Persuading the Cretans: A Text-Generated Persuasion Analysis of the Letter to Titus

By Aldred A. Genade

The Letter to Titus is often branded as incoherent, its salutation inchoate. Such premature conclusions are directly related to the authenticity debate that has marred analyses of the so-called Pastoral Epistles. From the corridors of academia echoes the cry to study the letters individually and independently of the authorship issue. This book does exactly that. It lays bare intricate and novel persuasive strategies, strategies that belie the charge of incoherency. In fact there is not one, but three ways to describe the structure of this masterfully composed letter. In Persuading the Cretans, Aldred Genade does this utilizing a technique known as text-generated persuasion analysis. Careful thought has gone into the composition of the letter to communicate timeless truths relevant for generations of Christians. This is first-century outcomes-based communication at its best and communicators, preachers, and scholars stand to benefit from the lessons in communication the author of Titus can teach us.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Mar 23, 2011
• ISBN: 9781498273145

Aldred A. Genade

Aldred Genade is New Testament lecturer and Director of the School of Continuing Theological Studies, Faculty of Theology, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Book preview

GENADE.93307.kindle.jpg

Persuading the Cretans

A Text-Generated Persuasion Analysis of the Letter to Titus

Aldred A. Genade

11231.png

Persuading the Cretans

A Text-Generated Persuasion Analysis of the Letter to Titus

Copyright © 2011 Aldred A. Genade. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations in the body of the analysis are that of the author or are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, ©1946 (renewed 1973), 1956, and 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

isbn 13: 978-1-60899-330-7

eisbn 13: 978-1-4982-7314-5

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Preface

Acknowledgments

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Titus 1:1–4

Chapter 3: Titus 1:5–9

Chapter 4: Titus 1:10–16

Chapter 5: Titus 2:1

Chapter 6: Titus 2:2–10

Chapter 7: Titus 2:11–15

Chapter 8: Titus 3:1–2

Chapter 9: Titus 3:3

Chapter 10: Titus 3:4–7

Chapter 11: Titus 3:8–11

Chapter 12: Titus 3:12–15

Chapter 13: Conclusion

Appendix

Bibliography

To my darling mother.

To some you are Sheila, to others Marie; to me you’ll always be Moeksie. Your company that month and a half in Potch meant more than you will know.

Preface

All scientific endeavors presuppose community and interdependence. As in life, so in biblical studies, no one is an island. This is true of me and of the contribution to the study of Titus I am hereby making. My contribution is neither a panacea nor is it infallible. Its uniqueness (weakness) lies in the assumption of the author’s intention to persuade as well as its exclusive focus upon the Letter to Titus. The methodology experimented with here was developed by my dissertation supervisor, D. F. Tolmie. My first exposure to it was during my PhD studies. Since then, I’ve reconsidered the method and have improvements to suggest. In this book, I will suggest a more descriptive name, which I submit as text-generated persuasion analysis rather than text-centered rhetorical analysis . In future publications, I plan to suggest a systemization for the method.

Those looking for the definitive answer to the authorship question in these pages look in vain. This matter is taken up in numerous other volumes, articulated by greater minds than mine. My concern is primarily the persuasive structure of the letter. I do hold, for various reasons, to Pauline authorship of Titus as well as of the Timothean correspondence.

This project did not start off because I wanted to prove anything, but by default I do present some new ideas about the structure of the text: that there is a multilayered structure and that the letter proves to be coherent. Rhetorical studies have come a long way, and together with other analytical tools, it holds the promise of aiding our appreciation for the power of the text.

Acknowledgments

Through my journey with this letter, I traversed many curves and hairpin bends, and sometimes even did a little off-roading. Without help along the way, I would not have completed this project. Now, I have the opportunity to thank those who helped me.

Help came first in the form of my Doktorvater, D. F. Tolmie, dean of the Faculty of Theology, University of the Free State. He guided and encouraged me and became a friend.

I would also like to thank:

The Tuesday night small group, Bible-study friends from the Reformed Church Potchefstroom (North), for nudging me and holding me accountable when I requested prayer support for the project, especially Jeanette.

The Wednesday night home-fellowship group from Ubuntu Family Center, Promosa, for their concern and support in prayer; for their patience in having to meet without me for several weeks as I worked toward completion. Fazel, Alastair, Melanie, and Taryn, thank you!

My current dean, colleague and friend, Fika Janse van Rensburg, New Testament professor, North-West University (NWU), for constant encouragement, but mostly for modeling industriousness, excellence, and passion.

The faculty and staff of the NWU Theology Department, especially At Lamprecht, for asking me daily, without fail, Is die boek al klaar? (Is the book done yet?) The dread of seeing him and having to answer that question played no small part in my haste to finish!

Friends and neighbors at Denne Park (you know who you are—clue Jamaican and Dutch), for encouraging me to get it done!

Most importantly, to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who died to save a wretch like me, who in spite of my countless weaknesses graces me to serve him by enabling me to complete what was started. Soli Deo gloria!

1

Introduction

The Cinderella Letter

From the Shadows to the Stage

This is a book about the Letter to Titus. It is not a commentary in the popular sense of the word. Utilizing a modified rhetorical critical model, it analyzes the argumentative or persuasive tapestry that comprises the text of this letter; it presupposes that the author ¹ like a consummate weaver, has woven an intricate, yet charming and delightful masterpiece. An exquisite textual fabric, which Martin Luther esteems a model of Christian doctrine, in which is comprehended in a masterful way all that is necessary for a Christian to know and to live. ² Such high and exclusive regard is absent from most contemporary appraisals of Titus, especially in the academic realm. ³ Also absent is a comprehensive analysis of the structure of the letter, independent of 1 and 2 Timothy and without approaching it in terms of the pervasive authenticity/inauthenticity debate. This book sets out to do just that. The implication is that Titus has not been approached in this way before. A cursory review of the status of the letter will show how the conclusion that the independence of Titus is underappreciated is legitimate and will provide the necessary context for the hypothesis.

What is the status of this letter in current scholarship? It has, as least in academic circles, for a long time, taken the back seat in virtually all discussions of the popularly denoted Pastoral Epistles. Under the influence of the notorious authenticity debate,⁴ the Timothean correspondence enjoyed the spotlight while Titus was (unwittingly) banished to the academic backwaters.⁵ However, modifications of this trend are on the rise, with several contributions investigating, for example, the theology⁶ and other aspects of the letter.⁷ These suggest tentative, though overdue, steps toward appreciating the independence and individuality of Titus.⁸

The battle for the heart of Titus’s independence and integrity has shifted to the domain of literary structure. Simply, is Titus a coherent text or not? Judging from the deafening clang of swords in the academic arena, the answer is not obvious. A spillover from the authorship debate, scholars maintain one of two positions, either that Titus does not⁹ or does¹⁰ indeed cohere structurally. James Miller represents the former view. In The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, he concludes that the [Pastoral] letters have no driving concern, no consistent focus of interest; instead, they read like an anthology of traditions, many arranged mechanically together by topic, some simply juxtaposed.¹¹ His appraisal of the salutation of Titus is equally uncomplimentary; he deems it notoriously complicated and confusing.¹² Ray van Neste¹³ responded to Miller’s challenging hypothesis. By examining what he calls the linguistic cohesiveness¹⁴ of Titus, he proposes three ways in which cohesion is facilitated, namely cohesion shifts, transitional devices, and repetitions.¹⁵ Thus, Miller’s composite letter hypothesis leads him back to the authenticity/inauthenticity issue. It is not the work of a single author, much less of Paul.¹⁶ Van Neste’s defense of the letter’s compositional integrity assuages his own apprehension that the theological integrity and value of Titus risk being compromised.¹⁷ These two positions are at odds in terms of objectives, outcomes, scope, comprehensiveness, and methodologies.¹⁸ Miller’s focus is not exclusively upon Titus, while Van Neste is limited by virtue of writing a journal article with its concomitant restrictions. Stalemate! There appears, therefore, to be an opportunity, if not a need, to clarify this matter by means of focusing exclusively upon the Titus letter and utilizing an appropriate tool for analyzing it. I respectfully disagree with the finality implied by Miller’s conclusions: that the letters and Titus in particular lack compositional integrity. I find myself rather in sympathy with Van Neste that a vacuum exists: "Thus, the tasks of tracing the flow of argument in each letter and of noting the overarching coherence of each letter remain to be done."¹⁹ This book is an attempt to advance the dialogue concerning the macrostructural coherence of Titus in a meaningful way. The instrument that will be employed toward this end is a modified rhetorical critical method. Since my method differs from conventional rhetorical criticism, appreciating its distinctiveness necessitates a review of recent rhetorical analyses of Titus. Two contemporary treatises are in circulation, one by Carl Joachim Classen, the other by Ben Witherington III. That these exist is a miracle; that they are so few testifies to the isolated status of the letter.

On Broadway: Rhetorical Studies of Titus

Carl Joachim Classen’s Improvisational Rhetorical Reading

In 2002, C. J. Classen put forth an analysis of the rhetoric of Titus.²⁰ A pioneering contribution, this contemporary rhetorical analysis or reading introduces a fresh methodological approach. It discards with the rigid application of classic rhetorical categories²¹ and advocates the liberal employment of contemporary rhetorical innovations.²² His basic premise is that a rhetorical analysis or reading of a letter like Titus can be done without slavish adherence to the strictures of preexisting classical categories.²³ By paying careful and exclusive attention to the language, Classen argues, one can disclose authorial intention, literary structure, and the nature of the letter. Consequently, he defines rhetoric as "the deliberate calculated use of language for the sake of communicating various kinds of information in the manner intended by the speaker (and the theory of such use), with language being the essential element.²⁴ He adds that an element of deliberation, of systematization and of planning seems to me to be an essential characteristic of rhetoric.²⁵ He explains rhetorical reading as reading a text in order to grasp the information it intends to impart, to understand its meaning or its message by appreciating and explaining the function of every single part of it as well as of the composition as a whole. [It] means reading a text as composed by an authoress or an author with the particular intention of addressing a particular audience or individual at a particular moment or a wider public (wider both with regard to space and time) and, therefore, formulated in a carefully considered manner."²⁶ Classen understands three aspects to be materially significant. First, there is the text itself; next, the relationship between author and audience as discernable from the text; and finally, the structure of the text. The result is the following outline in its broadest division:

1. 1:1–4: Salutation

2. 1:5–13a: The mandate to Titus, the qualifications for eldership, and the characterization of the opponents

3. 1:13b–2:15: A general order for Titus: to show the Cretans the paths to sound belief

4. 3:1–7: A further order with regard to specific aspects with justifications

5. 3:8–11: Summary of 1:5–3:7 with admonitions, promises, and warnings to the audience

6. 3:12–14: Particular instructions

7. 3:15: Final greetings

This groundbreaking approach has several distinct features. It largely avoids cataloging the letter according to ancient rhetorical theory²⁷ since it is essentially text centered. He identifies ancient rhetorical elements after his analysis, and only those that would seem to be present. Thus, he defines as inventio those ideas the author wants to develop; as dispositio, the relationship between various ideas and their respective importance; as rhetorical situation, the intended reception of the ideas by the audience. Rather than isolating Titus, the analysis proceeds by comparison with the authentic Pauline corpus. The distribution of imperatives (1:13, 2:1, 2:6, 2:15, 3:1, 3:9, 3:10) defines the nature of the letter as one with instructions, mandates, injunctions, admonitions and warnings.²⁸ Classen’s analysis of Titus exemplifies a trendsetting adaptation of rhetorical theory to explain the structure, nature, and contents of an epistolary text. The unorthodoxy of Classen’s approach has not escaped evaluation, nor should it be allowed to.

The study invites both praise and pummeling. Its significance is multifaceted. Foremost is the priority it places upon the letter, namely paying exclusive attention to Titus. Demonstrating the efficacy of rhetorical criticism, albeit unconventional criticism, to explain the eccentricities of Titus adds to the study’s weight. The initiative to structure and define the nature of the letter around the distribution of imperatives is rather novel, if not exceptional. On the whole, this study suggests some coherent structure for Titus, its individual parts deliberately and calculatedly selected for their contribution toward the author’s objective.²⁹

Scientific endeavor, however, demands not only laudation where it is due but also critical observation. The shortcomings of the study are several, ranging from the benign to the more severe. One critic considers it methodologically below par, calling it quasi-rhetorical.³⁰ While it seems a highly subjective, almost arbitrary method, it assorts rather well with Classen’s innovative bent. He advocates with reference to rhetorical categories that one should not hesitate to use the most developed and sophisticated form, as it will offer more help than any other.³¹

Furthermore, this is not a comprehensive treatment of the whole letter. Several words and parts of sentences are left unexplained.³² Instead of regarding this as an oversight, it could be attributable to the intent to merely demonstrate the methodology by employing Titus as a test sample due to its relative brevity. In other words, comprehensive analysis might never have been intended.

One critical lapse in the article concerns the inattention given to persuasion, a fundamental aspect of rhetorical criticism.³³ The question should be asked, "Why does the author say what he is saying in the way he says it?"³⁴ The investigation simply highlights what is there in the text. It never proceeds to answer the next question, namely, why is it there? Leading on from this is, perhaps, a more serious defect of the study.

The interpretation tends to be more exegetical than rhetorical. It busies itself with the contents of the text but pays no attention to motive. The peculiarity of the vocabulary, unique phraseology, and syntactical considerations attract a fair amount of attention. What is not adequately explored is the role or function of the unique vocabulary and what the unusual syntax communicates about the intention of the author. Overall, this study concentrates on the linguistic aspects of the text rather than upon its rhetoric or persuasive intent.³⁵

Ben Witherington III’s Socio-Rhetorical Analysis

Witherington’s commentary is an in invaluable contribution