Communication – Rhetorical Criticism, Essay Example

Big budget blockbuster films sell themselves, and rarely need to be of any critical value to gain recognition, but often when an acclaimed novel is published, or heralded artistic film is made, the creator shies from the public eye, or is very brief in interviews. Sometimes this is done to come across as mysterious and create intrigue around their work, but it serves an additional purpose. By avoiding specific detailed questions about their work, they allow the audience or readers to engage in rhetorical criticism, ultimately breathing new life into the artifact. Rhetorical criticism is the practice through which artifacts establish deeper meaning, and sometimes new meaning never before intended by the original work. As people critique and debate over the context and meaning of literature, film, theater, and all other forms of media, the most notable interpretations gain recognition and become artifacts in their own right. The problem with critiquing a literary artifact like the Holy Bible though, arises with the debate over the inerrancy of holy scripture verses the right to critique it as text. Inerrancy is the belief established by the Internal Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), that states The Bible is without error or fault in all its teachings. This perspective poses a dilemma for anyone seeking to critique the bible based on its social or literary relevance. Thesis: The following will take a deeper look at Generic criticism as it functions as a tool to evaluate and interpret The Holy Bible and how such interpretations are regarded by the Church.

In his text on the inerrancy of holy scripture verses genre analysis of biblical text,  Norman Geisler notes that the church affirms holy scriptures should be received as “the authoritative Word of God” (Geisler, 2004: 4). He further cites the ICBI noting that they affirm that “Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.  We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science” (Geisler, 2004: 4).The doctrine goes on to state that  Furthermore, “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis…. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text…that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching…” (Geisler, 2004: 4). Genre criticism is most commonly recognized as a rhetorical criticism method used for analyzing writing and speeches in accordance with the relevance of the symbols and artifacts the texts contain.  Genre criticism allows critics to compare and classify artifacts of communication and evaluate their contribution to communities or their effectiveness to get across a particular message and to assess their effectiveness and/or contribution to a community. Norman Geisler notes that the Internal Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) identifies genre criticims is an acceptable method for critiquing the Holy Bible. They state that “we affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture” (emphasis added)” (Geisler, 2004: 4). They go on to note that, “we affirm that scripture communicates God’s truth to us verbally through a wide variety of literary forms” (Hermeneutics, Article X).  And “We affirm that awareness of the literary categories…is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study (Article XIII)” (Gielser, 2004:4).  Genre criticism and generic criticism have many similarities in regards to placing a relevance on time period as Generic Criticism, is most commonly used in rhetorical criticism for assessing writing and speeches and identifying specific artifacts that are symbolic and common across time periods.

In his texts, To each its own meaning: An introduction to biblical criticisms and their application  Stephen Hayne and Steven McKenzie note that “different people certainly come away from the Bible with different understandings; no two people see it exactly the same way. Furthermore, the plethora of competing critical methods utilized by biblical scholars, often aimed at the very same texts, gives popular credence to the notion that, indeed, ‘everyone interprets the Bible in their own way’” (Haybe & McKenzie, 1999: 5). The authors do however note that despite the complexity in how The Bible is interpreted, it should not be concluded that there is no common ground for understanding when it comes to biblical doctrine. The authors further note that it should not be assumed that everyone is an expert on the Bible or that one person’s interpretation is equal to anyone else.  The authors note that one key problem within the world of biblical critique is that biblical scholars tend to write for one another instead of the public.

Foss identifies the main focus of generic criticism as the goal to interpret rhetorical practices in a wide range of locations and time periods and identify similarities in rhetorical situations. The purpose of this is that audiences tend to identify a certain artifact as being a part of a certain genre, which ultimately influences their reaction and understanding of the message (Foss, 1989:367). Here Foss demonstrates that generic criticism is at least capable of  organizing content based on reoccurring themes. Audiences identify core similarities between artifacts by focusing on key themes based on genre. An example of this as it applies to biblical text can be seen when applying a generic criticism to the biblical text of 1 Corinthians 13:4, the line “Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful” (Corinthians 13:4, The New Oxford Annotated Bible ). A generic critique of this verses reveals the importance of each word, specifically in regards to its communication of the theological interpretation of the word “love.” A generic criticism of this verse points to the understanding that in this context the verses it referring to  agape love, or Christian love. The main objective of the passage is to distinguish the difference between romantic love and Christian love. The passage also touches on the theme of jealousy. In his generic critique of the verse Collins notes, “that love is not jealous is particularly important in a community where jealousy and rivalry are present (3:3). This type of love is between one and God which is more invested in judgment and deliberate choice than emotional love, known as philein” (Collins & Harrington, 1999: 22). When generic critique analysis is applied to Corinthians, it becomes clear that while the theological meaning of terms and themes are given much attention little attention is paid to historical context and its impact on that meaning. For example, Corinthian refers first to the port of Corinth in Greece, and then the Corinthian order, which is historically recognized as an ancient order of Greek and Roman architects. The Corinthians of The New Testament is a reference to the first epistle, otherwise known as a letter, to the Corinthian people. It is recognized as the seventh book of the New Testament of the Bible. In 50s C.E., Apostle Paul drafted and distributed 1 Corinthians to the churches of Corinth, which resides in the capital of Achaia near southern Greece. The majority of Theologians understand that Paul is the author of the Corinthians, but as far as the book is considered it has become one of the most cited texts of The New Testament. Despite all of this, there is still much debate over the proper interpretation of many of the passages, which a genre or generic critique has little help with clarifying, without first taking into account such historical context.

In his text “Generic criticism: Typology at an inflated price” Patton argues that one major flaw of generic criticism is that it fails to provide substantive communication as it relates to historical context and the human factors that accompany it. He  notes that, the generic method provides a convenient way for grouping and classifying rhetorical acts. He argues that the convenience, comes at a price, and that it exceeds the plausible benefit of generic critiques. He breaks down many of the core complications that arise when utilizing the generic method both in practice and principal (Patton, 1976: 4). He attributes these complications within generic criticism to the fact that it naturally disregards the critical factor of historical context. In this sense, if Gothic literature and political propaganda are viewed as artifacts without historical context, which is what generic criticism does, then the particular historical events or cultural climate of the day may not be taken into account. For example, a Republican letter or speech delivered by Abraham Lincoln would be very different from a Republican speech delivered by a contemporary Republican politician, almost to the point of being polar opposites in ideological scope, but much of the same terminology would be used. It can also be seen in how the term Gothic has a different connotation and meaning during the actual Gothic era, than it does in modern times, so much so that if one were to parallel them with one another they would be distinctly different.

In respect to the Holy Bible, generic criticism is often an approach utilized to critique the bible. Words are rarely interpreted in the historical context in which they were written. There are many authorities on religious doctrine who apply literal meaning to the text. On the same note, the morals of biblical doctrine are often applied to modern conditions in ways that could not practically be found if the historical context of the doctrine were taken into account. Haynes and McKenzie make reference to this difference between historical context verses the narrative or reader-response criticism. The authors note that one major disagreement that occurs between historical and literary methods of the biblical criticism is revealed within the divide between historical context and the text.  They state “this disagreement can be expressed in simple terms by saying that historical methods such as source criticism, form criticism, traditional-historical criticism, and redaction criticism emphasize the historical, archaeological, or literary backgrounds or roots of a text, and the development of the text through time” (Haynes and McKenzie, 1999: 7). The authors state that it is for this reason that many historical criticisms are usually diachronic, which means they incorporate the understanding of how language has developed over time, especially in regards to its impact on context. On the other hand, literary criticisms that tend to occur in generic interpretations of the Bible or reader-response criticism which are more ideologically based, focus primarily on the text itself or its structural form.

In sum, Generics Criticism identifies common themes but then takes those themes a step further and evaluates the words associated within the text itself finding even more similarities and extracting deeper meaning from the artifact.  While many individuals take away different interpretations from The Holy Bible, and like most literary artifacts, holy scripture is subject to literary critique, the issue of biblical inerrancy may reduce the value of outside criticisms in the eyes of church and respective religious communities that follow the belief the bible represents the word of god.  A generic critique of Corinthians reveals that through generic criticism of holy scripture theological meaning can be extracted from literary terms and it’s compatible to what the ICBI refers to as grammatico-historical exegesis critique, and it’s considered acceptable form of criticism by the church. Generic criticism of holy scripture is an acceptable form of critique because it focuses specifically on literary forms and devices. The example provided from Corinthians was the ability of generic criticism to extrapolate the deeper rooted meanings of themes within the bible like love and jealousy. It does not however take into account historical context which could potentially bring into question the validity of many biblical stories. The above research reveals this form of critique to be lacking within the religious community itself as it directly contends with the concept of biblical inerrancy.

References

Collins, Raymond F., and Daniel J. Harrington. (1999) First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina Series). Michael Glazier, 1999.

Crowley, Sharon. “Reflections on an argument that won’t go away: Or, a turn of the ideological screw.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 78.4 (1992): 450-465.

Edwards; Winkler (1997). Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: Two Iwo Jima Image in Editorial Cartoons (PDF). Volume: 83. Quarterly Journal of Speech.

Foss, S. K. (1989). Cluster criticism. Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice, 367-404.

Foss, K. (1996). Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Waveland Pr Inc. pp.367–70.

Geisler, N. (2004). Decide for Yourself: How History Views the Bible. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Haynes, Stephen R., and Steven L. McKenzie, eds. To each its own meaning: An introduction to           biblical criticisms and their application. Westminster John Knox Press, 1999

Patton, J. H. (1976). Generic criticism: Typology at an inflated price. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 6(1), 4-8.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. (2010) Ed. Michael D. Coogan. New York:     Oxford UP. Print, NRSV.