Book contents
- Paul and Ancient Rhetoric
- Paul and Ancient Rhetoric
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- Glossary
- Paul and Ancient Rhetoric
- Part I History of Scholarship and Key Issues
- Part II Paul, His Education, and First-Century Culture
- Part III Issues in the Use of Ancient Rhetoric in Analyzing Paul's Letters
- Part IV Paul and Ancient Rhetoric in Practice
- Bibliography
- Ancient Sources Index
- Modern Authors Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2015
Book contents
- Paul and Ancient Rhetoric
- Paul and Ancient Rhetoric
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- Glossary
- Paul and Ancient Rhetoric
- Part I History of Scholarship and Key Issues
- Part II Paul, His Education, and First-Century Culture
- Part III Issues in the Use of Ancient Rhetoric in Analyzing Paul's Letters
- Part IV Paul and Ancient Rhetoric in Practice
- Bibliography
- Ancient Sources Index
- Modern Authors Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Paul and Ancient RhetoricTheory and Practice in the Hellenistic Context, pp. 285 - 313Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Adams, S. A., “Paul the Roman Citizen: Roman Citizenship in the Ancient World and Its Importance for Understanding Acts 22:22–28,” in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, PAST 5, Leiden: Brill, 2008, 309–26.Google Scholar
Aletti, J.-N., “Rm 1,18–3,20: Incohérence ou cohérence de l'argumentation paulinienne?” Bib 69 (1988), 47–62.Google Scholar
Alexander, L., “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians,” JSNT 12 (1989), 87–101.Google Scholar
Allen, D. S., The World of Prometheus: The Politics of Punishing in Democratic Athens, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2000.Google Scholar
Amadi-Azuogu, C. A., Paul and the Law in the Arguments of Galatians: A Rhetorical and Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 2,24–6,2, BBB 104, Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. D. Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, CBET 18, Kampen: Pharos, 1996.Google Scholar
Arnold, C. E., “I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away (Gal 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief,” NTS 51 (2005), 429–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascough, R. S., What are they Saying about the Formation of Pauline Churches? New York: Paulist, 1998.Google Scholar
Aune, D. E., The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, LEC 8, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987.Google Scholar
Aune, D. E., “Review of Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia by H. D. Betz,” RSR 7 (1981), 323–8.Google Scholar
Aune, D. E., “Romans as Logos Protreptikos in the Context of Ancient Religious and Philosophical Propaganda,” in Hengel, M. and Heckel, U. (eds.), Paulus und das antike Judentum, WUNT 58, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991, 91–124.Google Scholar
Aune, D. E., “The Use and Abuse of Enthymemes in New Testament Scholarship,” NTS 49 (2003), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aune, D. E., The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010.Google Scholar
Bachmann, M., Sünder oder Übertreter: Studien zur Argumentation in Gal 2,15ff, WUNT 59, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.Google Scholar
Bagnall, R. S., Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East, Berkeley: University of California, 2011.Google Scholar
Barclay, J. M. G., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.Google Scholar
Barclay, J. M. G., Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians, SNTW, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.Google Scholar
Barclay, J. M. G., “Paul among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate?” JSNT 60 (1995), 89–120.Google Scholar
Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, London: A&C Black, 1973.Google Scholar
Beard, M. (ed.), Literacy in the Roman World, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 3, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1991.Google Scholar
Berchman, R. M., “Galatians (1:1–5): Paul and Greco-Roman Rhetoric,” in Neusner, J. and Frerichs, E. S. (eds.), New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism III, Lanhman, MD: University Press of America, 1987, 1–15.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K., Louder Than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning, New York: Basic Books, 2012.Google Scholar
Berger, K., “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament,” ANRW 2.25.2, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984, 1326–63.Google Scholar
Berry, D. H., and Heath, M., “Oratory and Declamation,” in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, Leiden: Brill, 1993, 393–420.Google Scholar
Betz, H. D., 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul, Hermeneia, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.Google Scholar
Betz, H. D., Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner “Apologie” 2 Korinther 10–13, BHTh 45, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972.Google Scholar
Betz, H. D., “In Defense of the Spirit: Paul's Letter to the Galatians as a Document of Early Christian Apologetics,” in Schüssler, E. (ed.), Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1976, 99–114.Google Scholar
Betz, H. D., Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. German Translation: Der Galaterbrief, Munich: Kaiser, 1988.Google Scholar
Betz, H. D., “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975), 353–79.Google Scholar
Betz, H. D., “The Problem of Rhetoric and Theology According to the Apostle Paul,” in Vanhoye, A. (ed.), L'Apôtre Paul: Personalité, style et conception du ministère, BETL 73, Leuven: Leuven University, 1986, 16–21.Google Scholar
Bickmann, J., Kommunikation gegen den Tod: Studien zur paulinischen Briefpragmatik am Beispiel des ersten Thessalonicherbriefes, Würzburg: Echter, 1998.Google Scholar
Bjerkelund, C. J., Parakalȏ: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalȏ-Säzte in den paulinischen Briefen, Bibliotheca Theologica Norvegica 1, Oslo: Universitetsvorlaget, 1967.Google Scholar
Black, C. C., and Watson, D. F. (eds.), Words Well Spoken: George Kennedy's Rhetoric of the New Testament, SRR 8, Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2008.Google Scholar
Bloomquist, L. G., The Function of Suffering in Philippians, JSNTSup 78, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993.Google Scholar
Bloomquist, L. G., “Methodological Criteria for Apocalyptic Rhetoric: A Suggestion for the Expanded Use of Sociorhetorical Analysis,” in Carey, G. and Bloomquist, L. G. (eds.), Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse, St. Louis: Chalice, 1999, 181–203.Google Scholar
Bloomquist, L. G., “Paul's Inclusive Language: The Ideological Texture of Romans 1,” in Gowler, D. B., Bloomquist, L. G., and Watson, D. (eds.), Fabrics of Discourse: Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003, 165–93.Google Scholar
Bloomquist, L. G., “A Possible Direction for Providing Programmatic Correlation of Textures in Socio-Rhetorical Analysis,” in Porter, S. E. and Stamps, D. L. (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, JSNTSup 195, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002, 61–96.Google Scholar
Bloomquist, L. G., “The Role of Argumentation in the Miracle Stories of Luke-Acts: Toward a Fuller Identification of Miracle Discourse for Use in Sociorhetorical Interpretation,” in Watson, D. F. (ed.), Miracle Discourse in the New Testament, Atlanta: SBL, 2012, 85–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomquist, L. G., “The Role of the Audience in the Determination of Argumentation: The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles,” in Eriksson, A., Olbricht, T. H., and Übelacker, W. (eds.), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts, ESEC 8, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002, 157–73.Google Scholar
Bloomquist, L. G., “Suffering and Joy: Subverted by Joy in Paul's Letter to the Philippians,” Int 61 (2007), 270–82.Google Scholar
Bonner, S. F., Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny, Berkeley: University of California, 1977.Google Scholar
Booth, A. D., “Elementary and Secondary Education in the Roman Empire,” Florilegium 1 (1979), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, A. D., “The Schooling of Slaves in First Century Rome,” TAPA 109 (1979), 11–19.Google Scholar
Bormann, E. G., “Fantasy Theme Analysis and Rhetorical Theory,” in Golden, J., Berquist, G., and Coleman, W. (eds.), Rhetoric of Western Thought, 5th ed., Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1992, 365–84.Google Scholar
Bormann, E. G., “Symbolic Convergence Theory: A Communication Formulation,” Journal of Communication 35 (1985), 128–38.Google Scholar
Bornkamm, G., “The History of the Origin of the So-called Second Letter to the Corinthians,” NTS 8 (1962), 258–63.Google Scholar
Botha, P. J. J., “Greco-Roman Literacy as Setting for New Testament Writings,” Neot 26 (1992), 195–215.Google Scholar
Botha, P. J. J., “Letter Writing and Oral Communication in Antiquity: Suggested Implications for the Interpretation of Paul's Letter to the Galatians,” Scriptura 42 (1992), 17–34.Google Scholar
Botha, P. J. J., Orality and Literacy in Early Christianity, Biblical Performance Criticism 5, Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. S., Fiction as History: Nero to Julian, Berkeley: University of California, 1994.Google Scholar
Brinsmead, B. H., Galatians–Dialogical Response to Opponents, SBLDS 65, Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982.Google Scholar
Brown, J. K., “Direct Engagement of the Reader in Matthew's Discourses: Rhetorical Techniques and Scholarly Consensus,” NTS 51 (2005), 19–35.Google Scholar
Brucker, R., ‘Christushymnen’ oder ‘epideiktische Passagen’? Studien zum Stilwechsel im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, FRLANT 176, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.Google Scholar
Brucker, R., “Versuche ich den jetzt, den Menschen zu überreden?” in Alkier, S. and Brucker, R. (eds.), Exegese und Methodendiskussion, TANZ 23, Tübingen: Francke, 1998, 211–37.Google Scholar
Bruxelles, S., Ducrot, O., and Raccah, P., “Argumentation and the Lexical Topical Fields,” Journal of Pragmatics 24 (1995), 99–114.Google Scholar
Bryant, R. A., The Risen Crucified Christ in Galatians, SBLDS 31, Atlanta: Scholars, 2001.Google Scholar
Bultmann, R., The Second Letter to the Corinthians, trans. Harrisville, R. A., Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1995.Google Scholar
Burk, D., “The Righteousness of God (Dikaisounē Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A Grammatical Clarification,” JSNT 34 (2012), 346–60.Google Scholar
Burkert, W., Greek Religion, trans. Raffan, J., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1985.Google Scholar
Burridge, R. A., “The Gospels and Acts,” in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, Leiden: Brill, 1997, 507–53.Google Scholar
Burton, E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, New York: Scribners, 1920.Google Scholar
Butler, H. E., Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. Vol. III, LCL, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1976.Google Scholar
Byrskog, S., Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History, WUNT 123, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.Google Scholar
Caird, G. B., Paul's Letters from Prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon) in the Revised Standard Version, New Clarendon Bible, Oxford: Oxford University, 1976.Google Scholar
Calhoun, R. M., “John Chrysostom on ΕΚ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ ΕΙΣ ΠΙΣΤΙΝ in Rom. 1:17: A Reply to Charles L. Quarles,” NovT 48 (2006), 131–46.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. A., The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. A., “An Echo of Scripture in Paul and Its Implications,” in Wagner, J. R., Rowe, C. K., and Grieb, A. K. (eds.), The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008, 367–91.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. A., “Romans 1:17 – A Crux Interpretum for the Pistis Christou Debate,” JBL 113 (1994), 265–85.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. P., “Whose Faith? Reexamining Habakkuk 2:4 Citation within the Communicative Act Romans 1:1–17,” in Noll, K. L. and Schramm, B. (eds.), Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010, 293–324.Google Scholar
Castelli, E. A., Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power, LCBI, Louisville: Westminster, 1991.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, P., Ancient Greek Letter Writing, a Cultural History (600 BC–150 BC), Oxford: Oxford University, 2013.Google Scholar
Chapa, J., “Consolatory Patterns? 1 Thes 4,13.18; 5,11,” in Collins, R. F. (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence, BETL 87, Leuven: Leuven University, 1990, 220–8.Google Scholar
Charles, R. H. (trans.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.Google Scholar
Ciampa, R. E., The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2, WUNT 2/102, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.Google Scholar
Ciampa, R. E., and Rosner, B. S., “The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians,” NTS 52 (2006), 205–18.Google Scholar
Clackson, J., “Language Maintenance and Language Shift in the Mediterranean World during the Roman Empire,” in Mullen, A. and James, P. (eds.), Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2012, 36–57.Google Scholar
Clark, D. L., Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education, Morningside Heights, NY: Columbia University, 1957.Google Scholar
Clarke, A. D., Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6, AGJU 18, Leiden: Brill, 1993.Google Scholar
Classen, C. J., “Kann die rhetorische Theorie helfen, das Neue Testament, vor allem die Briefe des Paulus, besser zu verstehen?” ZNW 100 (2009), 145–72.Google Scholar
Classen, C. J., “Paul's Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric,” in Nanos, M. D. (ed.), The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002, 95–113.Google Scholar
Classen, C. J., “Philologische Bemerkungen zur Sprache des Apostels Paulus,” Wiener Studien 107/108 (1994/1995), 321–35.Google Scholar
Classen, C. J., “The Speeches in the Courts of Law: A Three-Cornered Dialogue,” Rhetorica 9 (1991), 195–207.Google Scholar
Classen, C. J., Recht Rhetorik Politik: Untersuchungen zu Ciceros rhetorischer Technik, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985.Google Scholar
Classen, C. J., Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, WUNT 128, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.Google Scholar
Cobb, J. B. Jr., and Lull, D. J., Romans, Chalice Commentaries for Today, St. Louis: Chalice, 2005.Google Scholar
Collins, R. F., Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians, Leuven: Leuven University, 1984.Google Scholar
Cooper, S. A., Marius Victorinus’ Commentary on Galatians, OECS, Oxford: Oxford University, 2005.Google Scholar
Cooper, S. A., “Narratio and Exhortatio in Galatians According to Marius Victorinus,” ZNW 91 (2000), 107–35.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, C. H., “Arguing like a Mere Human Being: Galatians 3:15–18 in Rhetorical Perspective,” NTS (1988), 536–49.Google Scholar
Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., ICC, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–1979.Google Scholar
Cribiore, R., Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2001.Google Scholar
Cribiore, R., The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2007.Google Scholar
Cribiore, R., Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt, ASP 36, Atlanta: Scholars, 1996.Google Scholar
Cross, F. M., Freedman, D. N., and Sanders, J. A., Scrolls from Qumran Cave 1, Jerusalem: Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and Shrine of the Book, 1972.Google Scholar
Cugusi, P., Evoluzione e Forme dell’ Epistolografia Latina nella Tarda Repubblica e nei Primi Due Secoli dell’ Impero con Cenni sull’ Epistolografia Preciceroniana, Rome: Herder, 1983.Google Scholar
Dahl, N. A., “Paul's Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure,” in Nanos, M. D. (ed.), The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002, 117–42.Google Scholar
Danker, F. W., “Paul's Debt to the De Corona of Demosthenes: A Study of Rhetorical Techniques in Second Corinthians,” in Watson, D. F. (ed.), Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, JSNTSup 50, Sheffield: JSOT, 1991, 262–80.Google Scholar
Daube, D., “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric,” HUCA 22 (1949), 239–64.Google Scholar
Davies, M., Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, JSNTSup 69, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992.Google Scholar
Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. Strachan, L. R. M., New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910.Google Scholar
Deissmann, A., Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History, New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1926.Google Scholar
deSilva, D. A., Global Readings: A Sri Lankan Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Galatians, Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.Google Scholar
deSilva, D. A., Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000.Google Scholar
Dewey, J., “Textuality in an Oral Culture: A Survey of the Pauline Traditions,” Semeia 65 (1994), 37–64.Google Scholar
Dibelius, M., Paul, ed. Kümmel, W. G., trans. Clarke, F., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953.Google Scholar
Dickey, E., Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period, New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 2006.Google Scholar
Diefenbach, M., Die Komposition des Lukasevangeliums unter Berücksichtigung antiker Rhetorikelemente, FTS 43, Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1993.Google Scholar
DiMattei, S., “Paul's Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21–31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics,” NTS 52 (2006), 102–22.Google Scholar
Dodds, E. R., Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience Form Marcus Aurelius to Constantine, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965.Google Scholar
Doering, L., Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography, WUNT 298, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.Google Scholar
Donfried, K. P. (ed.), The Romans Debate, rev. and exp. ed., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.Google Scholar
Donfried, K. P., and Marshall, I. H., The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters, New Testament Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993.Google Scholar
Donfried, K. P., and Beutler, J. (eds.), The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.Google Scholar
Dormeyer, D., Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993.Google Scholar
Downing, G., “Ambiguity, Ancient Semantics, and Faith,” NTS 56 (2010), 139–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Toit, A. B., “A Tale of Two Cities: ‘Tarsus or Jerusalem’ Revisited,” NTS 46 (2000), 375–402.Google Scholar
Duff, P. B., “The Mind of the Redactor: 2 Cor. 6:17–7:1 in Its Secondary Context,” NovT 35 (1993), 160–80.Google Scholar
Eagleton, T., Literary Theory: An Introduction, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1983.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. H., “Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament: More on Methods and Models,” in Elliott, J. H. (ed.), Social and Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World, Semeia 35, Decatur, GA: Scholars, 1986, 1–33.Google Scholar
Elliott, N., The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire, Paul in Critical Contexts Series, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.Google Scholar
Elliott, N., The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul's Dialogue with Judaism, JSNTSup 45, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990.Google Scholar
Eriksson, A., “Enthymemes in Pauline Argumentation: Reading between the Lines in 1 Corinthians,” in Eriksson, A., Olbricht, T. H., and Übelacker, W. (eds.), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference, ESEC 8, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002, 243–59.Google Scholar
Eriksson, A., Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians, ConBNT 29, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1998.Google Scholar
Eriksson, A., Olbricht, T. H., and Übelacker, W. (eds.), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts, ESEC 8, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002.Google Scholar
Exler, F. X. J., The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1923.Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J., “Rhetoric in the Age of Cognitive Science,” in Graff, R., Walzer, A. E., and Atwell, J. A. (eds.), The Viability of the Rhetorical Tradition, New York: SUNY, 2005, 159–80.Google Scholar
Fairweather, , “The Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric: Parts 1 & 2,” TynBul 45 (1994), 2–22.Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J., “The Epistle to the Galatians and Classical Rhetoric: Part 3,” TynBul 45 (1994), 213–43.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., “Rethinking Metaphor,” in Gibbs, R. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, New York: Cambridge University, 2008, 53–66.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M., The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities, New York: Basic Books, 2003.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M., “Compression and Global Insight,” Cognitive Linguistics 11 (2000), 283–304.Google Scholar
Fee, G. D., God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.Google Scholar
Findlay, G. G., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1904.Google Scholar
Fiore, B., “The Pastoral Epistles in the Light of Philodemus ‘On Frank Speech’,” in Fitzgerald, J. T. et al. (eds.), Philodemus and the New Testament World, NovTSup 111, Leiden: Brill, 2004, 271–93.Google Scholar
Fitzmyer, J. A., Romans: A New Translation with a Commentary, AB 33, New York: Doubleday, 1993.Google Scholar
Forbes, C., “Ancient Rhetoric and Ancient Letters: Models for Reading Paul, and Their Limits,” in Sampley, J. P. and Lampe, P. (eds.), Paul and Rhetoric, London and New York: T&T Clark, 2010, 143–60.Google Scholar
Freese, J. H. (trans.), Aristotle: The ‘Art’ of Rhetoric, LCL, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1926.Google Scholar
Friedrich, G., “Der Brief eines Gefangenen,” in Friedrich, J. H. (ed.), Auf das Wort kommt es an: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 70. Geburtstag Gerhard Friedrich, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978, 224–35.Google Scholar
Gagarin, M., and MacDowell, D. M. (trans.), Antiphon and Andocides, The Oratory of Classical Greece, Vol. 1, Austin, TX: University of Texas, 1998.Google Scholar
Gamble, H. Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts, New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1995.Google Scholar
Garnsey, P., and Saller, R., The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture, London: Duckworth, 1987.Google Scholar
Garver, E., Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994.Google Scholar
Geoghegan, A. T., The Attitude towards Labor in Early Christianity and Ancient Culture, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1945.Google Scholar
Given, M. D., Paul's True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning, and Deception in Greece and Rome, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2001.Google Scholar
Godley, A. D. (trans.), Herodotus Volume I, LCL, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1960.Google Scholar
Gombis, T. G., “The ‘Transgressor’ and the Curse of the Law: The Logic of Paul's Argument in Gal 2–3,” NTS 53 (2007), 81–97.Google Scholar
Gordley, M. E., The Colossian Hymn in Context: An Exegesis in the Light of Jewish and Greco-Roman Hymnic and Epistolary Conventions, WUNT 2/228, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.Google Scholar
Gori, F. (ed.), S. Marii Victorini Opera: Pars Posterior: Opera Exegetica, CSEL 82/2, Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1986.Google Scholar
Gowler, D. B., “Introduction,” in Robbins, V. K. (ed.), New Boundaries in Old Territory, ESEC 3, New York: Peter Lang, 1993, 1–36.Google Scholar
Grams, R., “The Temple Conflict Scene: A Rhetorical Analysis of Matthew 21–33,” in Watson, D. F. (ed.), Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, JSNTSup 50, Sheffield: JSOT, 1991, 41–65.Google Scholar
Greenough, J. B., and Kittredge, G. L. (eds.), Select Orations and Letters of Cicero, Boston: Ginn, 1902.Google Scholar
Gwynn, A., Roman Education: From Cicero to Quintilian, New York: Russell & Russell, 1964, orig. 1926.Google Scholar
Hagen, K., Luther's Approach to Scripture as seen in his Commentaries on Galatians 1519–1538, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993.Google Scholar
Hall, R. G., “Arguing like an Apocalypse: Galatians and an Ancient Topos outside the Greco-Roman Tradition,” NTS 42 (1996), 434–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. G., “The Reader as Apocalyptist in John,” in Williams, C. H. and Rowland, C. (eds.), John's Gospel and Intimations of Apocalyptic, London: Bloomsbury, 2013, 254–73.Google Scholar
Hansen, G. W., Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Context, JSNTSup 29, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989.Google Scholar
Hardin, J. K., Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul's Letter, WUNT 2/237, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.Google Scholar
Harland, P. A., Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.Google Scholar
Harnisch, W., “Einübung des neuen Seins: Paulinische Paränese am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 84 (1987), 279–96.Google Scholar
Harris, M. J., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. R., “Paul and the Gymnasiarchs: Two Approaches to Pastoral Formation in Antiquity,” in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, PAST 5, Leiden: Brill, 2008, 141–78.Google Scholar
Hays, R. B., “‘The Righteous One’ as Eschatological Deliverer: A Case Study in Paul's Apocalyptic Hermeneutics,” in Marcus, J. and Soards, M. L. (eds.), Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, JSNTSup 24, Sheffield: JSOT, 1989, 191–215.Google Scholar
Hellholm, D., “Enthymemic Argumentation in Paul: The Case of Romans 6,” in Engberg-Pedersen, T. (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995, 119–79.Google Scholar
Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.Google Scholar
Hengel, M., Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III, WUNT 141, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.Google Scholar
Henrichs, A., “Isokrates-Imitation,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 1 (1967), 75–6.Google Scholar
Hester, J. D., “Epideictic Rhetoric and Persona in Galatians 1 and 2,” in Nanos, M. D. (ed.), The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002, 181–96.Google Scholar
Hester, J. D., “The Invention of 1 Thessalonians,” in Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H. (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996, 251–61.Google Scholar
Hester, J. D., “The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11–2:14,” JBL 103 (1984), 224–33.Google Scholar
Hester, J. D., “Rhetorics in and for the New Millennium,” in Hester, J. D. and Hester, J. D. (eds.), Rhetorics in the New Millennium: Promise and Fulfillment, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity, New York and London: T&T Clark, 2010, 1–21.Google Scholar
Hester, J. D., “The Use and Influence of Rhetoric in Galatians 2:1–14,” ThZ 42 (1986), 386–408.Google Scholar
Hester, J. D., and Hester, J. D. (eds.), Rhetorics in the New Millennium: Promise and Fulfillment, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity, New York and London: T&T Clark, 2010.Google Scholar
Hezser, C., Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, TSAJ 81, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.Google Scholar
Hietanen, M., “The Argumentation in Galatians,” in Tolmie, D. F. (ed.), Exploring New Rhetorical Approaches to Galatians, Acta Theologica S 9, Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 2007, 99–120.Google Scholar
Hietanen, M., Paul's Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis, LNTS 344, London and New York: T&T Clark, 2007.Google Scholar
Hine, H., “The Form and Function of Speech in the Prose Works of the Younger Seneca,” in Berry, D. H. and Erskine, A. (eds.), Form and Function in Roman Oratory, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010, 208–24.Google Scholar
Hock, R. F., “Paul's Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Status,” JBL 97 (1978), 555–64.Google Scholar
Hock, R. F., The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.Google Scholar
Holland, G. S., “Playing to the Groundlings: Shakespeare Performance Criticism and Performance Criticism of the Biblical Texts,” Neot 41 (2007), 317–40.Google Scholar
Holland, G. S., “Speaking Like a Fool: Irony in 2 Corinthians 10–13,” in Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H. (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, JSNTSup 90, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993, 250–64.Google Scholar
Holloway, P. A., “Paul's Pointed Prose: The Sententia in Roman Rhetoric and Paul,” NovT 40 (1998), 32–53.Google Scholar
Holloway, P. A., “The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul,” JBL 120 (2001), 329–43.Google Scholar
Holmstrand, J., Markers and Meaning in Paul: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Galatians, ConBNT 28, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1997.Google Scholar
Howard, G., Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology, SNTSMS 35, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979.Google Scholar
Hubbell, H. M. (trans.), Cicero. De inventione, De optimo genere oratorum, Topica, LCL, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1949.Google Scholar
Hübner, H., “Der Galaterbrief und das Verhältnis von antiker Rhetorik und Epistolographie,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 109 (1984), 241–9.Google Scholar
Hughes, F. W., Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians, JSNTSup 30, Sheffield: JSOT, 1989.Google Scholar
Hughes, F. W., “The Rhetoric of 1 Thessalonians,” in Collins, R. F. (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence, BETL 87, Leuven: Leuven University, 1990, 94–116.Google Scholar
Hughes, F. W., “The Rhetoric of Letters,” in Donfried, K. P. and Beutler, J. (eds.), The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, 194–240.Google Scholar
Hurtado, L. W., “Oral Fixation and New Testament Studies? ‘Orality,’ ‘Performance’ and Reading Texts in Early Christianity,” NTS 60 (2014) 321–40.Google Scholar
Jegher-Bucher, V., Der Galaterbrief auf dem Hintergrund antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik, ATANT 78, Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
Johanson, B. C., To All the Brethren: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians, ConBNT 16, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987.Google Scholar
Johnson, W., “Towards a Sociology of Reading in Classical Antiquity,” AJP 121 (2000) 593–627.Google Scholar
Judge, E. A., “Paul's Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice,” AusBR 16 (1968), 37–50.Google Scholar
Judge, E. A., The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation, London: Tyndale, 1960.Google Scholar
Kalimtzis, K., Aristotle on Political Enmity and Disease: An Inquiry into Stasis, Albany, NY: SUNY, 2000.Google Scholar
Kandel, E. R., In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind, New York: W. W. Norton, 2006.Google Scholar
Käsemann, E., Commentary on Romans, trans. Bromiley, G. W., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A., “Notes on ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ Schools in Late Antiquity,” TAPA 113 (1983), 323–46.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A., Cicero: Speech on Behalf of Publius Sestius, Clarendon Ancient History Series, Oxford: Clarendon, 2006.Google Scholar
Keck, L. E., “The Jewish Paul among the Gentiles: Two Portrayals,” in Fitzgerald, J. T., Olbricht, T. H., and White, L. M. (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honour of Abraham J. Malherbe, NovTSup 110, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 461–81.Google Scholar
Kehoe, D. P., Law and the Rural Economy in the Roman Empire, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2007.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A., The Art of Persuasion in Greece, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1963.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A., The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 300 B.C.–A.D. 300, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1972.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A., Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, 2nd ed., Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1999.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A., Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1983.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A., A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1994.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A., Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 10, Atlanta: SBL, 2003.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. A. (trans.), Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, New York: Oxford University, 1991.Google Scholar
Kern, P. H., Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul's Epistles, SNTSMS 101, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998.Google Scholar
King, H., “Chronic Pain and the Creation of Narrative,” in Porter, J. L. (ed.), Constructions of the Classical Body, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1999, 252–68.Google Scholar
Kingsley, P., Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition, Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.Google Scholar
Klauck, H.-J., Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis, Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2006.Google Scholar
Klauck, H.-J., Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament, UTB 222, Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998.Google Scholar
Klauck, H.-J., “Compilations of Letters in Cicero's Correspondence,” in Fitzgerald, J. T., Olbricht, T. H., and White, L. M. (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham Malherbe, NovTSup 110, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 131–51.Google Scholar
Klaus, W., “Hab 2,3–4 in der hebräischen und griechischen Texttradition mit einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament,” in Caulley, T. S. and Lichtenberger, H. (eds.), Die Septuaginta und das fr?he Christentum, WUNT 227, T?bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 153–73.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, J. L., and Wilson, S. G. (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Greco-Roman World, New York: Routledge, 1996.Google Scholar
Koch, D.-A., “Der Text von Hab 2:4b in der Septuaginta und im Neuen Testament,” ZNW 76 (1985), 68–85.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, H., Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr., Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 102.2, Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1956.Google Scholar
Kraftchick, S., “Why Do the Rhetoricians Rage?” in Jennings, T. W. (ed.), Text and Logos: The Humanistic Interpretation of the New Testament, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990, 55–79.Google Scholar
Kraus, W., “Hab 2,3–4 in der hebräischen und griechischen Texttradition mit einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament,” in Caulley, T. S. and Lichtenberger, H. (eds.). Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum, WUNT 277, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 153–73.Google Scholar
Kraus, W., Das Volk Gotts: Zur Grundlegung der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus, WUNT 85, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.Google Scholar
Krause, J., Gefängnisse im römischen Reich, Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien, Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1996.Google Scholar
Kremendahl, D., Die Botschaft der Form: Zum Verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief, NTOA 46, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.Google Scholar
Kremmydas, C., “Hellenistic Oratory and the Evidence of Rhetorical Exercises,” in Kremmydas, C. and Tempest, K. (eds.), Hellenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change, Oxford: Oxford University, 2013, 139–63.Google Scholar
Kremmydas, C., “P. Berl. 9781 and the Early Reception of Demosthenes’ against Leptines,” BICS 50 (2007), 19–48.Google Scholar
Kremmydas, C., and Tempest, K., “Introduction: Exploring Hellenistic Oratory,” in Kremmydas, C. and Tempest, K. (eds.), Hellenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change, Oxford: Oxford University, 2013, 1–17.Google Scholar
Krentz, B. E., “Logos or Sophia: The Pauline Use of the Ancient Dispute between Rhetoric and Philosophy,” in Fitzgerald, J. T., Olbricht, T. H., and White, L. M. (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honour of Abraham J. Malherbe, NovTSup 110, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 277–90.Google Scholar
Kümmel, W. G., Römer 7 und das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament; Zwei Studien, rev. ed., Munich: C. Kaiser, 1974.Google Scholar
Kurzweil, R., How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed, New York: Viking, 2012.Google Scholar
Kuula, K., The Law, the Covenant and God's Plan, 2 vols., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999–2003.Google Scholar
Kwon, Y., Eschatology in Galatians: Rethinking Paul's Response to the Crisis in Galatia, WUNT 2/183, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, J., The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and 8, LTPM 14, Louvain: Peeters, 1992.Google Scholar
Lampe, P., “Rhetorical Analysis of Pauline Texts – Quo Vadit? Methodological Reflections,” in Sampley, J. P. and Lampe, P. (eds.), Paul and Rhetoric, London and New York: T&T Clark, 2010, 3–21.Google Scholar
Lategan, B., “Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians? The Function of Galatians 1.11–12 and 2.19–20 in the Development of Paul's Argument,” NTS 34 (1988), 411–30.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H., Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study, trans. and ed. Orton, D. E. and Anderson, R. D., Leiden: Brill, 1998.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, 2 vols., Munich: Hüber, 1960.Google Scholar
Lecourt, D., “Introduction,” in Prochiantz, A. (ed.), La construction du cerveau, Paris: Hachette, 1989, 1–17.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R., Greek Gods, Human Lives: What We Can Learn from Myths, New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2003.Google Scholar
Lemmer, R., “Why Should the Possibility of Rabbinic Rhetorical Elements in Pauline Writings (e.g. Galatians) Be Reconsidered?” in Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H. (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996, 161–79.Google Scholar
Levison, J. R., “Did the Spirit Inspire Rhetoric? An Exploration of George Kennedy's Definition of Early Christian Rhetoric,” in Watson, D. F. (ed.), Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, JSNTSup 50, Sheffield: JSOT, 1991, 25–40.Google Scholar
Lewis, N. (ed.), The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Shrine of the Book, 1989.Google Scholar
Litfin, D. A., St. Paul's Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric, SNTSMS 79, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1994.Google Scholar
Livingston, K. R., Andrews, J. K., and Harnad, S., “Categorical Perception Effects Induced by Category Learning,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24 (1998), 732–53.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. (ed. and trans.), Sophocles, Ajax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus, LCL, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1994.Google Scholar
Longenecker, R. N., The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, SBT 2.17, Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson, 1970.Google Scholar
Lüdemann, G., The Earliest Christian Text: 1 Thessalonians, Salem, OR: Polebridge, 2013.Google Scholar
Lüderitz, G., “Rhetorik, Poetik: Kompositionstechnik im Markusevangelium,” in Cancik, H. (ed.), Markusphilologie: Historische, literaturgeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium, WUNT 33, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984, 165–203.Google Scholar
Mack, B. L., Rhetoric and the New Testament, GBSNT, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990.Google Scholar
Mack, P., A History of Renaissance Rhetoric 1380–1620, Oxford: Oxford University, 2011.Google Scholar
MacMullen, R., Roman Social Relations: 50 B.C. to A.D. 284, New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1974.Google Scholar
Maio, A. (ed.), Dionysii Halicarnassensis Opera Omnia, Vol. 6, Leipzig: Caroli Tauchnitil, 1829.Google Scholar
Malcolm, M. R., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reversal in 1 Corinthians: The Impact of Paul's Gospel on His Macro-Rhetoric, SNTSMS 155, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2013.Google Scholar
Malherbe, A. J., The Letters to the Thessalonians, AB 32b, New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2000.Google Scholar
Malherbe, A. J., Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.Google Scholar
Malherbe, A. J., Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophical Tradition of Pastoral Care, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.Google Scholar
Malherbe, A. J., “Paul: Hellenistic Philosopher or Christian Pastor?” American Theological Library Association Proceedings 39 (1985), 86–98.Google Scholar
Malherbe, A. J., “Paul's Self-Sufficiency (Philippians 4:11),” in Fornberg, T. and Hellholm, D. (eds.), Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman, Oslo: Scandinavian University, 1995, 813–26.Google Scholar
Malina, B. J., The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3rd ed., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.Google Scholar
Marrou, H. I., A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. Lamb, G., New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956.Google Scholar
Marshall, P., Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians, WUNT 2/23, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987.Google Scholar
Martin, T. W., “Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy,” JBL 114 (1995), 437–61.Google Scholar
Martin, T. W., “Hans Dieter Betz: Ur-ancestor of New Testament Rhetorical Criticism,” in Martin, T. W. (ed.), Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015, 13–44.Google Scholar
Martin, T. W., “Invention and Arrangement in Recent Pauline Rhetorical Studies: A Survey of the Practices and the Problems,” in Sampley, J. P. and Lampe, P. (eds.), Paul and Rhetoric, London and New York: Continuum, 2010, 48–118.Google Scholar
Martin, T. W., “Investigating the Pauline Letter Body,” in Porter, S. E. and Adams, S. A. (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, PAST 6, Leiden: Brill, 2010, 185–212.Google Scholar
McKerrow, R. E., “Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis,” Communication Monographs 56 (1989), 91–111.Google Scholar
Meiser, M., Galater, Novum Testamentum Biblicum 9, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.Google Scholar
Mendelson, A., Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1982.Google Scholar
Mengel, B., Studien zum Philipperbrief: Untersuchungen zum situativen Kontext under besonderer Berücksichtigung der Frage nach der Ganzheitlichkeit oder Einheitlichkeit eines paulinischen Briefes, WUNT 2/8, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1982.Google Scholar
Metzger, B. M., Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University, 1968.Google Scholar
Meyer, P. W., “Review of Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia by H. D. Betz,” RSR 7 (1981), 318–22.Google Scholar
Meynet, R., “Quelle rhétorique dans l’épître aux Galates: Le cas de Ga 4,12–20,” Rhetorica 12 (1994), 427–50.Google Scholar
Meynet, R., Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998, English translation: L'analyse rhétorique: Une nouvelle méthode pour comprendre la Bible. Textes fondateurs et exposé systématique, Paris: Cerf, 1989.Google Scholar
Mihaila, C., The Paul-Apollos Relationship and Paul's Stance toward Greco-Roman Rhetoric: An Exegetical and Socio-Historical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4, LNTS 402, London: T&T Clark, 2009.Google Scholar
Millard, A., Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000.Google Scholar
Mills, W. E., An Index to Periodical Literature on the Apostle Paul, NTTS 16, Leiden: Brill, 1993.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. M., The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. M., “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,” JBL 111 (1992), 641–62.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. M., “Reading Rhetoric with Patristic Exegetes,” in Collins, A. and Mitchell, M. M. (eds.), Antiquity and Humanity: Essays in Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, 333–55.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. M., “Rhetorical Shorthand in Pauline Argumentation: The Functions of ‘the Gospel’ in the Corinthian Correspondence,” in Jervis, L. A. and Richardson, P. (eds.), Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994, 63–88.Google Scholar
Mitternacht, D., Forum für Sprachlose: Eine kommunikationspsychologische und epistolär-rhetorische Untersuchung des Galaterbriefes, ConBNT 30, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999.Google Scholar
Monteil, J., and Huguet, P. (eds.), Social Context and Cognitive Performance: Towards a Social Psychology of Cognition, European Monographs in Social Psychology, Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Morgan, T., Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998.Google Scholar
Morgan, T., “Rhetoric and Education,” in Worthington, I. (ed.), A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, Oxford: Blackwell, 2010, 303–19.Google Scholar
Morland, K. A., The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel, ESEC, Atlanta: Scholars, 1995.Google Scholar
Mullen, A., and James, P. (eds.), Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2012.Google Scholar
Murphy-O'Connor, J., Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills, GNS 41, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.Google Scholar
Nanos, M. D., The Irony of Galatians: Paul's Letter in First-Century Context, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002.Google Scholar
Neyrey, J., “The Social Location of Paul: Education as the Key,” in Gowler, D. B., Bloomquist, L. G., and Watson, D. F. (eds.), Fabrics of Discourse: Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003, 126–64.Google Scholar
Nikolakopoulos, K., “Aspekte der paulinischen Ironie am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes,” Biblische Zeitschrift 45 (2001), 193–208.Google Scholar
Oakes, P., Philippians: From People to Letter, SNTSMS 110, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2001.Google Scholar
Oegema, G. S., Für Israel und die Völker: Studien zum alttestamentlichen-jüdischen Hintergrund der paulinischen Theologie, NovTSup 95, Leiden: Brill, 1999.Google Scholar
Olbricht, T. H., “An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Thessalonians,” in Balch, D., Ferguson, E., and Meeks, W. (eds.), Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of A. J. Malherbe, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990, 216–36.Google Scholar
Olbricht, T. H., “Aristotle and Aristotelianism,” in Evans, C. A. and Porter, S. E. (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000, 119–21.Google Scholar
Olbricht, T. H., “The Foundations of Ethos in Paul and in the Classical Rhetoricians,” in Olbricht, T. H. and Eriksson, A. (eds.), Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Heidelberg Conference 2002, ESEC 11, New York: T&T Clark, 2005, 138–59.Google Scholar
Olbricht, T. H., “The Rhetoric of Colossians,” in Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H. (eds.), Rhetoric, Theology and the Scriptures: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, JSNTSup 131, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995, 308–28.Google Scholar
Palme, B., “Schreibkultur und Schriftlichkeit,” in Lange, A. and Palme, B. (eds.), Kinder Abrahams: Die Bibel in Judentum, Christentum und Islam, Vienna: Phoibos, 2014, 11–18.Google Scholar
Parks, E. P., The Roman Rhetorical Schools as a Preparation for the Courts under the Early Empire, JHUSHPS 63/2, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1945.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. Wilkinson, J. and Weaver, P., Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1969.Google Scholar
Peterson, B. K., Eloquence and the Proclamation of the Gospel in Corinth, Atlanta: Scholars, 1998.Google Scholar
Pitta, A., Disposizione e messaggio della lettera ai Galati: Analisi retorico-letteraria, AnBib 131, Rome: Gregorian Biblical Bookshop, 1992.Google Scholar
Pitts, A. W., “Hellenistic Schools in Jerusalem and Paul's Rhetorical Education,” in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Paul's World, PAST 4, Leiden: Brill, 2008, 19–50.Google Scholar
Pitts, A. W., “Tarsus or Jerusalem? A Syntactic Argument for Tarsus as the City of Paul’s Youth in Acts 22:3,” Filología Neotestamentaria 27 (2014), 75–81.Google Scholar
Pogoloff, S. M., Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians, SBLDS 134, Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., “Applied Rhetoric and Stylistics in Ancient Greece,” in Fix, U., Gardt, A., and Knape, J. (eds.), Rhetorik und Stilistik/Rhetoric and Stylistics: Ein internationals Handbuch historischer und systematischer Forschung/An International Handbook of Historical and Systematic Research, Vol. 1, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008, 284–307.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., “Did Paul Speak Latin?” in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, PAST 5, Leiden: Brill, 2008, 289–308.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., “A Functional Letter Perspective: Towards a Grammar of Epistolary Form,” in Porter, S. E. and Adams, S. A. (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, PAST 6, Leiden: Brill, 2010, 9–32.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., “Hellenistic Oratory and Paul of Tarsus,” in Kremmydas, C. and Tempest, K. (eds.), Hellenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change, Oxford: Oxford University, 2013, 319–60.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., “The Languages That Paul Did Not Speak,” in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Paul's World, PAST 4, Leiden: Brill, 2008, 131–50.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., “Paul and His Bible: His Education and Access to the Scriptures of Israel,” in Porter, S. E. and Stanley, C. D. (eds.), As It Is Written: Studying Paul's Use of Scipture, SBLSymS 50, Atlanta: SBL, 2008, 97–124.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., “Paul as Epistolographer and Ancient Rhetorician?” in Porter, S. E. and Stamps, D. L. (eds.), The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture, JSNTSup 180, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999, 222–48.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., “Paul of Tarsus and His Letters,” in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, Leiden: Brill, 1997, 533–85.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., “The Theoretical Justification for the Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature,” in Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H. (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993, 100–22.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood, Studies in Biblical Greek 1, New York: Peter Lang, 1989.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., and Dyer, B. R., “Oral Texts? A Reassessment of the Oral and Rhetorical Nature of Paul's Letters in Light of Recent Studies,” JETS 55.2 (2012), 323–41.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., and Pitts, A. W., “Paul's Bible, His Education, and His Access to the Scriptures of Israel,” JGRChJ 5 (2008), 9–41.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., and Olbricht, T. H. (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E. (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E. (eds.), The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E., and Stamps, D. L. (eds.), The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.Google Scholar
Porter, S. E. (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible: Essays from the 1998 Florence Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002.Google Scholar
Poster, C., “A Conversation Halved: Epistolary Theory in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” in Poster, C. and Mitchell, L. C. (eds.), Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present: Historical and Bibliographic Studies, Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2007, 21–51.Google Scholar
Poster, C., “The Economy of Letter Writing in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,” in Eriksson, A., Olbricht, T. H., and Übelacker, W. (eds.), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference, ESEC, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002, 112–24.Google Scholar
Poster, C., “A Historicist Recontextualization of the Enthymeme,” Rhetorical Society Quarterly 22 (1992), 1–24.Google Scholar
Prior, M., Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy, JSNTSup 23, Sheffield: JSOT, 1989.Google Scholar
Probst, H., Paulus und der Brief: Die Rhetorik des antiken Briefes als Form der paulinischen Korintherkorrespondenz (I Kor 8–10), WUNT 2/45, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991.Google Scholar
Radermacher, L., Artium Scriptores (Reste der voraristotelischen Rhetorik), Vienna: Rohrer, 1951.Google Scholar
Ramsay, W. M., The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought, repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949.Google Scholar
Ramsay, W. M., St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, rev. Wilson, M., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001.Google Scholar
Rapa, R. K., The Meaning of ‘Works of Law’ in Galatians and Romans, SBL 31, New York: Peter Lang, 2001.Google Scholar
Rapske, B., The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, Vol. 3: The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.Google Scholar
Raspanti, G. (ed.), S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. I: Exegetica 6; Commentarii in Epistulam ad Galatas, CChr. SL 77A, Tournot: Brepols, 2006.Google Scholar
Rastoin, M., Tarse et Jérusalem: La double culture de l'Apôtre Paul en Galates, AnBib 152, Rome: E.P.I.B., 2003.Google Scholar
Reed, J. T., “The Epistle,” in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, Leiden: Brill, 1993, 171–93.Google Scholar
Reed, J. T, “Using Ancient Categories to Interpret Paul's Letters: A Question of Genre,” in Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H. (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993, 292–324.Google Scholar
Richards, E. R., The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, WUNT 2/42, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P., “L'idéologie et l'utopie: Deux expressions de l'imaginaire social,” Autres Temps 2 (1984), 53–64.Google Scholar
Robbins, V. K., “By Land and by Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages,” in Talbert, C. H. (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts, Perspectives in Religious Studies, Special Studies 5, Danville, VA: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978, 215–42.Google Scholar
Robbins, V. K., “Conceptual Blending and Early Christian Imagination,” in Luomanen, P., Pyysiäinen, I., and Uro, R. (eds.), Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science, BINS 89, Leiden: Brill, 2005, 161–95.Google Scholar
Robbins, V. K., “The Dialectical Nature of Early Christian Discourse,” Scriptura 59 (1996), 353–62.Google Scholar
Robbins, V. K., Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation, Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996.Google Scholar
Robbins, V. K., The Invention of Christian Discourse. Vol. 1: Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity, Blandford Forum, Dorset, UK: Deo, 2009.Google Scholar
Robbins, V. K., Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark, 2nd ed., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992.Google Scholar
Robbins, V. K., “The Rhetorical Full-Turn in Biblical Interpretation: Reconfiguring Rhetorical-Political Analysis,” in Porter, S. E. and Stamps, D. L. (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible: Essays from the 1998 Florence Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002, 48–60.Google Scholar
Robbins, V. K., “Socio-Rhetorical Criticism: Mary, Elizabeth and the Magnificat as a Test Case,” in Malbon, E. S. and McKnight, E. V. (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament, JSNTSup 109, Sheffield: JSOT, 1994, 164–209.Google Scholar
Robbins, V. K., The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and Ideology, London: Routledge, 1996.Google Scholar
Roberts, W. R., Demetrius on Style: The Greek Text of Demetrius De Elucutione Edited after the Paris Manuscript with Introduction, Translation, Facsimile, etc., Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1902.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. W. Jr. (trans.), On Christian Doctrine: St. Augustine, Library of Liberal Arts, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958.Google Scholar
Roese, N. J., and Olson, J. M., What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995.Google Scholar
Roetzel, C. J., The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, 4th ed., Louisville: John Knox, 1998.Google Scholar
Rohrbaugh, R. L. (ed.), The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.Google Scholar
Romanello, S., “La dispositio della Lettera ai Galati e la sua rilvenanza teologica: Saggio di metodologia retorico-letteraria,” Rivista Biblica 47 (1999), 139–73.Google Scholar
Roska, B., and Werblin, F., “Vertical Interactions across Ten Parallel, Stacked Representations in the Mammalian Retina,” Nature 410 (2001), 583–7.Google Scholar
Rostovtzeff, M., Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon, 1957.Google Scholar
Rothschild, C. K., Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography, WUNT 2/175, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.Google Scholar
Russell, W. B., The Flesh/Spirit Conflict in Galatians, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1997.Google Scholar
Safrai, S., “Education and the Study of the Torah,” in Safrai, S. (ed.), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and Institutions, CRINT 1.2, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, 943–70.Google Scholar
Sampley, J. P., “Paul's Frank Speech with the Galatians and Romans,” in Fitzgerald, J. T. et al. (eds.), Philodemus and the New Testament World, NovTSup 111, Leiden: Brill, 2004, 295–321.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.Google Scholar
Sänger, D., “Vergeblich bemüht (Gal. 4,11)? Zur paulinischen Argumentationsstrategie im Galaterbrief,” NTS 48 (2002), 377–99.Google Scholar
Sarna, N., Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation/Commentary, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.Google Scholar
Schäfer, R., Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil: Ein Beitrag zur Einleitung in den Galaterbrief, zur Geschichte der Jesusbewegung und zur Pauluschronologie, WUNT 2/179, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, R. S., Rethinking Paul's Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10–13, ECL, Atlanta: SBL, 2013.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, R. S., “τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ Ἀποστόλου: Revisiting Patristic Testimony on Paul's Rhetorical Education,” NovT 54 (2012), 354–68.Google Scholar
Schewe, S., Die Galater zurückgewinnen: Paulinische Strategien in Galater 5 und 6, FRLANT 208, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005.Google Scholar
Schnelle, U., Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, trans. Boring, M. E., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.Google Scholar
Schnider, F., and Stenger, W., Studien zum Neutestamentlichen Briefformular, NTTS 11, Leiden: Brill, 1987.Google Scholar
Schoon-Janssen, J., Umstrittene ‘Apologien’ in den Paulusbriefen: Studien zur rhetorischen Situation des 1. Thessalonicherbriefes, des Galaterbriefes und des Philipperbriefes, GTA 45, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.Google Scholar
Schubert, P., Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings, BZNW 20, Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1939.Google Scholar
Schüssler Fiorenza, E., Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E., Theologische Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.Google Scholar
Scott, J. M., Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background to Paul's Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians, WUNT 84, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.Google Scholar
Scroggs, R., “Paul as Rhetorician: Two Homilies in Romans 1–11,” in Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. and Scroggs, R. (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honor of William David Davies, Leiden: Brill, 1976, 271–98.Google Scholar
Sensing, T., “Toward a Definition of Paraensis,” Restoration Quarterly 38 (1996), 145–58.Google Scholar
Shore, B., Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning, Oxford: Oxford University, 1996.Google Scholar
Siegert, F., Argumentation bei Paulus: Gezeigt an Röm 9–11, WUNT 34, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985.Google Scholar
Smit Sibinga, J., “Exploring the Composition of Matth. 5–7: The Sermon on the Mount and Some of Its ‘Structures’,” Filología Neotestamentaria 7 (1994), 175–96.Google Scholar
Smit, J., “The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech,” NTS 35 (1989), 1–26.Google Scholar
Smyth, H. W., Greek Grammar, rev. Messing, G. M., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1984.Google Scholar
Snyman, A. H., “On Studying the Figures (schemata) in the New Testament,” Bib 69 (1988), 93–107.Google Scholar
Stambaugh, J. E., and Balch, D. L., The New Testament in Its Social Environment, LEC 2, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.Google Scholar
Stamps, D. L., “Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation: The Entextualization of the Situation in the New Testament Epistles,” in Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H. (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993, 193–210.Google Scholar
Stanley, C. D., “Paul's ‘Use’ of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters,” in Porter, S. E. and Stanley, C. D. (eds.), As It Is Written: Studying Paul's Use of Scipture, SBLSymS 50, Atlanta: SBL, 2008, 125–55.Google Scholar
Stegemann, E. W., and Stegemann, W., The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century, trans. Dean, O. C., Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.Google Scholar
Stirewalt, M. L. Jr., Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography, SBLRBS 27, Atlanta: Scholars, 1993.Google Scholar
Stowers, S. K., “Apostrophe, προσωποποιΐα and Paul's Rhetorical Education,” in Fitzgerald, J. T., Olbricht, T. H., and White, L. M. (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honour of Abraham J. Malherbe, NovTSup 110, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 351–69.Google Scholar
Stowers, S. K., The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans, SBLDS 57, Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981.Google Scholar
Stowers, S. K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, LEC 5, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.Google Scholar
Stowers, S. K., A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles, New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1994.Google Scholar
Stowers, S. K., “Romans 7.7–25 as a Speech-in-Character (προσωποποιία),” in Engberg-Pedersen, T. (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995, 180–202.Google Scholar
Strachan, R. H., The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, MNTC, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935.Google Scholar
Strecker, G., Literaturgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, UTB 1682, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. F. Jr., Paul, Apostle to the Nations: An Introduction, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. W., “From Faith to Faith: Romans 1.17 in the Light of Greek Idiom,” NTS 50 (2004), 337–48.Google Scholar
Tempest, K. L., “Cicero and the Art of dispositio: The Structure of the Verrines,” Leeds International Classical Studies 6.02 (2007), 1–25.Google Scholar
Theißen, G., “Judentum und Christentum bei Paulus: Sozialgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu einem beginnenden Schisma,” in Hengel, M. and Heckel, U. (eds.), Paulus und das antike Judentum, WUNT 58, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991, 331–59.Google Scholar
Thielman, F., “God’s Righteousness as God’s Fairness in Romans 1:17: An Ancient Perspective on a Significant Phrase,” JETS 54 (2011), 35–48.Google Scholar
Thomas, R., Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. W., Moral Formation According to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. W., Pastoral Ministry According to Paul: A Biblical Vision, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.Google Scholar
Thornton, J., “Oratory in Polybius’ Histories,” in Kremmydas, C. and Tempest, K. (eds.), Hellenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change, Oxford: Oxford University, 2013, 21–42.Google Scholar
Thorsteinsson, R. M., “Epistolography (Ancient Letters),” in Matthews, C. R. (ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies, New York: Oxford University, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Thorsteinsson, R. M., Paul's Interlocutor in Romans 2: Functions and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography, ConBNT 40, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003.Google Scholar
Thurén, J., “Ett brev till Efesos,” in Lepajõe, M. and Gross, A. (eds.), Mille anni sicut dies hesterna … : Studia in Honorem Kalle Kasemaa, Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 2003, 156–62.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “The Antagonists: Rhetorically Marginalized Identities in the New Testament,” in Holmberg, B. and Winninge, M. (eds.), Identity Formation in the New Testament, WUNT 227, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 79–95.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis, JSNTSup 114, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “‘By Means of Hyperbole’ (1 Cor 12:31b),” in Olbricht, T. H. and Sumney, J. (eds.), Paul and Pathos, SBLSS 16, Atlanta: SBL, 2001, 97–113.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “The Corinthian Heresies Revisited: A Rhetorical Perspective to the Historical Situation,” in Papadopoulos, S. et al. (eds.), Saint Paul and Corinth: 1950 Years since the Writing of the Epistles to the Corinthians, vol. 2, Athens: Psychogios, 2009, 777–88.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law, WUNT 124, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “Fighting against Straw Men: Derhetorizing Theology and History in Paul,” in Aejmelaeus, L. and Mustakallio, A. (eds.), The Nordic Paul: Finnish Approaches to Pauline Theology, LNTS 374, London: T&T Clark 2008, 195–208.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “Hey Jude! Asking for the Original Situation and Message of a Catholic Epistle,” NTS 43 (1997), 451–65.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “Is There Biblical Argumentation?” in Eriksson, A., Olbricht, T. H., and Übelacker, W. (eds.), Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002, 77–92.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “John Chrysostom as a Rhetorical Critic – The Hermeneutics of an Early Father,” BibInt 9 (2001), 180–218.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “Paul Had No Antagonists,” in Mustakallio, A. (ed.), Lux Humana, Lux Aeterna: Essays on Biblical and Related Themes in Honour of Lars Aejmelaeus, Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, 268–88.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “Rhetoric and Argumentation in the Letters of Paul,” in Matlock, R. B. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies, Oxford: Oxford University, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter with Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions, Åbo: Åbo Academy, 1990.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “Romans 7 Derhetorized,” in Porter, S. E. and Stamps, D. L. (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002, 420–40.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “Style Never Goes out of Fashion,” in Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H. (eds.), Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996, 329–47.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “Was Paul Sincere? Questioning the Apostle's Ethos,” Scriptura 65 (1998), 95–108.Google Scholar
Thurén, L., “Where Is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us Now?” in Back, S. and Kankaanniemi, M. (eds.), Voces Clamantium in Deserto: Essays in Honor of Kari Syreeni, Studier i exegetik och judaistik utgivna av Teologiska fakulteten vid Åbo Akademi 11, Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 2012, 333–50.Google Scholar
Tissol, G., The Face of Nature: Wit, Narrative, and Cosmic Origins in Ovid's Metamorphoses, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1997.Google Scholar
Tobin, T. H., Paul's Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.Google Scholar
Tolmie, D. F., Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centered Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter, WUNT 2/190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.Google Scholar
Tolmie, D. F., “The Rhetorical Analysis of the Letter to the Galatians 1995–2005,” in Tolmie, D. F. (ed.), Exploring New Rhetorical Approaches to Galatians, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9, Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 2007, 1–28.Google Scholar
Tolmie, D. F. (ed.), Exploring New Rhetorical Approaches to Galatians, Acta Theologica S 9, Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 2007.Google Scholar
Tomson, P. J., Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles, CRINT III.1, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.Google Scholar
Too, Y. L., “Introduction: Writing the History of Ancient Education,” in Too, Y. L. (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leiden: Brill, 2001, 1–10.Google Scholar
Trobisch, D., Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfängen christlicher Publizistik, NTOA 10, Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 1989.Google Scholar
Trobisch, D., Die Paulusbriefe und die Anfänge der christlichen Publizistik, KT 135, Gütersloh: Kaiser, 1994.Google Scholar
Tsang, S., “Are We ‘Misreading’ Paul? Oral Phenomena and Their Implication for the Exegesis of Paul's Letters,” Oral Tradition 24 (2009), 205–25.Google Scholar
Tsang, S., From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis of Paul's Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians, SBL 81, New York: Peter Lang, 2005.Google Scholar
Tulloch, J., and Alvarado, M., Dr. Who: The Unfolding Text, New York: St. Martin's, 1983.Google Scholar
Ukwuegbu, B. O., The Emergence of Christian Identity in Paul's Letter to the Galatians, Arbeiten zur Interkulturalität 4, Bonn: Borengässer, 2003.Google Scholar
Ulansey, D., The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World, Oxford: Oxford University, 1989.Google Scholar
Urbach, E. E., “Class-Status and Leadership in the World of the Palestinian Sages,” PIASH 2 (1968), 38–74.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. et al., Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Development, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.Google Scholar
van Unnik, W. C., Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul's Youth, London: Epworth, 1962.Google Scholar
Veyne, P. (ed.), From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, vol. 1 of A History of Private Life,trans. Goldhammer, A., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1987.Google Scholar
Volkmann, R., Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer in systematischer Übersicht, 2nd ed., Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1885.Google Scholar
Vollenweider, S., Freiheit als neue Schöpfung: Eine Untersuchung zur Eleutheria bei Paulus und in seiner Umwelt, FRLANT 147, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.Google Scholar
von Albrecht, M., Geschichte der römischen Literatur: Von Andronicus bis Boethius, 2nd ed., Munich: de Gruyter, 1994.Google Scholar
von Thaden, R. H., “The Wisdom of Fleeing Porneia: Conceptual Blending in 1 Corinthians 6:12–7:7,” unpublished PhD dissertation, Emory University, 2007.Google Scholar
Vos, J. S., Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik, WUNT 149, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.Google Scholar
Vos, J. S., “Paul and Sophistic Rhetoric: A Perspective on his Argumentation in the Letter to the Galatians,” in Tolmie, D. F. (ed.), Exploring New Rhetorical Approaches to Galatians, Acta Theologica S 9, Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 2007, 29–52.Google Scholar
Vos, J. S., “Rhetoric and Theology in the Letters of Paul,” in Sampley, J. P. and Lampe, P. (eds.), Paul and Rhetoric, London and New York: T&T Clark, 2010, 161–79.Google Scholar
Vouga, F., “Der Galaterbrief: Kein Brief an die Galater? Essay über den litararischen Charakter des letzten großen Paulusbriefes,” in Backhaus, K. and Untergaßmair, F. G. (eds.), Schrift und Tradition: Festschrift für Josef Ernst, Paderborn: Schöningh, 1996, 243–58.Google Scholar
Walker, D. D., Paul's Offer of Leniency (2 Cor 10:1): Populist Ideology and Rhetoric in a Pauline Letter, WUNT 2/152, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.Google Scholar
Wall, R. W., “Introduction to Epistolary Literature,” in Keck, L. E. (ed.), The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 10, Nashville: Abingdon, 1994, 369–91.Google Scholar
Wallace, R., “The Sophists in Athens,” in Raaflaub, K. and Boedeker, D. (eds.), Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998, 203–22.Google Scholar
Wanamaker, C. A., Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians, NIGTC, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.Google Scholar
Wanamaker, C. A., “Epistolary vs. Rhetorical Analysis: Is Synthesis Possible?” in Donfried, K. P. and Beutler, J. (eds.), The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, 255–86.Google Scholar
Wanamaker, C. A., “A Rhetoric of Power: Ideology and 1 Corinthians 1–4,” in Burke, T. J. and Elliott, J. K. (eds.), Paul and the Corinthians: Studies in Honour of Margaret Thrall, NovTSup 109, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 115–37.Google Scholar
Watson, D. F., Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter, SBLDS 104, Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.Google Scholar
Watson, D. F., “A Reexamination of the Epistolary Analysis Underpinning the Arguments for the Composite Nature of Philippians,” in Fitzgerald, J. T., Olbricht, T. H. and White, L. M. (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honour of Abraham J. Malherbe, NovTSup 110, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 157–77.Google Scholar
Watson, D. F., “A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John According to Greco-Roman Conventions,” NTS 35 (1989), 104–30.Google Scholar
Watson, D. F., “A Rhetorical Analysis of 3 John: A Study in Epistolary Rhetoric,” CBQ 51 (1989), 479–501.Google Scholar
Watson, D. F., “A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question,” NovT 30 (1988), 57–88.Google Scholar
Watson, D. F., “The Role of Style in the Pauline Epistles: From Ornamentation to Argumentative Strategies,” in Sampley, J. P. and Lampe, P. (eds.), Paul and Rhetoric, London and New York: T&T Clark, 2010, 119–39.Google Scholar
Watson, D. F., “The Three Species of Rhetoric and the Study of the Pauline Epistles,” in Sampley, J. P. and Lampe, P. (eds.), Paul and Rhetoric, London and New York: T&T Clark, 2010, 25–47.Google Scholar
Watson, D. F. (ed.), Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, JSNTSup 50, Sheffield: JSOT, 1991.Google Scholar
Watson, D. F. and Hauser, A. J. (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method, BINS 4, Leiden: Brill, 1994.Google Scholar
Weiss, J., “Beiträge zur Paulinischen Rhetoric,” in Gregory, C. R. (ed.), Theologische Studien, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897, 165–247.Google Scholar
Welborn, L. L., Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition, JSNTSup 293, New York: T&T Clark, 2005.Google Scholar
Westfall, C. L., “A Discourse Analysis of Romans 7.7–25: The Pauline Autobiography?” in Porter, S. E. and O'Donnell, M. B. (eds.), The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009, 146–58.Google Scholar
White, J. L., The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter, SBLDS 2, Missoula, MT: SBL, 1972.Google Scholar
White, J. L., “The New Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epistolography,” ANRW 2.25.2, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984, 1730–56.Google Scholar
White, J. L., “The Structural Analysis of Philemon: A Point of Departure in the Formal Analysis of the Pauline Letter,” in SBLSP 1971, Atlanta: SBL, 1971, 1–47.Google Scholar
White, J. L., and Kensinger, K. A., “Categories of Greek Papyrus Letters,” in SBLSP 1976, Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976, 79–91.Google Scholar
White, L. M., “Rhetoric and Reality in Galatians: Framing the Social Demands of Friendship,” in Fitzgerald, J. T., Olbricht, T. H., and White, L. M. (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honour of Abraham J. Malherbe, NovTSup 110, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 307–49.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L., Language, Thought, and Reality, ed. Carroll, J. B., 1956, repr., Cambridge, MA: M.I.T., 1973.Google Scholar
Wilken, R. L., The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1984.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. A., The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians, WUNT 2/225, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.Google Scholar
Windisch, H., Der zweite Korintherbrief, 9th ed., KEK 6, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924.Google Scholar
Winter, B. W., Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement, 2nd ed., SNTSMS 96, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002.Google Scholar
Winter, B. W., “Philodemus and Paul on Delivery (ὑπόκρισις),” in Fitzgerald, J. T. et al. (eds.), Philodemus and the New Testament World, NovTSup 111, Leiden: Brill, 2004, 323–42.Google Scholar
Winterbottom, M., “Perorations,” in Powell, J. and Patterson, J. (eds.), Cicero: The Advocate, Oxford: Oxford University, 2004, 215–30.Google Scholar
Witherington, B., 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.Google Scholar
Witherington, B., “‘Almost Thou Persuadest Me …’: The Importance of Greco-Roman Rhetoric for the Understanding of the Text and Context of the NT,” JETS 58 (2015), 63–88.Google Scholar
Witherington, B., Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.Google Scholar
Witherington, B., New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament, Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009.Google Scholar
Witherington, B., The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism, Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2005.Google Scholar
Witherington, B., What's in the Word: Rethinking the Socio-Rhetorical Character of the New Testament, Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2009, 61–76.Google Scholar
Witherington, B., with Hyatt, Darlene, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.Google Scholar
Wuellner, W., “The Argumentative Structure of 1 Thessalonians as a Paradoxical Encomium,” in Collins, R. F. (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence, BETL 87, Leuven: Leuven University, 1990, 117–36.Google Scholar
Wuellner, W., “Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans,” CBQ 38 (1976), 330–51.Google Scholar
Wuellner, W., “The Rhetorical Structure of Jesus’ Sermon in Luke 12.1–13.9,” in Watson, D. F. (ed.), Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, JSNTSup 50, Sheffield: JSOT, 1991, 41–65.Google Scholar