Paul's rhetorical education

 Here is an abstract of, and link to the full document of, Ryan Schellenberg's dissertation.
It might be read alongside Brian Dodd's diss.
I am so glad he included some challenges to prevailing view's re: prosopeion  AND utilized Sapir!

Note: it later became this book 
-----------------------

WHERE IS THE VOICE COMING FROM?: QUERYING THE EVIDENCE FOR PAUL’S RHETORICAL EDUCATION IN 2 CORINTHIANS 10

by Ryan Scott Schellenberg

ABSTRACT

Although it would be an exaggeration to speak of a consensus, a majority of scholars

now sees Paul as a man of relatively high social status. Most often cited as evidence for such

status is Paul’s putative education in formal rhetorical theory. The prevailing logic consists

of two propositions: First,

Paul’s letters can be analyzed according to the dictates of Greco-Roman rhetoric; therefore, Paul must have been well educated in rhetoric. Second, rhetorical education was available only among the wealthy elite; therefore, Paul

must have been brought up in such circles.

A number of scholars have observed that such argumentation fails to consider the

extent to which rhetorical ability exists independently of formal education. But despite this

general observation, there has been no attempt to determine whether the specific rhetorical

competencies to which Paul’s letters attest admit of informal acquisition. In this study, I use

insights from comparative rhetoric and sociolinguistics to get methodological leverage on

this problem and thus to reevaluate the evidence for Paul’s rhetorical education. Using 2 Cor10–13 

as a test case, I demonstrate that Paul’s use of rhetoric provides no evidence of formal

education; on the contrary, his persuasive strategies are instances of informal 

rhetoric.

After undertaking a history of scholarship in part 1, in part 2 I reassess recent claims

of Paul’s conformity with formal rhetorical conventions in 2 Cor 10–13.

Here I demonstra that many alleged parallels derive from misleading treatment of the
rhetorical sources and

cannot be sustained. Convincing parallels are few

—I isolate four and rather general;

nevertheless, they do merit further explanation.

I seek to provide such explanation in part 3 by offering a basic theory of informal rhetoric and it

s acquisition, and demonstrating the use,by speakers with no knowledge of formal rhetorical theory, of precisely those rhetorical eatures found both in Paul and in the ancient rhetorical sources.

Finally, in part 4, I begin a redescription of Paul’s persuasive voice: Paul’s prose style, his self

-description in 2Cor 10:10 and 11:6, and his “foolish boasting" reveal him to be a speaker both abject and
defiant.  LINK, full dissertation

cannot be sustained. Convincing parallels are few

—

I isolate four

—

and rather general;

nevertheless, they do merit further explanation.

I seek to provide such explanation in part 3

by offering a basic theory of informal rhetoric and it

s acquisition, and demonstrating the use,

by speakers with no knowledge of formal rhetorical theory, of precisely those rhetorical

features found both in Paul and in the ancient rhetorical sources.

Finally, in part 4, I begin a

redescription of Paul’s pers

uasive voice: Paul’s prose style, his self

-

description in

2

Cor

10:10 and 11:6, and his “foolish boastin