Adelbert Denaux, «Style and Stylistcs, with Special Reference to Luke.», Vol. 19 (2006) 31-51
Taking Saussure’s distinction between language (langue) and speech
(parole) as a starting point, the present article describes a concept of ‘style’
with special reference to the use of a given language system by the author of
Luke-Acts. After discussing several style definitions, the question is raised
whether statistics are helpful for the study of style. Important in the case of
Luke is determining whether his use of Semitisms is a matter of style or of
language, and to what extent he was influenced by ancient rhetoric. Luke’s
stylistics should focus on his preferences (repetitions, omissions, innovations)
from the range of possibilities of his language system (“Hellenistic Greek”),
on different levels (words, clauses, sentences, rhetorical-narrative level and
socio-rhetorical level), within the limits of the given grammar, language
development and literary genre.
45
Style and Stylistcs, with Special Reference to Luke
of the rhetor did not only comprise the inventio (finding the convincing
content), and the dispositio (choice of the strategic order of the material),
but also the elocutio or style, which was considered the most difficult
task of the orator. In the course of time a canon of four qualities of style
were developed: purity of language (ἑλληνισμός c.q. Latinitas), clarity
(σαφήνεια c.q. perspicuitas), ornament (κατασκευή c.q. ornatus, to
which belong the tropes, the figurae or style figures, and the compositio or
the writing of good sentence patterns) and the appropriateness (Ï€ÏÎπον
c.q. decorum, aptum)62 (See Appendix: Quintillian on Style). The two
remaining tasks of the orator were the memoria or the technique of
memorising a speech, and the proper actio (pronuntiatio), i.e. the delivery
of the speech. It is the third task of the orator which interests us more
specifically. In 1993 R. Morgenthaler has devoted a study to the question
whether the Institutio oratoria of Quintilianus, a classic introduction to
rhetorics, can throw a light on the rhetoric techniques and the style of
Luke-Acts63. He is of the opinion that this is indeed the case.
Even if the question of Luke’s familiarity with ancient rhetorics can
never be settled satisfactorily, there is still room for applying modern
rhetorics to his work. This has certainly the result of taking into account
the essentially communicative nature of his writings and to develop a
more holistic approach to his style. In another context, R.H. Snyman has
offered a theoretical scheme that tries to integrate the different levels on
which style is playing a role. According to him, a stylistic analysis should
distinguish64:
1. The macrolevel of rhetorical structure:
1.1. Progression (four discourse types) (diversity);
1.1.1. A set of related events, essentially organised in terms of
temporal progression;
1.1.2. The description of certain objects and events in terms of
space or in terms of categories;
1.1.3. A set of discourse elements mainly by virtue of certain
logical connections between the parts: dependent,
qualificational and dyadic;
See a synthetic description in A.D. Leeman & A.C.Braet, Klassieke retorica. Haar
62
inhoud, functie en betekenis (Groningen 1987) 98-117.
R. Morgenthaler, Lukas und Quintilian. Rhetorik als Erzählkunst (Zürich 1993).
63
A.H. Snyman, “Remarks on the Stylistic parallelisms in 1 Corinthians 13â€, in J.H.
64
Petzer & P.J. Hartin, A South African Perspective in the New Testament. FS B.M. Metzger
(Leiden 1986) 202-13.
FOLLOW US