear witness to the Baptist concerning him.
So, in the much same way as with the multitudes, the reader
is invited into the narrative through these characters.
When the inevitable question arose concerning the apparent
contradiction in Jesus' ministry, supposedly the Messiah
seeming to have a limited and, ultimately, failed ministry,
the reader could, with the Baptist, verify the occurrence of
the Christ event by witnessing that event through the
testimony of these two witnesses.
Jesus' response to the two disciples is significant.
He tells them to look at what he has done, healing miracles,
the raising of the dead, ministering to the poor, etc.
These infallible proofs confirm that he is the long awaited
Christ, that there is no need to wait for another. As the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
two literally witness Jesus' works, they become confirming
agents, witnesses who can confirm Jesus' divine power.
Without further word or proof, Jesus tells them to bear
testimony concerning what they have seen to the Baptist.
There is no empathizing with the Baptist in his sufferings.
We are not even told the Baptist's response. The narrative
simply assumes that witnessing Jesus' miraculous works and
teachings should be sufficient for anyone to recognize him
as the Christ. Significantly, that assumption is especially
true for those who have taken part in and accepted the
witness of the multitudes. If they have been effective, the
gospel narratives have repeatedly drawn the reader into the
witness of the multitudes. The witness of the two anonymous
disciples is consistent with that of the multitudes. Since
the reader has begun habitually to acknowledge the witness
of the multitudes, this second witness seems compelling and
might reasonably be accepted.
We can now see a consistent pattern arising in the
function of immediate witnesses in gospel narratives. A set
of immediate witnesses bears testimony concerning the words
and/or works of Jesus. The reader is encouraged to identify
with those witnesses and feel the truthfulness of these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
words and works, the events of Jesus' narrated life, in the
same way as the witnesses. The repetition of this pattern
of inducement impresses on the reader the consistency and
trustworthiness of the gospel's representation of events.
The reader is continually directed to receive the preferred
witness as truthful.
Jesus' disciples are more fully developed than most
gospel witnesses. Consequently, they invite identification
and have the power of rhetorical inducement beyond those of
most other characters. To further illustrate the function
of immediate witnesses in gospel narratives, it will be
useful to examine the form this witness takes in the
disciples' testimony.
The Disciples as Perpetual Witness
As I have noted, the witness of the Baptist is
exceptionally brief and, in each of the Gospels, essentially
concludes before Jesus' ministry has even begun. The role
of immediate witness is taken up by other characters, such
as the multitudes. The characters who come closest to
replacing the Baptist as witnesses to the Christ are Jesus'
disciples. However, the disciples never completely replace
the Baptist's character because, throughout the Gospels,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
they never understand Jesus' role as the Christ in the same
way the "last of the prophets" did. Without this deeper
understanding, the disciples often act as a "personal
multitude," witnessing Jesus' works and being awed by them
but not fully understanding their full meaning.
While the Baptist's role as immediate witness is
somewhat complicated by his continuing role as ancient
witness, the disciples do not actually take on the role of
ancient witnesses until after the resurrection. Witnessing
the resurrection changes the disciples from those who follow
Jesus to those who are called to proclaim the risen Christ.
Witnessing the risen Lord gave the apostles a unique place
in Christian witness, one on the same level as the ancient
witnesses of the old covenant, the prophets (Boring 15-16).
In fact, to be recognized as an apostle, it was more
important to have witnessed the resurrected Christ than to
have seen the man Jesus. Paul claims his role as apostle on
the basis of having seen the resurrected Christ on the road
to Damascus, though there is no evidence that Paul ever saw
Jesus during his life.
In spite of this assumption of the role of ancient
witnesses, the disciples' role as immediate witness to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
works of Jesus remains important for the Gospels. Having
been the most consistent and closest witnesses to Jesus,
they powerfully reinforce credibility in the accounts of
Jesus' work. Their actions and witness are consistent with
that of other immediate witnesses. Beyond this, their
testimony is consistent throughout the entire gospel
narrative.
Since the disciples' early witness is limited by their
ignorance concerning the divinity of Christ, they were more
believable to their auditors; they were easier to identify
with. This was very important to early Christians because it
is doubtful that, by the time the Gospels were written,
converts to Christianity had ever seen Jesus. So, their
knowledge of Jesus was, at best, secondhand. However, in
the Gospels, the disciples show that even those with an
imperfect knowledge of the Christ may witness concerning
him.
The credibility of the disciples as immediate witnesses
was enhanced by their consistent patterns of action and
witness across several gospel narratives. Since I have
claimed that the disciples often function as more personal
and more fully developed versions of the multitudes, I need
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
to show how the disciple's witness is consistent with and,
at times, grows from the witness of the multitudes.
Further, it is important to reveal how readers are drawn
into the various gospel narratives through the disciples'
witness and how this lends believability to the
representation of events within those narratives. I will
begin my examination of the disciples' testimonial function
with the Gospel of Mark. Specifically, I will discuss how
the disciples take on the role of immediate witnesses from
the Baptist and from the multitudes in one series of miracle
narratives.
As if to emphasize the fact that the disciples will
take over the function of immediate witness from John the
Baptist, Mark identifies the calling of the first disciples
with the imprisonment of the Baptist. He begins his
narrative of their calling by placing it "after John was put
in prison" (Mark 1:14). After the Baptist was imprisoned,
the evangelist tells us that "Jesus went into Galilee
proclaiming the good news of God" (Mark 1:14). However,
Jesus does not proclaim the coming of the Messiah, like
John, but tells his listeners that "The time is fulfilled,
and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
In essence, Jesus proclaims that he brings the kingdom
of which everyone else in the narratives will bear witness.
The disciples' unique role as direct witnesses is emphasized
by the fact that they are called directly by Jesus to follow
him and witness his words and works. Mark repeats that
Jesus was "beside the Sea of Galilee" when he called his
first followers, Andrew and Simon. This repetition draws us
back to the first sentence of the narrative and thus
underscores the point that this calling occurs immediately
following the Baptist's imprisonment (Mark 1:14-16).
Mark's tendency to run narratives together, separating
them only by the word "immediately," serves him well here.
The jump from the testimony of the Baptist to the witness of
the disciples and the reminder that the disciples began
their work as the Baptist finished his, clearly identifies
the disciple's witness of Jesus with the Baptist's. The
storial implication is that after the Baptist was
imprisoned, someone needed to witness the works of Jesus and
bear testimony concerning them. By identifying them with
the Baptist, the evangelist makes the disciples the obvious
choice to complete this function. This shift in function is
highlighted when, after calling two more disciples, Mark has
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
Jesus immediately perform numerous miracles for the
disciples to witness.
The miracles that immediately follow the calling of the
first disciples are important because they are both public
and personal. The public miracles allow the disciples to
act like the multitudes and to offer a consistent type of
character identification for readers. The private miracles
place the disciples on a separate plane from the multitudes.
By implication, they offer the reader a similarly privileged
position as witnesses of Jesus' private works.
In fact, the disciples typically fade into the
background in the public miracles emphasizing their
identification with the multitudes in offering immediate
witness. When studying these miracle narratives, it is
important to remember a point I made when discussing the
witness of the multitudes. If a variety of witnesses are
ignorant of the full range of meanings of events yet their
testimony reflects a consistent representation of an event's
meaning, then that consistency attests to the legitimacy of
the proffered interpretation. Consistency supports
legitimacy for two reasons. Since the witnesses did not
wholly understand the event, they could not have devised the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
meaning that explains the event and, since they offer
consistent testimony and have been presumed reasonable
persons, the meaning that arises must be the only reasonable
one. Again, this logic only applies once the reader has
entered the narrative and, by entering, acknowledged the
truthfulness of the immediate witnesses as witnesses.
As I have said, the evangelist places Jesus' first
public and private miracles immediately after the calling of
the first disciples. The primary thrust of these miracle
narratives is to demonstrate that Jesus brought divine
authority into human history. To sustain this belief, the
gospel must offer compelling testimony that impresses the
reader with the reality and authority of Jesus' works. To do
so, the evangelist follows the same essential formula he
follows in other miracle narratives. He gathers the
multitudes (or, for private miracles, the disciples) for the
purpose of witnessing a miracle. The miracle is performed
and the witnesses are awed and testify concerning the event.
The evangelist foreshadows the significance of these
miracle narratives by reminding us at the start that Jesus
taught "as one having authority" (Mark 1:22). This
authority is demonstrated when Jesus is confronted by a man
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
who has an "evil spirit." The evil spirit asks Jesus if he
has "come to destroy us" (Mark 1:24) . Jesus silences the
spirit and orders him from the man. Once again, Jesus'
power over evil spirits is an infallible sign of his
authority, a proof that the authority of the Father is
within him.
In the first of his many references to the emotions of
those who view Jesus' works, Mark tells us that the people
were all amazed. Further, the witnesses immediately
perceive Jesus' authority, both in his teachings and in his
actions, and act frightened of that authority. The
witnesses exclaim, "A new teaching! With authority he
commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him!" (Mark
1:27).
Of course this reinforces Mark's initial claim that
Jesus came teaching with authority. But, much of the
narrative's persuasive force still comes from the reader
identifying with the reactions of the crowd. Again, the
reader must recognize the witnesses' response as reasonable.
Since we have been told by the evangelist that Jesus' acts
of power demonstrate authority and since Jesus clearly
demonstrates authority over the unclean spirits whom he
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
commands to leave a man's body, the witnesses' response
seems, in this setting, very reasonable. In fact, it
carries narrative inevitability because it is the only
conclusion that someone within the narrative could arrive at
and be consistent with the narrative's storial world. Thus,
the crowds bear reasonable witness concerning Jesus by
offering the only response they are able to offer.
In a brief miracle story, the disciples witness Jesus'
authority over illness in the healing of Simon's mother-in-
law. Beyond demonstrating another type of authority, this
narrative is important because it links the crowd's awe with
their action (bringing all their sick to Jesus to be
healed). If a great healer had been found, it would appear
unreasonable and unrealistic not to bring the sick and dying
to be healed by him. It would certainly contradict the
witness given to Jesus' authority. However, we have not yet
been given a place or setting for Jesus to perform these
healings nor have we seen Jesus actually heal a sick person
(casting out an unclean spirit must have seemed related
though not exactly the same). Simon offers Jesus both a
setting and a miracle to demonstrate his healing authority.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
The fact that Simon and, by implication, Andrew, James,
and John, offer Jesus a place and reason to perform his
first real healing is notable because it gives them the
multitude's function of calling a miracle into being. This
is underscored by the disciples talking to Jesus about
Simon's mother-in-law. When they find her ill, the
disciples speak to Jesus about her, presumably asking him to
heal her because that is what he does instantly (Mark 1:29-
30) . So, the disciples, like the multitudes, come to Jesus
seeking a miracle and receive one.
One distinguishing characteristic of the disciples'
actions is notable. The disciples' "seeking" is dictated by
circumstances and knowledge of Jesus' healing power rather
than a spirit of inquiry. After having witnessed Jesus'
authority over unclean spirits, the disciples recognize that
he has some sort of special power and so seek help in their
need. This links the disciples to the multitudes who come
to Jesus in the ensuing narrative seeking healing for the
ill and demon-possessed (Mark 1:32).
This also reinforces another characterisitic that lends
reliability to the gospel's immediate witness. Immediate
witnesses of Jesus consistently perceive his power and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
authority even if they do not fully understand it. When
they recognize this power, they constantly seek Jesus out
for help. These continually repeated actions attest to the
reasonableness of the witnesses and the reliability of their
testimony. Given that such a large and apparently diverse
group of people recognize Jesus' acts as authoritative and
then act in a manner consistent with that recognition, their
testimony carries great authority within their narrated
world. The reader who identifies with their actions and
thus "enters" their world should feel that authority.
Further, the narrative presses that reader to identify
with the witnesses' actions. It is not enough to recognize
the authority of Jesus. One must act on that authority. In
identifying with the predicament of those who seek Jesus
from their need, the reader is guided to do the same. If
the reader has acknowledged the witness for Jesus and, thus,
Jesus' authority, then that person should also seek and
follow him (as the disciples do).
I have discussed these miracle narratives to
demonstrate an important parallel between the disciples and
the multitudes. The disciples parallel the multitudes as
immediate witnesses. They act and react in much the same
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
manner when witnessing the works of Jesus. This parallel
response significantly reinforces the consistency of
immediate witnesses' actions. It also strengthens narrative
consistency in the various narratives offered in the gospel.
The narratives follow the same generic conventions and,
thus, all appear to be telling essentially the same story.
As I noted in the previous chapter, consistent patterns
within various gospel narratives give the ingression that
the Gospels are narrating a unified historical progression.
This impression is essential for the history-like quality
the Gospels work to impress on readers.
The parallel function of the disciples and the
multitudes is not limited to this set of miracle narratives.
Throughout Mark, the actions of the multitudes or
individuals within the multitudes often parallel those of
the disciples, further emphasizing their similar roles and
giving greater focus to the witness the disciples will
offer. For instance, in Mark's account, the only other
disciple whose call is narrated before the apostles are
named and sent is Levi. The calling of Levi immediately
follows another.miracle narrative, the healing of the
paralytic (Mark 2:1-20). The placement of this narrative is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
significant because the paralytic acts as a variant type of
Levi. Jesus meets the paralytic and, because of his
sincerity, tells him that his sins are forgiven. Several
unnamed "teachers of the law" object to Jesus forgiving this
man's sins. To show them that he has authority over human
sin and suffering, Jesus heals the paralytic.
The close relationship between sin and sickness
indicated here is reinforced in the account of Levi's
calling which follows. Jesus calls Levi, a tax collector,
straight from his collecting booth and has dinner at Levi's
house with various "sinners" (Mark 2:13-17). Again, various
unnamed teachers of the law obj ect to Jesus' actions. Jesus
claims, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the
sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners"
(Mark 1:17). Like the paralytic, Levi and the "sinners" he
represents need healing. Jesus has demonstrated his
authority over both sickness and sin. So, as he healed the
paralytic, he also heals the sinner.
Again, the disciples, in the miracle of Levi, parallel
the multitudes, in the miracle of the paralytic. However,
there is an important difference that will explain why and
how the disciples will become ancient witnesses in their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
apostolic roles. While the paralytic can bear witness
concerning physical healing, Levi can bear witness
concerning spiritual healing. If H. Richard Niebuhr's claim
that New Testament narratives embody internal histories,
histories an individual or group's internal rather than
external experiences, has any relevance to the Gospels, it
is here ("Story of Our Life" 44) . Immediate witnesses
testify concerning external history, what they see. Ancient
witnesses often testify concerning "internal qualities" or
truths, truths that "exist and come to life" in external
history, but truths that may not be easily discerned by the
unauthorized eye (Niebuhr 44).
I have shown how different immediate witnesses, the
multitudes, the Baptist, the disciples, induce readers of
the gospel to accept their recounting of events. I have-
discussed the parallel patterns of testimony and action
displayed by these witnesses and the persuasive impact they
had in communicating the message of the Gospels. I now want
to examine how these suasory elements build authority for
individual witnesses in a single highly disputed narrative--
the story of the nativity. I am focusing on nativity
narratives because of their late and disputed nature, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
resulting need to offer especially strong support for them
as true recountings of Jesus' birth, and the ertç)hasis on two
key witnesses, Mary and Joseph, to bring about this support.
The great importance of Mary and Joseph's witness to the
nativity in these narratives is unique in the Gospels.
Though my main focus is on nativity narratives, I will
comment on other gospel narratives where similar narrative
patterns are used to build authority for witnesses.
Nativity Narratives and Individual Witness in the Gospels
As noted the nativity narratives were very late
additions to the gospel tradition and only appear in those
of Matthew and Luke. Even the Gospel of John, in which
Jesus' transcendent character as the Word of God is of
supreme importance, does not include a nativity narrative.
Its absence there damages the credibility of the nativity
accounts; further damaging their credibility are
inconsistencies between the nativities in Matthew and Luke
particularly in regard to their constructions of Jesus'
genealogy. In spite of these difficulties, the virgin birth
narratives were very important theologically for Luke and
Matthew, establishing, from his birth, Jesus' unique role as
the Christ.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
The story of virgin birth testifies to Jesus' divinity.
The tradition of a miraculous birth announcing the entrance
of divinity into human discourse and the developing
theological need to distinguish the Christ from the fallen
seed of Adam gave the nativity narratives tremendous
importance for the early church. However, since the virgin
birth narratives appeared late and in only two of the four
gospel accounts, they clearly needed strong testimonial
support to establish their veracity. Matthew and Luke both
enlisted the authority of the two most immediate witnesses
to Jesus birth, his parents. Obviously, if anyone would
know whether or not Jesus was virgin bom, it would be his
parents.
Further, Jesus' parents, especially Mary, have held a
special authority in the Christian tradition. Given the
veneration with which Mary has been held almost since the
beginning of the Christian church, virtually any testimony
she was supposed to have offered must have had tremendous
suasory appeal.. Thus, Matthew and Luke began with a
tremendous advantage in establishing Mary and Josephs'
credibility. For early Christians, a level of authority was
already assumed for the two. For the majority of Matthew
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
and Luke's readers, it was only necessary to sustain that
authority rather than to build up a new or unrecognized
authority.
It is important that Matthew and Luke each present
their nativity narratives from the perspective of one
parent. As noted, Matthew presents his version of the birth
from Joseph's perspective. He presents the situation of an
unwed and pregnant Mary as one with which Joseph must deal
(1:18-19). In Matthew, Joseph makes all the major decisions
that set the narrative into motion. He decides to marry
Mary, to take his family to Egypt to escape persecution, and
to return with his family to Israel (1:24-25, 2:14-15,
2:21). Joseph makes each of these decisions after seeing an
angel in a vision (1:20-23, 2:13, 2:19-20). Further, we are
told that Joseph is alone each time he sees a vision (1:20-
23, 2:12-14, 2:22). Also, we are told Joseph's private
thoughts and feelings throughout the narrative; that, on
finding out about her pregnancy, Joseph did not want to
disgrace Mary (1:19), that he "desired" privacy in his
family relations and "considered" quietly breaking off his
engagement with Mary (1:19-20), that he "was afraid" for his
family's safety when he heard that Herod's son continued to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
reign over Judea (2:22). The narrative consistently implies
that it is offering private and privileged information,
information directly from Joseph.
As is well-known, Luke's account of the virgin birth so
emphasizes Mary's perspective that it led to a long held
belief that Luke's primary source was Jesus' mother and to
the recurring image in Christian legend and art of Luke
writing his gospel as Mary narrated. It is true that Luke's
focus never strays far from Mary and her reactions to
events. Luke introduces his account of the nativity with
the angelic annunciation of Jesus' birth to Mary (1:26-38).
In the annunciation narrative, the angel visits Mary
privately and she is "greatly troubled" by the angel's
message and keeps "pondering" its meaning (1:29-30).
However, her response is ultimately submissive (1:38).
Luke then narrates a visit between Mary and Elizabeth
in which the miracle of the nativity is confirmed to Mary
when Elizabeth tells her that the unborn John the Baptist
has "leaped in her womb" at Mary's appearance (1:39-45).
This, of course, leads to Mary's personal reaction to the
approaching nativity, her magnificat (1:46-56). Mary's nine
verse poem of exaltation further draws the reader in to her
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
personal feelings through her response to being "with child"
by "the power of the Most High." It displays her elation,
her fear, and her thankfulness (1:46-49, 1:54). Finally,
Luke concludes the nativity narrative with Mary's reaction.
"Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her
heart" (2:19). This statement acts as a literary summation
of the preceding narrative. We remember these events and,
in fact, they are worth remembering because Mary treasured
them. Once again, the reader is given the impression of
being offered privileged information. While this
information may have been the community property of the
early church, it was first the private property of Mary.
From those private "memories," Luke can craft his tale of
the Son of the Most High coming to earth and taking the form
of man through a virgin birth and, at the same time, can
give that tale the authoritative voice of Jesus' venerated
virgin mother.
Though Mary and Joseph carried a great deal of personal
authority, it was still important to represent them as
consistent reliable witnesses to events. Of course, it
would not do to have the only truly direct witnesses of the
virgin birth, the only humans who really knew if it was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
truly a virgin birth, appear to be inconsistent, inaccurate,
or dishonest in their testimony. Further, since this
testimony was so personal, involved a high level of
potential bias (after all, who would not want to parent the
Christ), and relied almost totally on testimony concerning
events that no one else directly witnessed, even Mary and
Joseph needed to represent an irreproachable witness.
Mary and Joseph embody that witness in much the same
manner as did the multitudes. They do not perform miracles
or prophecy but watch as prophecies are fulfilled and
miracles are performed around and to them. Though they do
not call the miracles and wonders into being, they are
receptive, if sometimes skeptical, witnesses. And they
react in consistent and reasonable ways when faced with
amazing circumstances. Thus, Mary and Joseph represent
direct witnesses who, as individuals, enact the same
essential function in roughly the same manner as the
multitudes.
The key consistency between Mary and Joseph and the
multitudes is in the manner their responses to events
establishes character and authority. In Matthew, Joseph's
response to Mary's pregnancy is a most telling proof of his
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
ethos. When Joseph finds that Mary is pregnant, he wants to
"put her away secretly" (Matthew 1:19). That is, Joseph
wants quietly to annul their betrothal of marriage. This
action implies three things about Joseph: (1) he knew that
the child in Mary was not his, (2) without further evidence,
he did not immediately assume that the child was conceived
in a supernatural way, (3) assuming that the child was
illegitimate, he offered a common and easily understandable
response; he tried to "divorce" himself from an apparently
adulterous woman.
Given these reactions, readers would be led to
recognize Joseph as a rational person and to identify with
him. Joseph's indecision, his inability to come to a final
decision about whether or not to break off his engagement to
Mary, is important because it allows the reader to more
closely sympathize with Joseph, especially his commitment to
doing what is right. While the Evangelist claims that
Joseph was a "righteous man" who did not want to "disgrace"
a woman who appeared to have cheated on him, Joseph's
indecision demonstrates his good character and his
willingness to put aside his own desires and sense of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
betrayal (Matthew 1:19-20) . Thus, Joseph is not just a
reasonable witness but a moral one, too.
Joseph's assumption that there is a natural explanation
for Mary's pregnancy also lends greater credibility to the
supernatural explanation when it is presented. As Joseph
considers what to do about his dilemma, an angel appears to
him in a dream (Matthew 1:20). The angel tells Joseph to
take Mary as his wife because "that which is conceived in
her is of the Holy Spirit...you shall call his name Jesus,
for it is he who will save his people from their sins"
(Matthew 1:20-21). Joseph accepts the word of the angel and
obeys. Thus, Joseph is obedient when convinced that he has
received divine guidance and his initial tendency to accept
a natural explanation for events lends greater credibility
to the fantastic notion of an angelic visitation. Of
course, a problem still exists for skeptical readers of this
story. Without any other witnesses, Joseph's reliability
and obedience do not prove or even strongly recommend that
his dream really represents a visit from an angel.
At this point, it is again important to remember that,
before an essentially Christian audience, Mary and Joseph
begin with greater authority than the multitudes. Clearly,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
no level of characterological coherence could establish Mary
and Joseph as absolutely reliable witnesses, especially
before a skeptical reader. Their testimony is so personal
and individual that it could not be confirmed by anyone else
and, as I have noted, it contains supernatural events that
no one else witnessed. As I have also mentioned, Mary and
Joseph's personal interest in these events was very high.
So, no matter how reliable they may have seemed, a truly
skeptical reader might still assert that their actions and
the testimony they offered were largely self-motivated.
In this situation, the crux issue is audience.
Critical scholarship has long held that the Gospels grew out
of oral traditions in the early church and became a part of
that community's history and tradition. While the Gospels
had an evangelical function, their first audience was first
and second century Christians. In fact, Luke's dedication
of his gospel to "Theophilus" or "Lover of God" has long
been taken as referring to an early Christian or community
of Christians for whom "Theophilus" was a codename.
Certainly, it could be assumed that, for a largely Christian
audience, Mary and Joseph would have presumption on their
side. As long as they acted in a manner consistent with the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
veneration with which they were held, Mary and Joseph's
testimony would undoubtedly carry great authority. Of
course, Joseph's obedience to a message from God would be
completely consistent with his perceived character in the
early church.
Before moving on, I want to comment further on Joseph's
initial assumption that there was a natural explanation to
his dilemma. As with any witness, Joseph's testimony
carries greater rhetorical force if his natural inclination
is to believe something other than what he testifies. The
fact that he naturally believed otherwise, indicates that
Joseph had to be convinced that the supernatural explanation
was the correct one. The suasory force of testimony against
one's normal opinion or first assumptions is exploited
throughout gospel narratives. This is perhaps most
consistently seen in resurrection narratives. In almost
every resurrection story, at least one witness at first
refuses to believe that Jesus has risen from the dead or
assumes that there is a natural explanation for Jesus' body
not being in the tomb. Each of these characters changes
her/his mind after directly witnessing the risen Lord.
Often, these skeptical characters are the central figures in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
their narrative further focusing attention on the strongest
witness within each story. Readers are especially invited
to identify with these characters. The reader should come
into such a fantastic story with some skepticism. But, the
reader should also identify with the narrated skeptic in
changing his/her mind on recognizing the risen Lord.
Of course, the most famous narrative centering on one
of these characters is the "doubting" Thomas story. The
story is familiar. When the other disciples, who have
already seen the risen Lord, tell Thomas that Jesus has
risen from the dead, he refuses to believe them. Yet, on
seeing the risen Lord, Thomas immediately calls out, "My
Lord and my God" (John 20:24-29) . Only the sight of the
risen Lord is necessary for Thomas to believe and bear
witness. Much the same occurs with Mary Magdalene. She
visits Jesus' tomb, finds it empty, and assumes that someone
has taken Jesus' body away (John 20:1-2). When she
recognizes the risen Lord, Mary immediately runs to the
disciples to tell them that, "I have seen the Lord" (John
20:17-18). However, when Mary tells the disciples that
Jesus is risen, they refuse to believe her (Mark 16:11) . In
fact, when Jesus first appears to the disciples, they think
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
he's a ghost and he must demonstrate that he is real by
eating a fish (Luke 24:35-43) . When he proves that he is
really alive, they worship him. This consistent pattern of
skepticism being broken by experience not only enhances the
credibility of these witnesses but, again, always gives the
reader someone to identify with and recognize themselves in.
Certainly, anyone would be expected to doubt a tale of
resurrection (as the reader of these narratives may well
doubt the details of this resurrection story). In doubting,
these witnesses act in a natural way that should seem
reasonable and recognizable to readers.
So, Joseph's initial assumptions concerning Mary's
pregnancy follow a pattern that recurs in other New
Testament narratives and adds further credibility to his
testimony. Likewise, to acknowledge and understand Joseph's
reasoning in the narrated circumstances, the reader already
had to accept the notion that Joseph was a rational
character with whom s/he could to some extent identify.
Acknowledging Joseph as a rational person, the reader would
not be inclined to assume that Joseph's reasons for
accepting Mary's pregnancy as a supernatural event were
irrational. Thus, Joseph's actions make the supernatural
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
explanation, of Jesus' birth appear reasonable. Again
assuming that early readers of the Gospels acknowledged him
as Jesus' father and recognized the reasonable nature of his
responses to events, Joseph's testimony must have had
tremendous rhetorical efficacy.
Of course, for Joseph's testimony to be persuasive,
readers had to accept the possibility of supernatural events
and angelic visions. If the virgin birth could not happen,
then no level of coherence in Joseph's character or
testimony could possibly make it seem likely. However, if
readers could accept the possibility of the virgin birth and
the reasonableness of an angelic announcement of that birth,
then testimony concerning those events could be judged more
or less reasonable. Again, it may be assumed that early
Christian readers were predisposed to accept the possibility
of supernatural events. Further, anyone related to the
early Christian or Jewish community would have been familiar
with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming
Messiah. The repeated quotes from the prophets found in
nativity narratives and repeated statements that nativity
events "fulfilled what was spoken by the prophets" indicate
a common recognition of the prophecies and their authority
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
in describing the coming Messiah (Matthew 1:22-23, 2:5-6,
2:17-18, 3:2-3). Given that his testimony was fitting into
a larger religious tradition, Joseph's coherence with his
perceived character in the early church was especially
important. As noted, Joseph's obedience to God's message
was a key demonstration of his coherence.
Once Joseph has accepted the notion that an angel
appeared to him, he does whatever the angel tells him to do.
Joseph's "actional tendencies" become governed by obedience
to angelic messengers. In fact, Joseph's characterological
coherence drives the remaining narratives in which he
appears. The angel tells Joseph to take Mary as his wife
and he does (Matthew 1:24-25). When Herod threatens the
Christ child, an angel tells Joseph to flee with his family
to Egypt and he does (Matthew 2:13-15) . Later, an angel
tells Joseph to return with his family to the land of Israel
and he does (Matthew 2:19-21). And, when Joseph is warned
in a dream to move to Galilee, he does (Matthew 2:22-23).
Thus, Joseph's actions are consistent with those of a
revered saint and model Christian. His obedience to the
Father offers the Christian reader a model after which to
shape his/her life. Reinforcing Joseph's stature, obedience
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
lends further validation to his testimony by showing a "life
lived" in a manner to which all should aspire (Goldberg 47) .
Mary's actions are a bit harder to recognize in Luke's
nativity account. This is largely because, in the actual
nativity, Luke portrays her as rather passive. However,
before the birth of Jesus, Mary does have one experience
that parallels Joseph's and she responds in an equally
obedient manner. She is visited by an angel who tells her
that she will conceive and bear the "Son of the Most High"
(Luke 1:32) . Like Joseph, Mary believes in the angelic
visit and expresses a willingness to do whatever the angel
tells her. Again like Joseph, Mary's willing obedience both
reinforces her character and offers a model for readers to
emulate.
Significantly, the fact that both Joseph and Mary begin
to understand what is happening through an angelic
invitation implies a greater authority than them behind
their testimony. While my discussion of ancient witness is
in the next chapter, I want to note that the nativity
narratives presume an ancient witness behind their
testimony. The message proclaimed by Joseph and Mary was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
brought to them by an angel who, in turn, was a messenger of
the ultimate "ancient" witness, God.
As I noted in the discussion of the Baptist's witness,
ancient witness in the Gospels is never very far away. It
often informs immediate witness. For instance, in Luke's
nativity account of Simeon and Anna, both act as immediate
witnesses to Jesus. Yet, their actions and witness are
informed by their identification with the ancient witness of
the old covenant (2:25-39).
Simeon and Anna testify concerning what they see of
Jesus (Luke 2:27-28, 38). Yet, in offering testimony
concerning the Christ child, Simeon and Anna reflect the
teachings of the Law and the Prophets. Simeon, who is
"righteous," represents the Law seeking its fulfillment in
the Christ (Luke 2:25) . Anna, who is a prophetess,
represents the Prophets, social outcasts seeking the
"redemption of Jerusalem" (Luke 2:36-38). Significantly,
Luke makes a point of telling us that these two lived in the
temple (thus carrying the authority of the Jewish faith)
awaiting the Messiah.
When Simeon sees Jesus, he realizes that he is seeing
the fulfillment of God's promise to send the Messiah.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
Directly witnessing this fulfillment is all that he has
lived for. So, upon witnessing it, Simeon, in effect, asks
to die (2:29) . 'The clear implication is that Jesus, the
Messiah, fulfills the Law and the Prophets and, on his
appearing, they can pass away. This is all accomplished in
Simeon's immediate witness of Jesus.
From this interplay between ancient and immediate
witness, we find that immediate witness can place ancient
witness within a historical context. Since Simeon and Anna
act as essentially metonymical figures representing the Law
and the Prophets, they bring the ancient witness of the Law
and the Prophets to testify concerning the miraculous nature
of Jesus' advent. Thus the authority of the Old Testament
authorizes witness to the Christ child. But, that witness
is demonstrated within the historical (and narrative)
context of Jesus' nativity. Simeon and Anna give the Law
and the Prophets eyes with which to see and lips with which
to proclaim the coming of the Christ child.
While Simeon and Anna provide the authority of both
ancient and immediate witness to the nativity story, Mary
and Joseph's response to their witness brings us back into
the suasory realm of immediate witness. Again replicating
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
the response of the multitudes and disciples, Mary and
Joseph are "amazed" at this testimony concerning their son
(Luke 2:33). This amazement is especially notable because,
unlike the multitudes, Joseph and Mary are aware of the
unic[ue nature of their son. Through both nativity
narratives, they have been told by angels about Jesus' place
as the Christ and Savior. Their amazement indicates that
the testimony of Simeon and Anna is especially powerful and
authoritative.
Yet, in spite of their amazement, their response to all
that occurs in the temple is consistent with their reactions
throughout the nativity narratives. Mary and Joseph
demonstrate obedience and keep what occurred in their
hearts. Significantly, even Jesus imitates their obedience.
As instructed, Mary and Joseph return home and bring up
Jesus. These actions are repeated a few verses later after
Jesus' visit to the temple and his "amazing" responses to
the temple teachers. Jesus returns home with his parents
and continues "in subjection to them" (Luke 2:51). So, what
Mary and Joseph witness returns home with them and stays in
their minds.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177
This is further underscored by the Evangelist when he
again states that Mary "treasured all these things in her
heart" (Luke 2:51). Once again, the Evangelist implies that
we are being given access to privileged information.
Immediately before this statement, Luke presents a private
conversation between Jesus and his parents that he could
have only "heard" from Mary or Joseph. Even at the end of
his nativity narrative, Luke emphasizes Mary's point of
view, her "memories" of events. As discussed, the
consistency of Mary's character throughout these narratives
and the veneration with which she has been held almost since
the beginning of the Christian church must have given a
tremendous sense of authority to these accounts.
Conclusions
This chapter demonstrated the manner in which the
Gospels use immediate witnesses to sustain the sense of
reality within their narratives. It delineated a consistent
formula for persuasively presenting miracle narratives. The
narrative conventions that make up this formula are an
essential part of the gospel form. Throughout the gospel,
Jesus' actions are introduced by the formulaic gathering of
witnesses who will testify concerning his works. People are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
called before Jesus to bear witness to his teaching, his
works, and his role as the Christ.
The Evangelists gathered the various narratives
(miracle, sayings, crucifixion, etc.) concerning Jesus and
created the gospel form as a cohesive witness to the Christ
out of these narratives. The formulaic pattern of
introducing narratives by gathering witnesses and focusing
on the witnesses reactions gives the disparate set of
narratives their coherence. As a consistent pattern of
witness to the works and ministry of the Christ, the Gospels
seem to represent a complete historical development, the
life and ministry of Jesus. Further, the gospel formula
invited readers to identify with direct witnesses of Jesus'
life and, like them, to act as witnesses of Jesus,* to
believe in the message of the Christ and bear witness to it.
I have shown that, on one level, readers may identify
more readily with immediate witnesses than with ancient
witnesses. Given the privileged knowledge and authority of
ancient witnesses, identification with immediate witnesses
concerning the actual witnessing and understanding of events
must have been easier. However, as the following chapter
will demonstrate, readers are encouraged also to identify
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
with the actions of ancient witnesses in gospel narratives.
The Gospels characterize the actions of ancient witnesses as
appropriate for anyone who has witnessed and understood the
revelation of the Christ. In other words, ancient witnesses
act as models that followers of Jesus should emulate.
Notably, it is in the actions of ancient witnesses that
"martus" goes beyond simply meaning "witness" and takes on
the meaning of "martyr." I will develop this point in the
next chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
CHAPTER FOUR: ANCIENT WITNESS AS AUTHORITATIVE INDUCEMENT
In Chapter Two, I identified two types of witness used
by the Gospels as rhetorical proofs supporting their
representation and interpretation of the events in Jesus'
life and ministry. Chapter Three demonstrated the function
of one of those types of witness, immediate witness, and
found a consistent pattern of behavior that characterized
immediate witnesses throughout the Gospels. I argued that
this consistent set of actions carried immense persuasive
force by drawing readers into the text and allowing them to
identify with and become witnesses alongside of immediate
witnesses.
In this chapter, I am interested in demonstrating a
consistent set of testimony and actions that characterize
ancient witnesses in the Gospels. While Chapter Three
concluded that readers of the Gospels could not identify
with ancient witnesses in the same way that they might
identify with immediate witnesses, it also noted that
readers are induced to identify with and emulate the actions
and witness of ancient witnesses. This chapter is concerned
with how that inducement is present in gospel narratives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
Ancient witnesses have a special knowledge or authority
that distinguishes them from other potential witnesses and
that lends greater weight to their representation and
interpretation of events. As with immediate witnesses, we
should expect consistent patterns of behavior in ancient
witnesses. However, these patterns are dictated by the
events that define and create ancient witnesses, not simply
by their qualities as rational or reasonable people.
As argued in Chapter Two, ancient witnesses in the
Gospels typically attain their role through their
relationship with and understanding of Jesus and his
ministry. Ancient witnesses recognize the absolute
initiative behind Jesus' special character and witness and
enact that initiative in their own lives. Their lives are
totally engaged by this initiative. Thus, their actions are
governed by and reflect the absolute character of the
initiative of which they testify. Their actions are
necessitated by their convictions.
In examining ancient witness, one important factor that
must be dealt with is Jesus' role as an ancient witness.
Jesus' witness concerning himself and his relationship to
the Father also comes from the absolute or divine initiative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
and may be characterized as ancient witness (see, for
instance, John 12:49-50). In fact, since others gain their
authority from their relationship to his ministry and
witness, Jesus is the central "ancient" witness of the
Gospels.
But, Jesus' witness of the Father does not appear in
words alone. Jesus' miracles bear witness of the absolute
initiative behind his testimony, as does his death and the
fulfillment of prophecy in his works. In fact, the author
of John has Jesus identify miraculous works as the witness
of the absolute, the Father, "that the Father has sent me"
(John 5:36) . Thus, the role of the ancient witness involves
complexities distinct from those of immediate witnesses.
To get at those complexities and to demonstrate the
compelling coherence of ancient witnesses in the Gospels, I
want to focus on two characters, John the Baptist and Jesus.
Initially, I will discuss the coherence of their testimony
and actions as ancient witnesses. As this examination
develops, it will focus on the use of miracles, fulfillment
of prophecy, and other proofs related to ancient witnesses
in the Gospels. My focus will primarily center on the
representation of Jesus and the Baptist in the Gospel of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
John. As with the last chapter, beginning with a single
gospel will make it easier to display a consistent use of
ancient witness over several connected narratives. Also,
John offers the most extensive representation of the Baptist
and Jesus as ancient witnesses. Thus, it is the natural
place to begin an inquiry into their testimonial functions.
However, again, as in the last chapter, the Gospel of John
is only a place to start and I will draw on the other
Gospels as it is useful in explaining the witness of Jesus
and the Baptist.
As noted in the last chapter, there are difficulties
inherent in discussing the Baptist's character because, in
certain situations, he takes on the function of both
immediate and ancient witness. I have discussed his work as
immediate witness testifying concerning what he witnesses
(the dove descending on Jesus). This chapter will focus on
his role as ancient witness and its rhetorical impact. It
will explore the ultimate inducement in the Baptist's
witness, the inducement to believe his testimony and imitate
his witness and actions.
When one accepts the authority of the ancient witness
and recognizes the consistency between that witness's words
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
and actions, one is led to imitate him or her. And, when
the testimony and resultant works of an ancient witness are
absolute, the person who accepts that testimony is directed
to take an equally absolute stance, even if it involves
potential danger or death. In gospel genealogy, witness
begets witness, absolute witness begets absolute witness,
and, as we shall see, martyr begets martyr.
Jesus may seem an odd choice for a witness. After all,
the entire gospel acts as a witness of the Christ. Beyond
that, this idea runs counter to Bultmann's well-known
distinction between the Baptist as witness and Jesus as
prophet (The Gospel of John 84). While the evangelist does
at times describe Jesus as prophet, I will show that he more
often represents Jesus as witness (primarily, witness to
what he has seen of the Father). Further, since Jesus
prophesies or speaks only that which he has seen of the
Father, his role as prophet grows from his role as witness
(John 8 :38) .
By examining how Jesus and the Baptist, as ancient
witnesses, induce belief and imitation in those who accept
their witness, this chapter will note two key qualities of
ancient witnesses. It will clarify how ancient witnesses
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
are created in gospel narrative through witnessing something
that no reader may witness in the same way. It will also
explain how ancient witnesses of the gospel induce imitation
in those who accept their testimony. The fact that Christ
embodies both the central ancient witness and the role model
for Christians indicates that the Gospels promote emulation
of the works and character of ancient witnesses.
The Baptist as Ancient Witness
The introduction to the Gospel of John stresses the
unique witness offered by John the Baptist and Jesus. Where
Luke and Matthew introduce Jesus as the Messiah through a
miraculous nativity story, John introduces Jesus and the
Baptist as divinely called witnesses. Jesus is the "logos,"
the Word who came from and testifies concerning God, and the
Baptist is the "witness, to bear witness of the light," the
person who bears witness concerning Jesus (John 1:1, 7-8) .
In fact, the Baptist is "not the light," but this narrative
represents "the witness of John [the Baptist]" to the light
(John 1:19) .
My examination of the Baptist's function as ancient
witness will be best served by following the outline of
witness to absolute initiative that I laid down in chapter
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
three. Drawing on Ricoeur's conception of intertestamental
witness, I argued that ancient witness of the Christ has
four primary qualities. In the following discussion I will
demonstrate how the Baptist enacts those qualities and how
his actions induce belief and imitation. The four qualities
I identified were: (1) being called or sent to witness, (2)
his/her testimony does not come from the witness but from
elsewhere, from a divine or absolute initiative, (3) the
absolute nature of the testimony leads to its total
engagement of the witness, (4) being totally engaged, the
witness totally commits him/herself in action, ultimately
even to death. In this construct, the highest value is
placed on the witness (we could say, the "Word"). What
matters most is the witness that is offered. Its importance
is greater than the life of any individual witness.
Ultimately, it may cost the witness his/her life. In dying
for the "Word," the ancient witness also promotes the value
of self-sacrifice for a higher cause and proves his/her
ultimate conviction.
The notion of being called or sent from an absolute
initiative corresponds with an Aristotelian characterization
of ancient witness, that there is some distance between the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
ancient witness and his/her audience. Any witness who was
"sent" by Jesus differed from his/her audience in having a
commission and, almost certainly, in having met Jesus. This
is particularly true of the Baptist. John the Baptist was
sent as the last of the pre-messianic prophetic voices
(Matthew 11:13-15). Within his very calling, the Baptist
was placed in a distant and authoritative position relative
to his audience. Thus, the gospel reader was encouraged to
enter the narrative by deferring to the Baptist's authority.
This authority is demonstrated in the characteristics and
actions the Baptist enacts throughout the gospel.
The fundamental characterization of the Baptist in John
1 is as one "sent." This sending authorizes the Baptist's
person and his witness. When the Baptist is introduced, we
are only given three facts about him: that he was "sent from
God," his "name was John," and he "came for a witness"
(John 1:6-7). These facts inform his entire character. In
John, the Baptist's "actional tendencies" involve bearing
witness to the near exclusion of all else. The Baptist is
described as bearing witness in 1:15, 1:19, 1:32, 1:34, and
3:26. In each case, he bears witness that Jesus is the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
Christ and that he, the Baptist, is not the Christ but a
voice testifying to the coming Christ.
Of course, the Baptist's witness is not his own. It
has been "given to him from heaven" (John 3:27).
Specifically, the Baptist has been sent to baptize and to
look for one on whom he will see a dove descend (John 1:31-
34). When he sees the dove descend, he will know that he is
now to bear witness concerning the person on whom the dove
descends, witnessing that he is the Christ.
Clearly, heaven, the realm of God, is the origin of all
divine or absolute initiatives. It is the origin and source
of authority for the Baptist's witness. He is to testify to
something that has universal implications. He is to testify
that the "Son of God" has appeared on earth, a message that
has immense import for every person living, dead, and yet
unborn. At one point in history, the Son of the absolute
and universal initiative came to earth and communicated with
humankind.
Already, we can see the reason why the absolute
initiative has an appeal and a significance that transcends
the life of the witness. If an event has occurred that is
crucial in the life of every person, it transcends the life
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189
of an individual. Even more important, if a witness, the
Baptist, recognizes that importance and demonstrates it by
giving his life for the testimony he offers, then his
actions become an immensely powerful proof of the truth of
that event. So, as the Baptist's actions cohere with those
of an ancient witness guided by an absolute initiative, they
should carry suasory power. However, the Baptist's witness
and actions cohere with more than the qualities of ancient
witness.
Essential to the Baptist's authority is the coherence
of his character and actions and those of the messianic
prophet, the prophet who bears direct witness of the Christ.
The Baptist's total engagement with his witness only makes
sense in the context of messianic prophecy. The absolute
initiative behind the Baptist's witness is supposed to be
the Father who sent the Messiah into the world. To offer
"ancient" witness concerning that sending, the Baptist had
to be engaged as an ancient witness of the Messiah (the role
of the Old Testament prophet) and thus had to act in a
manner consistent with that prophetic role.
Further, throughout the Gospels, the Baptist never
performs a miracle to demonstrate the authority of his
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
witness. In fact, only one real miracle is identified with
the Baptist and that appears in only one gospel, Luke's
account of the Baptist's miraculous birth. While this
narrative is unique to Luke, it is worth at least briefly
discussing the authority it brings to the Baptist's witness.
It is clear that the narrative of the Baptist's miraculous
birth is meant to parallel the nativity narrative in Luke.
Both births are announced by angels, involve a mother who
for some reason cannot bear a child, and result in hymns of
praise to God from one of the parents (Zacharias*
benediction and Mary's magnificat). But, where Jesus' birth
is a miracle of youth, of the new dispensation, a virgin
birth, the Baptist's birth is a miracle of age, the old
dispensation, birth from a mother past child-bearing age.
This distinction is key. While Jesus' nativity is a sign of
his authority as the Messiah, the Baptist's miraculous birth
is a sign of his authority as the last of the pre-messianic
ancient witnesses, the last prophet proclaiming the coming
Lord.
So, the Baptist's authority as a witness does not rest
on a miracle of his own but on his persona as the final
prophetic voice of the old dispensation. His witness relies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
on the authority that Jesus confers on him as the last and
greatest prophet of the old dispensation (Matthew 11:9-14).
The persuasive power of the Baptist's witness does not
reside in his words and actions alone but in the way they
exemplify the ancient witness of the messianic prophet.
Many sorts of religious ascetics or fanatics may choose to
live in the wilderness. It is only as that totally engaged
asceticism enacts the recognized role of the ancient witness
or prophet that it carries suasory power.
That role is set forth in each of the Gospels when they
identify the Baptist as "the voice of one crying in the
wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths
straight'" (Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:2, Luke 3:4-5, John 1:23).
Of course, the voice in the wilderness is the voice of the
prophet in Isaiah 40:3-5. This prophet speaks peace to the
suffering city of Jerusalem and smooths the way of the Lord
by proclaiming his coming (Isaiah 40:1-5) . Identifying the
Baptist as the "voice" identifies him as the proclaimer of
the coming Lord. In other words, the Baptist is the
authoritative voice of the coming Lord who, when he says
Jesus, can testify with authority that he is the Christ.
From the start, the Baptist's authority as witness is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
declared. As noted, the authority of this witness is
demonstrated in the Baptist's totally engaged witness to the
absolute initiative, his witness as the last and greatest
prophet.
As it is, each of the Gospels represents the Baptist as
totally engaged by the message to which he bears witness.
The synoptic Gospels trail this engagement to its end in the
Baptist's death (Matthew 14:1-12, Mark 6:14-29, Luke 9:7-9) .
But, the Baptist's total engagement begins well before his
beheading. None of the Gospels tell us anything of
substance about the Baptist's private life. All we know is
that he appeared preaching in the wilderness, clothed in
camel's hair with a leather belt and living on locusts and
wild honey (Matthew 3:4-5, Mark 1:6).
But, even these sketchy details identify the Baptist
with the Old Testament prophets. The "hairy" garment is the
clothing of the prophet, the clothing that must be taken off
by the false prophet (Zechariah 13:4). At least once, the
leather belt is identified as part of Elijah's clothing (II
Kings 1:8). Of course, the identification between the
Baptist and Elijah is something that even Jesus directly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
makes ("He himself is Elijah, who was to come." Matthew
11:14).
So, the Baptist's actions, his clothing and. food, do
not simply separate or distance him from the common run of
humanity. They identify him as ancient witness or prophet.
This is true of all the distinguishing characteristics and
actions of the Baptist. His narrative life begins apart not
only from normal human relations but also from the work of
witness to which he has been called. As an ancient witness,
the Baptist is "sent" (Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6). Within this
sending there is a distancing that demonstrates his total
engagement with his message. The Baptist removes to the
wilderness solely to preach repentance and bear witness
concerning the Christ (Matthew 3:1-3, Mark 1:2-5, Luke 3:3-
6, John 1:19-28) . The "voice in the wilderness" exists in
the wilderness for the single purpose of fulfilling the
prophetic role of ancient witness to the Christ.
The Baptist's sojourn in the wilderness is consistent
with his role as ancient witness and authoritative prophet
in one further way. The ancient witness separates
him/herself so totally to the message that s/he enacts a
form of social death, death to everything but the message.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194
In many respects, the same is true of the prophet who lived
outside the social order or, as Jesus complained, was stoned
because s/he ultimately prophesied the end of the social
order. Lane noted that the Baptist's desert life
demonstrated his separation from the civilized world and to
the "world" of his witness (51). The Baptist's witness
superceded the social order and effectively ended his social
and political life. Like the prophet railing at the walls
of Jerusalem, the Baptist did not live in the city because
he had no role there. He existed solely to testify
concerning the Christ. Thus, his witness assumed a form of
death as the foundation for its existence, a death to
everything outside that witness. Of course, this death
became literal when one part of his message (repentance for
all, including the king) offended Herod's family and led to
his beheading. But, even the beheading testifies to the
coherence between the Baptist's words and deeds. He
proclaimed a message that he sustained even to his own
death. This is characterological coherence in the ultimate.
If after having seen him proclaimed a prophet, an
authoritative ancient witness, and having seen the coherence
between his actions and the absolute message he proclaims.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
the reader acknowledges the Baptist's authority, then his
martyrdom for the message he proclaims offers a powerful
inducement to believe the message and enact its principles.
An authoritative witness dying for the testimony he bears
exemplifies the absolute importance of that testimony. For
the believer, it is a testimony more significant than death.
Of course, martyrdom may have little or no appeal to
one who has not already accepted the authority and message
of the martyr. Dying for a cause proves little beyond the
commitment of the martyr. Martyrdom has far greater appeal
in reinforcing belief than generating new belief. This is
the appeal of the totally engaged ancient witness that
Ricoeur described. It is an appeal that presupposes
recognition of the authority of the ancient witness. The
prophet that Ricoeur described reinforced the sense of
urgency and importance in his message through total
engagement with that message. While death for the cause may
have had little impact on a skeptical reader, the
significance of that total engagement to a sympathetic
reader was immense.
For the reader who accepts his testimony, the Baptist's
total engagement similarly induces engagement with his
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
witness. While no one can fully imitate the Baptist as
ancient witness/prophet of the old dispensation, the
believing reader can identify with the Baptist by taking up
his witness to the Christ. The reader can become like the
Baptist insofar as s/he testfies concerning the unique
nature of Jesus as the Messiah. Of course, this testimony
or proclamation of Jesus as the Christ is the ultimate
witness that defines and fulfills the Baptist's ministry.
Each of the Gospels identifies the Baptist's message as
a proclamation that one "mightier than I" is coming (Matthew
3:11-12, Mark 1:7-9, Luke 3:16-17, John 1:26-27). When
Jesus comes to be baptized, the Baptist ritualistically
identifies him as the Christ by baptizing him (Matthew 3:13-
17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:29-34). The Gospel of
John makes this identification overt. On seeing Jesus come
to be baptized, the Baptist proclaims, "Behold the Lamb of
God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). After
the baptism, the Baptist completes his witness, "And I have
seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God"
(John 1:34). When the Baptist's witness is completed, he
immediately disappears from each of the Gospels. The
synoptic Gospels follow Jesus' baptism with a narrative of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
Jesus' tetrç)tation, a clear transition from the Baptist's
witness to Jesus' ministry (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13,
Luke 4:1-13). The gospel of John makes a transition to
Jesus' ministry with a narrative of Jesus' early followers
(John 1:35-51) . The Baptist is so fully engaged in and
identified with his witness that, when his witness is
congleted, he is removed from the scene.
As noted, total engagement offers powerful
reinforcement for the authority of the ancient witness. The
authoritative witness is so engaged in his testimony that
his life's meaning is grounded in that testimony. His
character and actions so fully cohere with his witness that
when his witness is complete, so is his narrative role. As
mentioned, this coherence is taken to its ultimate end in
the Baptist's marytyrdom for the truth of his statements to
Herod.
While those who respond to the Baptist's witness may
not be called upon to sacrifice their lives, the appeal to
self-sacrifice is basic to the credibility of the totally
engaged ancient witness. It reinforces the reality of
his/her conviction and message. Further, the natural appeal
of a message of self-sacrifice for ultimate truth is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198
essential to the Baptist's appeal. Accepting the Baptist's
witness allows the respondent to take up the "heroic" role
of servant to a higher cause. S/he might ultimately
sacrifice nothing. But, s/he can recognize him/herself as
following a greater truth, part of a larger picture. In
other words, the respondent may find ultimate meaning for
his/her life and being by accepting the Baptist's witness.
The appeal of taking up a larger truth by taking up the
gospel witness persists through all the early Christian
"witnesses" including Jesus and his disciples. In fact,
Jesus enacts and more fully develops many of the actions and
qualities that the Baptist introduces. However, since
Jesus' character as ancient witness develops that role to
its characterological peak, his witness ultimately supplants
the Baptist's. Jesus becomes the primary witness of the
Father, the absolute initiative, superseding the Baptist in
that role. Ultimately, the Baptist testifies concerning
Jesus who, in turn, directly testifies concerning the
Father.
As noted, the transition from the Baptist as primary
witness to Jesus as primary witness occurs in John 3. In
John 3:22-30, Jesus and the Baptist are both gathering new
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
followers. Jesus has his disciples baptizing new followers
just as the Baptist and his disciples baptize new followers.
Here, the ritual of baptism is a point of identification
between Jesus and the Baptist. They are both, for the
moment, involved in the same ritual and are, in essence,
acting as one. But, Jesus' baptism, like his witness, is in
the process of supplanting the Baptist's baptism. More
people go to Jesus than to the Baptist. The Baptist's
disciples ask him why the one to whom he had "borne witness"
should be surpassing his own ministry. The Baptist tells
his disciples that one can only receive and proclaim the
witness that "has been given him from heaven" (John 3:27) .
The witness that engaged the Baptist, the one he had
"received" from the Father, was a witness of the Christ
(John 3:28-29) . When that witness was fulfilled, the
Baptist's witness and therefore his ministry were finished.
The Baptist's final words in John act as his epitaph as
ancient witness, "He (Jesus) must increase and I must
decrease" (John 3:30) . The Baptist was engaged in a witness
that ceased to be decisive when the fulfillment of that
witness appeared. Further, he was so fully engaged in that
witness that he readily accepted this fact.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
200
Thus, Jesus' witness is consistent with the Baptist's
and goes beyond the Baptist's to be the one true "ancient"
witness of the Father. To explore Jesus' role as ancient
witness and the manner in which it parallels and supersedes
the Baptist's, I will now turn to the fourth gospel's
characterization of the Christ.
Jesus as True Witness of the Absolute
In the Gospels, the parallel between the Baptist and
Jesus seems readily apparent. For instance, in John, Jesus
is the Word, sent from God, a witness of God who is
ultimately crucified for his messianic message. The Baptist
is the "voice," sent from God, a witness of repentance and
preparation for the Christ who is ultimately beheaded for
his message of repentance. This parallel is so important
for the Gospels that, as noted, Luke pursues it within his
nativity narrative. Luke represents Jesus as having a
miraculous birth which is announced by an angel. Likewise,
the Baptist is given a miraculous birth announced by an
angel.
The Gospels do not simply use these parallel narratives
to develop a sense of consistency between characters. The
parallels actually reinforce the appeal to adherence and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201
imitation of the gospel witness. The repeated actions of
total engagement and self-sacrifice cotgel the gospel reader
to take up the same witness that, it seems, every "hero" of
the faith has taken up. Further, when a line of witnesses
for the Christ have taken up the same actions over time,
those actions take on the appeal of tradition and are made
to appear the norm for all Christian witnesses. When the
role of ancient witness is passed from the Baptist to Jesus
and then from Jesus to his disciples, a compelling case is
made that those who adhere to the faith can identify
themselves with the Christ because they are the recipients
of the "word" passed down directly from him. While the
rhetorical power of identifying with the divine leader of a
religious system is undoubtedly immense, Jesus'
persuasiveness begins in the Gospels' characterization of
him and his works.
The persuasiveness of Jesus' appeals in John lies in
his role as ancient and direct witness of God. Ironically,
when we reach the ultimate in ancient witnesses, one who was
"with God from the beginning," we find that the rhetorical
proof that sustains his witness is having been an immediate
witness, having "seen the Father" (John 6:46). The ancient
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
quality of Jesus' witness is grounded in its having been a
direct witness of the Father, Throughout John, we are
reminded that no one has seen God except "the one who is
from God," the one who bears witness concerning God, Jesus
(John 6:46) .
Jesus' unique authority as the ultimate ancient witness
is demonstrated throughout the Gospels in his words and
miracles. Given the unique status accorded to him, miracles
are especially important for Jesus. If he is truly to be
taken as the only one to have "seen the Father," Jesus must
be able to demonstrate an authority that comes directly from
the absolute initiative. Miracles, acts that required
superhuman power, signify his special role as witness to the
Father. In fact, miracles embody the testimony of the
divine initiative.
Jesus' witness to the Father is not unidirectional.
The Father also witnesses concerning Jesus (John 5:37-38,
8:18) . This point recasts the entire witness of Jesus and
his miraculous works. According to gospel narrative, the
witness of the Father authoritatively and absolutely proves
the witness of Jesus.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
The reason that observers could recognize that Jesus'
witness came from the Father was that they knew he had the
power to perform miracles. Thus, if God empowered Jesus'
works, it was only natural that he empower Jesus' witness.
Following this reasoning, the author of I Peter was able to
inply that God raised Jesus from the dead in order to
confirm his witness (1:21). The resurrection was part of
God's witness to Jesus showing that Jesus' witness to God
was true. Ultimately, the resurrection affirmed the faith
of those who believed in Jesus and the God who empowered
him.
God's witness also sustained Jesus witness by
corroborating it. As Jesus intimated in John 8, Jewish law
presumed that the testimony of two witnesses was true
(8:17). Since no one else was there to witness God with
him, Jesus' testimony could not be sustained before the
Jewish law. However, if the miracles Jesus performed were
the Father's witness concerning him, then Jesus did have a
second witness, God, to prove the truth of his witness.
There is an apparent circle to Jesus' witness of the
Father. The Father bears witness concerning Jesus, but, the
only way to find the Father is through the witness of Jesus.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
One must accept some portion of Jesus ' witness in order to
have that witness supported by God. Jesus deals with this
problem by describing the witness of the Father as
experiential. To recognize the truth of Jesus' witness, one
must already "know" the Father (John 8:19). Therefore,
failure to accept Jesus' witness of the Father is the fault
of the unconverted because they refuse to recognize the
Father when they see him in Jesus ' witness and works.
This circularity would be problematic if one were to
apply a strictly rational or logical set of criteria to the
rhetoric in this narrative. The same would be true of other
apparently circular arguments made in the Gospels (like the
argument noted above supporting the authority of the
Baptist's message). However, within the narrative context
of the Gospels, these claims make perfect sense. As
mentioned in Chapter Two, there is always an element of
circularity in ancient witness because the most
authoritative witness about the absolute initiative can only
come from the absolute initiative. In the Gospels, the
absolute is self-confirming. All truth ultimately comes
from the Father so the true witness to the Father, in the
end, would be the Father.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
At this point, ancient witness intersects immediate
witness in gospel narratives. As shown in the previous
chapter, believing miracle accounts largely depended on
accepting the veracity of immediate witnesses in testifying
to those miracles within gospel narratives. Yet,
understanding the significance or meaning of the miracles
involved accepting the ancient witness that they enacted.
Understanding the interaction between ancient and immediate
witnesses might best be served by illustrating its function
in a miracle account.
Witness to the Raising of Lazarus
The raising of Lazarus is a crux miracle account in the
Gospel of John. It is a public miracle, so there are
numerous immediate witnesses to it. It also foreshadows
Jesus' resurrection. Before a crowd of witnesses from the
old dispensation, it demonstrates a power which will be
identified with the Christ at the dawn of the new
dispensation. Certainly, if a crowd of witnesses can
testify that Jesus was able to raise Lazarus from the dead,
it would be easier to accept the possibility of his rising
from the dead.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206
The placement of this narrative is significant. It is
placed after Jesus retires from Jerusalem presumably because
of the controversy surrounding his statements concerning his
relationship with the Father (John 10:22-42) . In 10:30,
Jesus asserts, "I and the Father are one." His enemies seek
to stone him and later to seize him over these remarks (John
10:31, 39). However, power over death would demonstrate
Jesus' oneness with the Father, the only being who truly had
power over life and death. A demonstration of Jesus' power
over death is propitiously placed immediately after his John
10 claims concerning his oneness with the Father.
Mary and Martha act as the immediate witness "foils" to
Jesus' ancient witness. That is, they meet Jesus as he is
about to perform the raising of Lazarus miracle, do not
believe that he will be able to raise Lazarus, and
completely misunderstand virtually everything he says
concerning the miracle he is to perform. Martha runs to
meet Jesus first and says that if he had been there, Lazarus
would not have died (John 11:20-22). When Jesus responds
that her "brother will rise again," she misunderstands and
responds that, he will rise "in the resurrection on the last
day" (John 11:23-24). In other words, Martha does not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207
recognize the possibility that Jesus brings the absolute
initiative, the power over life emd death into her world.
However, Martha does recognize the practical physical
effects of death. When Jesus asks that the stone be removed
from Lazarus' grave, Martha warns him that "there will be a
stench, for he has been dead four days" (John 11:39). Of
course, all this lends authority to Martha's direct witness
of the raising of Lazarus. Martha understands death and
knows that her brother is dead. In a rather obvious
statement about decaying bodies, Mary and Marthas'
credibility has largely been established.
Of course, when the miracle actually occurs, "Many,
therefore of the Jews, who had come to Mary and beheld what
he had done, believed in him" (John 11:45). Thus, these
witnesses fulfill the function I laid out for immediate
witnesses in the previous chapter. They directly view the
event. Some are represented as skeptical. However, all
recognize the miracle and the power that it demonstrates.
Thus, those who did not understand or even believe in Jesus'
power attested to its demonstration in Lazarus' raising.
As noted, these witnesses largely misunderstand Jesus'
actions and their meaning until he actually raises Lazarus
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
208
from the dead. This is because they do not have the special
knowledge of ancient witnesses. They can only testify
concerning what they see. Therefore, the raising of
Lazarus, a miracle they can actually see, acts as an
infallible sign, a conclusive proof of Jesus' divine nature
and power.
The narrator has Jesus recognize the raising of Lazarus
as a demonstration, the Father's witness to Jesus. As he
prays over Lazarus, Jesus says, "Father, I thank you that
you heard me. And I knew that you hear me always,- but
because of the people standing around I said it, that they
may believe that you sent me" (John 11:41-42). In other
words, Jesus only thanked the Father to demonstrate to those
witnessing the miracle that it and he came from the Father.
As noted in Chapter Two, a key characteristic of
ancient witnesses in the Bible is that they are sent. Since
ultimate truth comes from the absolute initiative and since
they are supposed to be expressing some truth, it is
important that ancient witnesses be recognized as having
been sent by the absolute initiative. It is important that
their message not simply be their own, but be the message of
the absolute initiative. Jesus' prayer demonstrates to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209
immediate witnesses surrounding him that he claims to be
sent from the Father. As it manifests the Father's power,
the raising of Lazarus demonstrates that sending in a
miraculous work. So, from witnessing this miracle, the
immediate witnesses are able to testify that Jesus acts as
one sent from the Father. The immediate witnesses can
testify that they have seen and heard an ancient witness.
Jesus' role as a "sent" witness of the Father is
important throughout the Gospel of John. Repeatedly the
evangelist asserts that Jesus "descended from heaven" or was
"sent" to bear witness concerning the Father (e.g., John
3:13, 4:34, 5:37-38, 5:43, 7:28-29, 8:14-18, 8:26, 8:38).
So, like the Baptist, Jesus' life was made significant by
his having been sent. All that he said and did derived from
that sending.
Again following the Baptist and other ancient
witnesses, Jesus' witness did not originate with him but was
given to him from the "absolute." This point is very
important and is more fully attested than virtually anything
in John. Jesus is consistently characterized as saying and
doing what the Father tells him. He does "the will of him
who sent me" (John 4:34). He came "down from heaven, not to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210
do my own will, but the will of him who sent me" (John
6:38) , Jesus' "teaching is not mine, but his who sent me"
(John 7:16). The one who sent Jesus "is true; and the
things which I heard from him, these I speak to the world"
(John 8:26). For, Jesus "did not even come of my own
initiative, but he sent me" (John 8:42). And, again, "the
words I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but
the Father abiding in me does his works" (John 14:10) .
Even in Jesus' intercessory prayer for his followers, he
acknowledges that his entire witness came from the Father
who "did send me" to bear that witness to the world (John
17:8) .
This sending causes some potential difficulties with
the doctrine of the incarnation. If, as Jesus says in John
10:30, "I and the Father are one," then would not Jesus'
testimony simply be testimony to himself, that is, circular?
This difficulty exists from the start of John when the
Evangelist claims that "the Word (Jesus) was with God, and
the Word was God" (John 1:1). While the "Word was God," the
Word also "was made flesh" and became a witness enlightening
"every man" concerning God (John 1:9-14).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211
This difficulty cannot be fully overcome even by the
nature of ancient witness as "circular." The idea just
mentioned that ancient witness in the Bible is always, to
some extent, circular, the absolute bearing witness of the
absolute, does not fully answer this problem. While the
absolute may so fully engage an earthly witness that the
testimony offered is ultimately from the absolute, Jesus
actually claims to be the absolute. Rather than simply
being an ancient witness, Jesus is the fulfillment of
ancient witness.
From the rhetorical perspective of witness, this may be
the best explanation. Jesus is not simply a representative
witness but embodies the absolute form of ancient witness.
He is not a witness but the witness. He appears as
fulfillment of the ancient witness of the prophets
(culminating, again, in the Baptist), expresses the direct
witness of the Father, the Father bears witness to him
through miracles, immediate witnesses testify that those
miracles occurred within the realm of human experience, and
the Gospels gather these various testimonies together to
provide witness that the Word or witness of the Father has
appeared in the world.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
212
Further examination and explanation of this unique role
from the theological perspective of Jesus' incarnation is in
order. While such an examination is beyond the purview of
this study, the importance of Jesus ' role as witness to any
conception of the incarnation must be noted. At the very
least, in the Gospel of John, Jesus' role as witness is
central to the notion of incarnation. It does not take
second place behind his role as "Savior" or "Messiah." From
the start, Jesus is the "Word" who came to earth
specifically to bear witness concerning the Father, so that
he might "enlighten" humanity concerning God's nature and
being. To recognize Jesus' role as witness is to understand
the incarnation as fundamentally an expression or witness,
not simply a sacrifice.
Of course, sacrifice will figure into Jesus' role as
ancient witness. As one fully and uniquely engaged in the
witness to the absolute, Jesus' death takes on a special
importance as the fulfillment of the "absolute" ancient
witness. If, as Ricoeur asserted, ancient witness in the
Bible is ultimately confirmed by the death or martyrdom of
the witness, Jesus' death confirms his direct witness of the
Father (Ricoeur, Essays on Biblical Interpretation 146).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
And, if that witness is at the core of the incarnation, then
his death is one key act that confirms the incarnation.
Further, the resurrection of the Christ becomes the ultimate
witness to Jesus. If miracles authorized Jesus' witness
throughout the Gospels and his death through total
engagement with that witness further confirmed his witness,
then his miraculous resurrection from the dead lent ultimate
or absolute authority to his testimony. The resurrection
exemplifies the ultimate miraculous confirmation of Jesus'
witness because it applies ultimate power to the ancient
witness of the martyr and supersedes that witness with the
absolute witness of the Father to Jesus. This is the
absolute initiative's ultimate and final confirmation of
Jesus' witness.
So, Jesus embodies the most important ancient witness,
the ultimate witness of the absolute initiative. His
testimony embodies the witness of the Father. Jesus does
"nothing of my own initiative, but I speak these things as
the Father taught me" (John 8:28) . All Jesus' works are
grounded in the absolute initiative, the initiative from
God. Consequently, this initiative totally engages Jesus.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
As John 2:28 Stated, Jesus does and says "nothing"
except what the Father taught him. He does not speak lies.
He can only speak "the truth" because he can only say what
"I heard from God" (John 8:40). "The Father himself who
sent me" has given Jesus "commandment, what to say, and what
to speak" (John 12:49) . Jesus speaks "just as the Father
has told me" (John 12:50).
These statements are not simply testimony about Jesus'
relationship with the Father. They are declarations of an
empowered and absolute existence. In fact, almost all of
Jesus' statements about the Father are not just testimony
concerning the Father but declarations of Jesus'
relationship with the Father. Further, the miracles are
declarations of power as much as testimony. How, then, do
they act as testimony?
Once again, I must refer back to the nature of ancient
witness. The testimony of the ancient witness is ultimately
the testimony or declaration of the absolute initiative
about itself. Thus, the Gospels purport to act as God's
declaration of his being and relationship to humanity. That
declaration takes the form of testimony, the testimony of
ancient and immediate witnesses. Presumably, testimony is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
215
supposed to give the message recognizable and convincing
form. Much as the incarnation was supposed to give God
human form, a form that was to "enlighten" humanity about
the Father, testimony was supposed to give God's declaration
discursive form, a form that could make that declaration
understandable and convincing to humanity.
Conclü&iQna
As noted at the start of this chapter, ancient
witnesses function in a more complex manner than immediate
witnesses. Much of this complexity derives from the use of
miracles, prophecy, absolute claims, and declarations
concerning the nature of God as an authorizing part of that
witness. When a witness claims to represent the absolute,
simple rationality is not an adequate test to apply to
assess his/her testimony. Coherence between that witness's
actions and testimony also involves more than simple
consistency. The witness must demonstrate actions
consistent with the voice of the absolute initiative.
Certainly, miracles are actions consistent with testimony of
absolute authority and initiative.
The Baptist fulfills the function of ancient witness
through fully engaging in his witness. As a fully engaged
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216
witness, he separates himself from society, wears camel hair
clothing and eats wild locusts. These actions identify him
as both a prophet and the fulfillment of prophecy, the
"voice of one crying in the wilderness." That voice is
stilled when his total engagement with his witness leads him
to bear witness against Herod's wife. But, death is a
martyrdom to his witness. The fulfillment of prophecy, the
consistency between his actions and those of other prophets,
and his martyr's death work together to induce belief in his
message.
While the Baptist is totally engaged in his witness, it
does not identify him as closely with the absolute
initiative as does Jesus' witness. Jesus is directly
related to the absolute initiative, the Father. The close
relationship between the Father's witness and Jesus' witness
gives "ancient" witness in John a powerful sense of unity.
Since the Father's witness and Jesus' witness are both
expressed in the words and works of Christ, it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish them from one another. Of course,
this fits well with the relationship between Jesus and the
Father who are "one" (John 10:30). But, it also reflects
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217
the nature of ancient witness and, especially, Jesus'
witness as God's declaration of himself.
I have mentioned that the disciples do not really play
the role of ancient witnesses until after the resurrection.
Thus, they do not act as ancient witnesses in John.
However, Jesus calls on them to bear authoritative witness
concerning him and the Father after he has returned to
heaven. As noted in the previous chapter, the disciples are
identification figures for readers. So, in calling on them
to bear authoritative witness, Jesus calls the reader into
testifying with ancient witnesses.
The disciples develop a special "ancient" authority
because they "have been with me from the beginning" (John
15:27) . However, all those who bear witness concerning
Jesus will have a special authority, the authority of the
"Spirit of truth." The Spirit of truth will come and guide
all of Jesus' followers into truth. Of course, this truth,
like that of all ancient witnesses in the Gospels, will not
be offered of "his own initiative" (John 16:13) . The Spirit
will only speak "whatever he hears" (John 16:13) .
Thus, followers of Christ may claim the role of ancient
witnesses through the witness of the Spirit of truth. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218
appeal of bearing a uniquely empowered witness is profound.
Those who accept the witness of Jesus and the disciples are
offered the opportunity to enter in and become a part of
that unified witness, to carry the authority of the "true"
witness of God. They are given a vision of a higher calling
that includes becoming totally engaged by the witness of
God. Thus, true believers are offered fulfillment in
engaging the witness of the absolute. They may become
brothers tied together by the testimony they offer
concerning the Father.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
219
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This study grew from two observations. First, I found
scholars like Kinneavy, Betz, and Jewett discussing
rhetorical aspects of the New Testament but having little
scholarly interaction. Worse, scholars like Hall and
Hester, who followed Betz and Kinneavy often replicated
essentially the same research, did not acknowledge each
other's work, and did not develop a consistent approach to
the text. Mack's summation of the state of rhetorical
criticism of the New Testament seemed quite accurate. It
appeared to be evolving in an unfocused "rough and tumble"
that lacked a consistent direction or theoretical grounding
(Mack, Rhetorical Criticism 2-3).
My second observation was that Mack's response to this
problem was flawed. Mack's attempts to give rhetorical
criticism of the New Testament focus by defining it as a
field of New Testament criticism so limited the critical
focus of rhetorical cricitism that it missed much rhetoric
in the text. Mack's approach understood rhetoric as
"argument forms," arguments structured in the manner
described by Cicero and Quintilian. Since the largest part
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
220
Of the New Testament was made up of stories with clearly
rhetorical ends, I was especially concerned that Mack's
approach did not even conceive of narrative as "rhetoric."
Further, Mack's limited perspective seems to have kept his
approach from being broadly adopted as a critical
perspective for New Testament study. If rhetorical
criticism is to break out of its unfocused "rough and
tumble" and become a distinct and useful critical approach,
its perspective and available methodologies must be
significantly broadened.
My intent has been to broaden Mack's focus and to
develop a critical approach that can begin to deal with
highly rhetorical structures like New Testament narrative
that, as noted. Mack's method did not conceive of as
rhetoric. In order to do so, I have had to go beyond the
restricted bounds of Mack's approach and draw on both
rhetorical and narrative critics. However, this has been
part of my plan. Rather than develop a critical approach by
building walls between it and other critical approaches, I
have sought to sharpen and develop rhetorical criticism's
approach by breaking down barriers between disciplines and
using theory and critical tools from narrative and literary
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
221
approaches that might illuminate the use of rhetoric in the
New Testament. Specifically, I have allowed the text to
inform me about what critical approaches might best be used
in assessing it.
The text's narrative form and consistent use of
characters as witnesses to authorize its message suggested a
method by which the rhetorical force of narrated witness
could be assessed. In Chapter Two, I devised such an
approach. This critical method began where Mack's did, with
Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric. However, it went beyond Mack's
in drawing on contemporary theories of rhetoric and
narrative. The conception of the authorizing force of
witnesses found in Aristotle and recent theorists was
exploited to devise a critical approach to the rhetoric of
New Testament narratives.
Aristotle's conception of witnesses and Paul Ricoeur's
understanding of biblical witness offered a means by which
we could distinguish between two types of witness, ancient
and immediate or direct. When two types of witness were
distinguished, a method for testing the reliability ascribed
to a witness by the narrator became necessary. Walter
Fisher's theories of narrative identified a key means for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
222
assessing the truthfulness and reliability of narrated
witnesses, characterological coherence. Consistency between
a witness's actions and their testimony along with
consistency within a witness's actions over time and between
various witness's actions who witness the same event all
create a sense of truthfulness in the witness's testimony.
Gospel narratives were used to test this conception of
witnesses. Gospel narratives were chosen because they were
a group of stories drawn together for clearly rhetorical
purposes. The Gospels drew together oral traditions of
Jesus into a cohesive whole that claimed to represent both
an accurate recounting of Jesus' life and the "true"
interpretation of its meaning. Further, the Gospels
authorized their interpretation of events through a variety
of witnesses. Since the Gospels offered a testimony in
narratives constructed largely around witnesses, it
represented a near perfect place to test the rhetorical
construction of witnesses in New Testament narrative.
When tested on gospel narratives, this theory of
witnesses revealed a narrative structure that both created a
sense of authority for its narrated witnesses and drew on
those witnesses to authorize its message. When perceived as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
223
reliable, ancient and direct witnesses lent two distinct
types of authority to gospel narratives. Immediate
witnesses lent the authority of "eyewitness" testimony to
gospel narratives. The Gospels demonstrated the truth of
their representation of Christ's life chrough the testimony
of witnesses who were supposed to have seen the events
described. Ancient witnesses lent the authority of the
absolute initiative, that is, divine authority to their
declaration and interpretation of the events surrounding
Jesus' life and his unique relationship with God.
Ancient and immediate witnesses also embodied distinct
levels of characterological coherence. Coherence between
witness and message was more extreme for ancient than for
immediate witnesses. Ancient witnesses demonstrated actions
consistent with the absolute power to which they testified.
They were so totally engaged in their witness that they
lived and died for it. For instance, the Baptist lived as a
desert nomad and died as a martyr because of the compelling
call of his witness.
The testimony of witnesses induced acceptance of the
gospel message in two ways,- by demonstration and by
identification. Ancient witnesses and the miraculous events
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
224
that attended their witness demonstrated absolute initiative
and power. Miracles and the fulfillment of prophecy acted
as infallible signs, proofs of the truth of their witness as
well as the divine power that lay behind it.
Immediate witnesses invited identification. They
induced readers to identify with them as ordinary and
reasonable people. As respondents identified with immediate
witnesses, they were supposed to feel the same awe and
wonder immediate witnesses did when seeing the extraordinary
acts of the Christ. At the same time, the witness's
reasonable character offered the reader a further point of
identification. Reacting in the same manner as direct
witnesses (witnesses already accepted as "reasonable"),
readers could see themselves as having also responded as
reasonable persons. So, through identification, the willing
believer was able take part in the miraculous and still
believe themselves a reasonable "ordinary" person. Further,
ancient and some immediate witnesses offered a model for the
believing reader to imitate. Imitation became a form of
identification through which the reader could take up a
privileged position as one who carried on the witness of the
Christ.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
225
Chapter Three described two distinct types of witness
with whom readers were supposed to identify, mass witnesses
such as the multitudes and individual witnesses such as Mary
at the nativity. These two types of witness used variations
of the same qualities to induce identification. The sheer
mass of the multitudes, the fact that they all reacted in
essentially the same way and that they reacted in a
seemingly reasonable manner (awe, fear, and amazement at
Jesus' empowered works) prompted readers to respond in the
same "reasonable" manner and, in effect, become one with the
multitudes, one witness among many. Individual witnesses
often did not react in the same programmitic way as the
multitudes. Their reasonableness had to be depicted in some
detail. For instance, Joseph's reasonableness was
delineated in his common sense responses to the odd
circumstances surrounding the nativity. Beyond being
characterized as sensible, individual witnesses also offered
distinctive responses to events beyond the "awe" typical of
the crowds. Though all witnesses seemed to register some
level of awe at Jesus' life and works, individual
demonstrated their feelings and perceptions in a variety of
ways. While Mary quietly "treasured" the wonder she found
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
226
in the Christ, Thomas loudly exclaimed his belief at seeing
the risen Lord, and the usually outspoken Peter showed
surprising hesitancy at witnessing the empty tomb. Yet,
each of these different responses represented an unfailing
recognition of Jesus' divine power and authority. Through
this consistent pattern of recognition among true witnesses,
the reader was again invited to join the mighty cloud of
witnesses who saw and recognized Jesus as the Christ, the
authorized Word of the Father.
Recognizing the role of gospel witnesses as
identification points for readers significantly impacts our
conception of many character's roles and their relative
significance in gospel narratives. The disciples, whose
role as witnesses of the Christ has largely gone unnoticed,
become uniquely important. Witnesses like the disciples who
enacted both immediate and ancient witness offered a special
level of identification for readers. The disciples created
a link between the ordinary and the chosen witness. That
link allowed the person identifying with the immediate
witness of the disciples to also identify with their ancient
witness. Through the disciples, an ordinary "witness" could
assume the extraordinary role of a chosen witness.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
227
Jesus and the Baptists' roles as ancient witnesses also
modify our understanding of their narrative and theological
characters in the Gospels. The Baptist's guise as ancient
witness explained Jesus' associating him with the prophets.
The prophets functioned as ancient witnesses throughout the
New Testament, authoritative voices that explained the
significance and meaning of events. When Jesus
characterized the Baptist as the last of the prophets, he
identified this authoritative voice with the Baptist's
words. The Baptist's words now had the authority to explain
the significance and meaning of events surrounding the
Christ. As an ancient witness, the Baptist offered an
indispensible link to prior religious teachings and
traditions and a current voice authorizing the gospel
interpretation of Jesus' words and works.
Jesus' role as witness also illuminates his
relationship with the Father. In John's gospel, Jesus'
authority was directly identified with having "seen the
Father" (8:38) . Jesus, the only person to have seen the
Father, bore the only "true" witness of the Father.
Further, Jesus' miraculous works were the Father's witness
authorizing Jesus' testimony (John 10:25). While Jesus'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
228
testimony might have been questioned as the claim of one man
to have seen God, the miracles were God's infallible proof
that Jesus' testimony was true. Thus, the relationship
between Jesus and the Father was one of mutual witness.
Each bore witness of the other and the consistency of their
witness established it as "true" (John 8:14). The concept
of the Incarnation owes much to this representation of Jesus
and the Father's unified witness. While the complex
theories of Incarnation that ultimately developed into
Athanasius' sixth century creedal statement go well beyond
John's representation of Jesus as God's Word in flesh, the
essential oneness between Jesus and the Father that is basic
to the doctrine of the Incarnation can be found in Jesus'
witness. Jesus was the Word and "the Word was one with God"
in that each bore direct authoritative witness of the other
(John 1:1, 8:14-18, 10:25-30).
Further Implications _and _Eut.ure_Research
I want to discuss the implications of this study for
three key areas of research: rhetorical criticism. New
Testament narrative and rhetoric, and the use of witnesses
in the Christian tradition. As noted, the primary intent of
this study was to demonstrate that broadening Mack's
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
approach to rhetorical criticism of the New Testament would
allow that study to encompass many more rhetorical acts
within the text while keeping a distinctly rhetorical focus.
Having demonstrated that a method for examining the rhetoric
of New Testament narrative could be developed and
implemented, it is clear that Mack's approach overly limits
the scope of New Testament rhetorical criticism. Using my
method is a first step critics may take to assure that
rhetorical criticism of the New Testament does not once
again die of limitations in scope or, losing its focus,
become a study without a consistent theoretical perspective.
However, the larger lesson is that there are an almost
limitless number of theories and methods that rhetorical
critics may use to examine and illuminate the suasory
appeals of the New Testament.
Clearly, rhetorical criticism of the New Testament
benefits from crossing critical boundaries and drawing on
the variety of theories and methods made available in other
approaches. However, this boundary crossing works both
ways. Other critical approaches could benefit by drawing on
the theory and methods of rhetorical criticism of the New
Testament. If, as my analysis revealed. New Testament
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
230
narratives are constructed as rhetorical devices, then
narrative criticism of the New Testament should examine the
rhetorical nature of its subj ect. The same is true for
literary criticism and composition criticism, among others.
Since New Testament literature manifests rhetorical
structure and appeal, the tools of the rhetorical critic
would undoubtedly be beneficial for critics of that
literature.
As indicated, a key focus rhetorical critics of the New
Testament should take is the rhetorical construction of New
Testament narrative and poetics. Approximately two-thirds
of the New Testament is made up of narratives. As Mack
noted, the New Testament's fundamental argument is grounded
in narrative (Rhetoric and the New Testament 23). If this
is so and if, as I have demonstrated, it is possible to
critically examine the rhetoric of New Testament narrative,
then, clearly, rhetorical critics of the New Testament
should focus their attention on New Testament narratives.
Further, the New Testament holds many different kinds
of narrative. Among the narratives it reveals are those
supposed to represent events that have actually taken place
(e.g., much of the Gospels), clearly fictional narratives
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
231
told to promote social and religious values (parables), and
mythical narratives intended to represent apocalyptic
visions (The Revelation). Rhetorical critics need to study
this variety of narratives and draw on the qualities of each
narrative genre in developing a means for assessing the
rhetorical function of each type of narrative.
Like Mack's "argument forms," New Testament narrative
is not unique in its rhetorical function. Numerous New
Testament literary forms also require further rhetorical
analysis. Creedal statements such as Christ's Kenosis
(Philippians 2:5-11) are consistently used throughout the
New Testament to inculcate beliefs and values. As Betz
demonstrated, the New Testament continually uses epistolary
form to promote ideas and beliefs. Much of The Revelation
contains descriptive prose using bizarre imagery to
effectively advance its ideas. Each of these offers a
significant area of study for rhetorical critics.
Of course, a congrehensive examination of every gospel
narrative was beyond the scope of this or any single study
of the New Testament. As John wrote, "Even the world itself
would not contain" the books that might be written on Jesus
and the gospel narratives describing his life (21:25).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
232
However, the variety of gospel narratives offer another
important field of study for rhetorical critics of the New
Testament. This study has demonstrated that such studies
can and should be pursued.
Additionally, this study has shown that clusters of
narratives can be found in the Gospels. The "multitude"
narratives in which the multitudes call for a miracle,
witness one, and then demonstrate awe and wonder represent
one type or cluster of narratives. Countless other
narrative clusters exist in the Gospels; healing narratives,
raising of the dead narratives, teaching narratives in which
no miracles occur, teaching narratives in which miracles
occur to authorize the message, Passover narratives,
Jerusalem narratives, crucifixion narratives, and so on.
Understanding how different clusters of narratives work
together to lend greater persuasive weight to individual
narratives should illuminate the rhetorical work of similar
narratives. So, while rhetorical critics should closely
examine the raising of Lazarus narrative, they should also
examine raising of the dead narratives to see where and why
the Lazarus narrative functions consistently with other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
233
narratives of the same type and where it functions in a
unique way to establish its appeal.
Up to a point, critics might treat narrative clusters
such as raising the dead narratives as narrative genre and
individual narratives as representative forms of that genre.
However, it must always be kept in mind that these
narratives function together. They were all drawn together
and work together to convincingly assert and authorize a
very specific message to readers. They work as a unified
whole to proclaim the Christ. So, no single narrative
exists completely on its own and no narrative should be
studied without reference to its role in the gospel message.
As I have shown, the gospel message is authorized by
the testimony of witnesses. I have also noted that this
testimony has not been assessed testimony by scholars
judging the historicity of the Gospels, their function as
social history, or their representation of the "historical"
Jesus. "Historical" analysis continue to hold New Testament
witnesses to the same "scientific" tests that Trigg
criticized (130). This study has given critics both a
reason and a method for using a rhetorical approach in
assessing gospel testimony. I have asserted that the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
234
question of whether or not the Gospels write "history" is
essentially meaningless. The Gospels never purport to write
history according to the limited notions that term implies
today. The New Testament critic must assess gospel witness
on the sense of consistency, reasonableness, and reliability
it puts forth. This study has shown that a rhetorical
approach most clearly and closely deals with those issues.
The focus of this study has been limited to the use of
witnesses in the Gospels. There are two important
directions research on Christian witness should go. First,
the use of witnesses to authorize messages runs throughout
the New Testament. Paul based the authority of his gospel
and his entire ministry on having witnessed the risen Lord
in the Damascus Road experience (Acts 9, Galatians 1). Acts
indicated that only one who had "become a witness of His
resurrection" could be given the authority of apostleship to
Christ (Acts 1:21-22). The fundamental means of authority
in the New Testament was identified with being an
eyewitness. I John began with an affirmation of the gospel
message as being "what we have seen with our eyes, what we
beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of Life" (I
John 1:1). Even The Revelation authorized its apocalyptic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
235
vision as John's testimony of what he witnessed when the
risen Lord appeared before him on Patmos (Revelation 1:9-
20) . This pervasive use of witnesses indicates the
importance of witnesses to the New Testament message. Such
a significant authorizing force in a document whose entire
argument is based in claims of authority needs to be
critically explored.
However, arguments from authority in the Christian
tradition do not end with the New Testament. The importance
of witnesses does not end either. The importance of the
authority of witnesses to countless debates in Christian
history is well known. One of the first and, generally, the
most recognized debate in which the authority of witnesses
was critical was the third century debate over the canon.
As with apostleship in Acts, the first rule for canonical
consideration was that a book came from a direct witness of
the Christ.
The Athanasian controversies over the Incarnation, the
eighth century arguments concerning icons and iconoclasm,
the controversies over biblical authority that led to the
Synod of Dortrecht in the sixteenth century, the miracle
debates of the eighteenth century each dealt with issues of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
236
testimony and witnesses. Even the initial arguments
surrounding the search for the "historical" Jesus dealt with
presuppositions concerning qualities of witness. While, as
I have noted, these studies reach far beyond my focus, each
deals with issues of witnesses and their authority that I
have addressed. Further, the basic distinction between
sources of authority made in this study should guide all
future inquiries into Christian witness. Claims for
authority within the Christian tradition and dissonance
between that tradition and those who oppose it on an issue
can only be understood when we recognize the two-fold nature
of authority in Christian tradition. Christian tradition,
specifically, the New Testament recognizes the authority of
a trustworthy witness bearing testimony to what s/he has
seen. However, the New Testament recognizes a greater
authority in witnesses who have been called out by the
absolute initiative, by God, to bear witness. Human witness
is good but fallible. Divine witness is absolute and
infallible (John 10).
Ultimately, gospel and New Testament witness is like
all witness or argument from authority. It is most
effective for those who already believe. Without belief.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
237
one does not see (John 9:1-25). Seeing may be believing,
but, in the Gospels, the reverse is also true. When a
person believes, s/he can see and recognize the divine
authority behind "ancient" witness in the Gospels. This
authority lends powerful reinforcement for the person's
beliefs. So, the "greater" authority in gospel witness
primarily (perhaps, only) impacts the believer.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
238
REFERENCES
Allen, Leslie C. "The Value of Rhetorical Criticism in
Psalm 69." Journal of Biblical Literature. 105(1986)
577-598.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York:
Basic Books, 1981.
_____________. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic
Books, 1985.
The World of Biblical Literature. New York:
Basic Books, 1992.
____________ and Kermode, Frank, eds. The Literary Guide to
the Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Anderson, Bernard W. "The New Frontier of Rhetorical
Criticism." in Jared Jackson and Martin Kessler, eds.
Rhetorical Criticism: Essavs in Honor of James
Muilenburg. The Pittsburgh Press, 1974; ix-xviii.
Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. New York: The
Modem Library, 1954.
Barth, Karl. Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans
5. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956.
Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1968.
Barth, Karl. The Word of God and the Word of Man.
Gloucester, MASS: Peter Smith Publisher, Inc. 1978.
Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Ferdinand Christian Baur on the
Writing of Church History. Oxford : Oxford University
Press, 1968.
Beardslee, William A. Literary Criticism of the New
Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
239
Best, Ernest. The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan
Soteriology■ Cambridge: The University Press, 1965.
Betteson, Henry, ed. Documents of the Christian Church.
London: Oxford University Press, 1963.
Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians ; A Commentary on Paul's
Letter to the Churches at Galatia. Philadelphia :
Fortress Press, 1979.
_____________. "The Literary Composition and Function of
Paul's Letter to the Galatians." New Testament
Studies. 21(1975) 353-379.
Boring, M Eugene. Sayings of the Risen Jesus : Christian
Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.
____________ . Commentary on Galatians:__A Commentary Qh ths
Greek Text. Grand Rapids : William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co. 1982.
________. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: William B,
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983.
Brunt, John C. "More on the Topos as a New Testament Form."
Journal of Biblical Literature. 104(1985) 495-500.
Buber, Martin. Trans. Ronald Greger Smith. I and Thou. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Trans.
G. R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, J. K. Reade.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.
_____________. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Cogipany, 1991.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
240
Coady, C. A. J. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Cole, R. Alan. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians:__An-
Introductory and Commentary. Leicester: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1989.
Cosby, Michael R. "The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews
11." Journal of Biblical Literature. 107(1988) 257-
273.
Coulson, John. Religion and Imagination. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1981.
Cousar, Charles B. Galatians. Louisville: John Knox Press,
1982 .
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study
in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1983.
Dowd, Sharyn Echols. Prayer. Power and the Problem of
Suffering: Mark 11:22-25 in the Context of Markan
Theology. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Duke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1985.
Eden, Kathy. Poetic and Legal Fiction in the Aristotelian
Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1986.
Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler. "Rhetorical Situation and
Historical Reconstruction in I Corinthians." New
Testament Studies. 33(1987) 386-403.
_____________. The Book of Revelation^ Justice and
Judgment. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Fisher, Walter. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a
Philosophy of Reason. Value, and Action. Columbia :
University of South Carolina Press, 1987.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
241
Forbes, Christopher. "Comparison, Self-Praise cind Irony :
Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic
Rhetoric." New Testament Studies. 32(1986) 1-30.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative : __A StUd%_iQ_
Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics.^ New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.
Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1982.
Frye, Northrup. Words With Power: Being a Second Studv_of_
the Bible and Literature.. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Publishers, 1990.
Fung, Ronald Y.K. The Eoistle to the Galatians. Grand
Rapids : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1988.
Geldenhuys, Norval. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids : Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
Gitay, Yehoshua. "A Study of Amos's Art of Speech: A
Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1-15." The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly. 42(1980) 293-309.
Goldberg, Michael. Theology and Narrative: A Critical
Introduction. Nashville : Abingdon, 1982.
Haenchen, Ernst. John 1. Trans. Robert W. Funk.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Hahn, Ferdinand. Historical Investigation and New Testament
Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Hall, Robert G. "The Rhetorical Outline for Galatians A
Reconsideration." Journal of Biblical Literature.
106(1987) 277-287.
Harris, Horton. The Tuebingen School. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1975.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
242
Hauerwas, Stanley and Jones, L. Gregory, eds. Why Narrative?
Readings in Narrative Theology. Grand Rapids : William
B. Eerdtnans, 1989.
Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel of Mark.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Hester, James D. "The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians
1:11-2:14." Journal of Biblical Literature. 103(1984)
223-233 .
Jackson, Jared and Kessler, Martin, eds. Rhetorical
Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg.
Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1974.
Jewett, Robert. Christian Tolerance : Paul's Message to the
Modem Church. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1982.
_____________. "Following the Argument of Romans." in, ed.
Karl P. Donfried, The Romans Debate. Peabody Mass:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
________- The Thessalonian Correspondence.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
Kelber, Werner H. "Narrative as Interpretation and
Interpretation as Narrative: Hermeneutical Reflections
on the Gospels." in, ed. Tullio Maranhao, The
Interpretation of Dialogue. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1990; 75-99.
Kermode, Frank. The Genesis of Secrecy. London: Harvard
University Press, 1979.
Kessler, Martin. "Rhetorical Criticism and Genesis 7." in,
eds. Jared Jackson and Martin Kessler, Rhetorical
Criticism: Essavs in Honor of James Muilenburg.
Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1974; 1-9.
Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation Through
Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina Press, 1984.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
243
Kinneavy, James L. Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian
Faith. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Kummel, Werner Georg. The New Testament: The History of
the Investigation of Its Problems. Trans. S. Mclean
Gilmour and Howard C. Kee. Nashville : Abingdon Press,
1972.
Kurz, William S. "Hellenistic Rhetoric in the
Christological Proof of Luke-Acts." The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly. 42(1980) 171-195.
Ladd, George E. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967.
Lampe, Peter. "Theological Wisdom and the 'Word About the
Cross': The Rhetorical Scheme in I Corinthians 1-4"
Interpretation. 12(1990) 117-131.
Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids : William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.
Longenecker, Richard F. Galatians. Dallas: Word Book
Publishers, 1990.
Mack, Burton L.. Rhetoric and the New Testament.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
_________ and Robbins, Vernon K. Patterns of Persuasion
in the Gospels. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1989.
McKnight, Edgar V. What is Form Criticism? Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1969.
Medhurst, Martin. "Rhetorical Dimensions in Biblical
Criticism: Beyond Style and Genre." Quarterly Journal
of Speech. 77(1991) 214-250.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its
Transmission. Corruption, and Restoration. Third
Enlarged Edition. New York: Qxford University Press,
1992.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
244
Meyer, Ben F. Critical Realism and the New Testament.
Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1989.
Muilenburg, James. "Form Criticism and Beyond." Journal of
Biblical Literature. 88(1969) 1-18.
Neill, Stephen and Wright, Tom. The Interpretation of the
New Testament 1861-1986 Second Edition.. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1988.
Nineham, D. E. The Gospel of Mark. London: Penguin Books,
1963.
Patrick, Dale and Scult, Allen. Rhetoric and Biblical
Interpretation. Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1990.
Perelman, Chaim. Justice. New York: Random House, 1967.
_____________. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979.
Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia;
Fortress Press, 1969.
Petersen, Norman R. Literary Criticism for New Testament
Studies. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.
Powell, Mark Allan. What is Narrative Criticism?
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Reid, Robert S. "When Words were a Power Loosed: Audience
Expectations and Finished Narrative Technique in the
Gospel of Mark." Quarterly Journal of Speech.
80(1994) 427-447.
Ricoeur, Paul. Essays on Biblical Interpretation.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Ritterspach, A. David. "Rhetorical Criticism and the Song
of Hannah." in, eds. Jared Jackson and Martin Kessler,
Rhetorical Criticism: Essavs in Honor of James
Muilenburg. Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1974; 68-
74.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
245
Robbins, Charles J. "Rhetorical Structure of Philippians
2:6-11." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 42(1980)
73-82.
Robbins, Vernon K. Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical
Interpretation of Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984.
"The Woman Who Touched Jesus' Garment: Socio-
Rhetorical Analysis of the Synoptic Accounts." New
Testament Studies. 33(1987) 502-515.
Ryken, Leland, ed. The New Testament in Literary Criticism.
New York: Ungar Publishing Company, 1984.
Schneidau, Herbert N. "Biblical Narrative and Modern
Consciousness." in, ed. Frank N. McConnell, The Bible
and the Narrative Tradition. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1986; 132-150.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. Trans.
Donald H. Madvig. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1970.
Scult, Allen, McGee, Michael Calvin, and Kuntz, J. Kenneth.
"Genesis and Power: An Analysis of the Biblical Story
of Creation." The Quarterly Journal of Speech.
72(1986) 113-131.
Scult, Allen. "The Relationship Between Rhetoric and
Hermeneutics Reconsidered." Central States Speech
Journal. • 34(1983) 221-228.
Smit, Joop. "The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A
Deliberative Speech." New Testament Studies. 35(1989)
1-26.
Smith, Craig. "The Persona of Jesus in the Gospel According
to Matthew." The Journal of Communication and
Religion. 5(1991) 57-70.
Strauss, David Friedreich. The Life of Jesus Critically
Examined I and II. Trans. Marian Evans. St. Clair
Shores, MI: Scholarly Press, 1970.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
246
Sullivan, Dale L. "Kairos and the Rhetoric of Belief." The
Quarterly Journal of Speech. 78(1992) 317-332.
Sutherland, Stewart. "History, Truth, and Narrative." in,
ed. Martin Warner, The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in
Biblical Persuasion and Credibility. New York :
Routledge, 1990; 105-116.
Thiemann, Ronald F. "Radiance and Obscurity in Biblical
Narrative." in, ed. Garrett Green, Scriptural Authority
and Narrative Interpretation. Philadelphia : Fortress
Press, 1987; 21-41.
Thiemann, Ronald F. Revelation and Theology:__Ths_,Gospel._as
Narrated Promise. Notre Dame : University of Notre Dame
Press, 1985.
Travis, Stephen H. "Form Criticism." in, ed. I. Howard
Marshall, New Testament Interpretation: Essavs on
Principles and Methods. Exeter: The Paternoster Press,
1977.
Trigg, Roger. "Tales Artfully Spun." in, ed. Martin Warner,
The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion
and Credibility. New York: Routledge, 1990; 117-132.
Trites, Allison A. "Martus and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse :
A Semantic Study." Novum Testamentum. 15(1973) 72-80.
Trites, Allison A. The New Testament Concept of Witness.
London: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Warner, Martin. "The Fourth Gospels Art of Rational
Persuasion." in, ed. Martin Warner, The Bible as
Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and__
Credibility. New York: Routledge, 1990; 153-176.
Watson, Duane F. "A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and
its Implications for the Unity Question." Novum
Testamentum ■ ■ 30 (1988) 57-88.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
247
Watson, Duane F. "A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John According
to Greco-Roman Convention." New Testament Studies.
35(1989) 104-130.
Watson, Duane F. "I Corinthians 10:23-11:1 in the Light of
Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical
Questions." Journal of Biblical Literature. 108(1989)
301-318.
Wilder, Amos N. Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language_of
the Gospel. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1971.
Wood, Charles M. "Hermeneutics and the Authority of
Scripture." in, ed. Garrett Green, Scriptural
Authority and Narrative Interpretation. Philadelphia :
Fortress Press, 1987; 3-20.
Wright, T. R. Theology and Literature. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell Ltd. 1988.
Wuellner, Wilhelm. "Hermeneutics and Rhetorics."
Scriptura. 3(1989) 1-54.
Wuellner, Wilhelm. "Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in
Romans." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 38(1976)
330-351.
Wuellner, Wilhelm. "Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking
Us?" The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 49(1987) 448-
463 .
Zulick, Margaret D. "The Agon of Jeremiah: Qn the Dialogic
Invention of Prophetic Ethos." Quarterly Journal of
Speech. 78(1992) 125-148.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Chicanismo in selected poetry from the Chicano movement, 1969-1972: A rhetorical study

PDF

Controversies over grammar: Contexts and purposes in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

PDF

A critical analysis of ideology and discourse in two hotels

PDF

Celluloid egghead: The portrayal of the intellectual in the American film 1930-1976.

PDF

A social ethical analysis of the restoration motif of Churches of Christ

PDF

A catholic social ethic of the family: a step toward reintegrating catholic ethics

PDF

A critical analysis of the dialectical philosophy of William Temple

PDF

A waste of effort: Psychological projection as a primary mode of alienation in selected novels by Kawabata Yasunari

PDF

Clint Eastwood: An ideological study of his films, star image, and popularity

PDF

A study of the "eastern" writer in Hollywood in the 1930's

PDF

Contemporary commandment -keeping, sectarian Christianity: Description, analysis, criticism

PDF

City planning and political ideology in East and West Berlin (Germany), 1949 to 1989: An examination of the urban design of public housing on both sides of the Wall

PDF

A working theory of film genre

PDF

A regression analysis of certificated salary items in a collective agreement and the budgetary impact on district financial certification

PDF

A total evidence cladistic analysis of the Haliotidae (Gastropoda: Vetigastropoda)

PDF

Capital and punishment: The privatization of prisons in America

PDF

A ship in a bottle: How communication builds the lifeboats of the world's largest A.A. group

PDF

Communication practices and organizational change: The structuring of process improvement experiences

PDF

Armed for ideological warfare: Deconstructing and reconstructing the animal rights ethic with Spinozistic thought

PDF

An investigation of the distribution and mechanisms of deposition of exogenous cholesterol in the rat

Asset Metadata

Creator Durbin, Daniel Timothy (author)

Core Title Clouds of witnesses: A rhetorical analysis of narrated witness in the Gospels.

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag language, rhetoric and composition,OAI-PMH Harvest,religion, Biblical studies,religion, clergy

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Fisher, Walter R. (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member), Crossley, John P. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-544061

Unique identifier UC11352907

Identifier 9720217.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-544061 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9720217.pdf

Dmrecord 544061

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Durbin, Daniel Timothy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA