The production of Bible commentaries has proliferated during the last 25 years. They are written for different purposes (e.g., devotional, theological, historical, linguistic, etc.). This is Ben Witherington’s third volume of a three-volume commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Epistles, Hebrews, the Petrine Epistles, James, and Jude. He grouped the epistles according to the socioreligious context for which they were written. In this volume, he placed together Hebrews, James, and Jude because they were written for Jewish Christians. The approach he is using has become quite popular among New Testament scholars. He calls it “A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.” In other words, although he is commenting on the biblical text, he is placing the emphasis on the social setting and on the rhetorical techniques used by the biblical writers. The social setting is important as background information that will help the modern reader gain a better understanding of the message of the book.
Consequently, in an effort to illuminate the biblical text, Witherington uses materials found in the works of classical experts who know about the social history of the Greek and Roman society and historians of early Judaism and early Christianity. Rhetoric has to do with the art of persuasion and the techniques used to achieve that end. The three documents he will comment on (Hebrews, James, Jude) were sermons or homilies. Their specific object was to persuade the readers and listeners to do or avoid something. Witherington argues that the writers used the rhetorical techniques available to them during the first century; the early Jewish and Greco- Roman rhetoric. It is that type of rhetoric that he uses to analyze the homilies. The reader will find references to those sources throughout the commentary. He uses the technical language of rhetoric, but he clarifies what it means as he applies it to the text. It is not difficult to follow his careful exposition of the text.
The structure of each letter is analyzed on the basis of rhetoric rather than on the basis of the theological or thematic content of the document. For instance, James begins with “The Epistolary Prescript” (1:1), which identifies the addresser and the addressee and contains the greetings. This is followed by the “Exordium” (1:2–18). Its purpose is to establish a good relation with the audience in order to make them positively predisposed toward what the writer will ask from them. It is in this section that the author makes reference to his authority and where he lightly touches on some of his main concerns. This is followed by the “Propositio” (1:19–27). It is a statement about the substance, urgency, and theme that will be developed in the discourse. This is the main advice that the author needs to get across to the audience. Next we find the “Elaboration of Themes.” In the case of James, we have three different elaborations based on three main concerns. The first elaboration deals with the rich and poor, word and deed (2:1–26); the second with teachers and tongue (3:1–18); and the third deals with the most controversial element and, following good rhetorical practices, is saved for the last. According to Witherington, James is here combating the desires and antiwisdom of the mercenary and military mentality (4:1–5:6). Finally comes the “Peroration” (5:7–20); the conclusion not only of the last elaboration but of the whole discourse (“the final harangue”). This type of rhetorical analysis is unquestionably useful in the reading of the homily.
We need to ask ourselves, What is the final contribution of this sociorhetorical approach to the text? There are many. For instance, it is always useful to know the social practices and convictions found in the culture in which the biblical writers crafted their messages. They do help to illuminate some obscure aspects of the text. The rhetorical dimension itself reveals the authors’ writing skills, their knowledge of the human mind, and their interest in making their messages more appealing to their audiences. All of these were used by the Spirit to touch the hearts of the original audience and of the many who throughout the centuries have read these documents. But in general, the socio-rhetorical approach does not significantly uncover more than what a careful exegesis would find there. The approach does not make a major contribution to our understanding of the message of each one of the homilies. But perhaps that is not the intention of the method. In any case, what Witherington has produced is very useful for preachers, teachers, and interested church members who may want to know more about the contribution of the socio-rhetorical approach to the study of the Bible and its social background. In that respect, this volume is very rich.
